Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,868
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...

In article ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.


Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.


The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.


Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires. The military is like a viper. The dangerous end is the head
but, the rest of the body enable the had to keep moving. The larger the
head, the larger the body must be. Once the body gets to a certain size
the head becomes immovable due to the fact that it doesn't have the
energy to drag the rest of the body along with it to where it needs to
quickly go.



You simply can not move a mass army as fast as they had to if they
were going to get Osama by brute force. It has been almost 10 years
and we still don't have that much power in that area.
When we started chasing OBL we had local support but he was moving
into an area that would rather shoot us than help us. It is still true
today and we still do not really have any operational control there
with 140,000 people on the ground.
There are still 100 al queda there that we can't catch.


We have about 95K in Afg. and about the same number in Iraq.

That is the number after we finish the surge, that has taken months to
get going and we were already there in force . How long do you think
it would have taken to deploy the army you think Bush should have used
at a moment's notice? Do you think OBL would have waited patiently for
them?

You act like we can instantly drop a division into an area nobody
actually knows much about, with no real way to support them and expect
more than half of them to survive.
If you want to say we wasted a lot of our "covert" resources in Iraq,
no argument but from where we were, we did about all we could do.
I do believe a small covert force, working with the locals was the
only way we would get OBL.
We had a hard enough time finding Saddam and it was in a totally
conqured country.



A division of war fighters requires about 30,000 support troops. So for
every guy carrying a gun there are at a minimum 3 REMFs in support of
him.

  #3   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,865
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...



"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to
have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.


Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.


Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500
to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs
around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time
raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force
that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face
today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs,
such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing
life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the
favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.

  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2010
Posts: 884
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...

On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.


Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.



And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.
  #5   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 217
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...


"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.



And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.


Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?




  #6   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2010
Posts: 884
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...

On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.



And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.


Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?



Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the
machinations of the military-industrial complex.
  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 217
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...


"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the
mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the
drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and
makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.


Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?



Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the
machinations of the military-industrial complex.


You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of
view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved
reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling
through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't
see won't spook you.
Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers
have on your mind.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/


  #8   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,249
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...

In article ,
says...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to
have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.


Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500
to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs
around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time
raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force
that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face
today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs,
such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing
life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the
favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never
thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about
military procedure, etc.
  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,865
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...



"Harry" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to
have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the
mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500
to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs
around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time
raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty
force
that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we
face
today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs,
such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing
life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the
favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never
thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about
military procedure, etc.


Don't recall you mentioning serving in the military, Kevin.

  #10   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,249
Default Once again, the military establishment proves...

In article ,
says...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to
have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the
mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500
to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs
around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time
raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty
force
that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we
face
today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs,
such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing
life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the
favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never
thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about
military procedure, etc.


Don't recall you mentioning serving in the military, Kevin.


WTF is "Kevin"? Are you really that stupid?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Woman proves gun effective jps General 91 August 5th 09 07:51 PM
OT Michael Moore proves he is the sicko Bart ASA 163 July 14th 07 06:49 AM
Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy Ellen MacArthur ASA 299 December 16th 06 08:13 PM
Ellen proves the Good Captain Correct! Gilligan ASA 41 February 11th 05 02:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017