|
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:27:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:06:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a microphone, in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only 1 (as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient. He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American Army has few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority of our battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as though it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as yourself, have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means. Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant by self-sufficient. I didn't mean they grow their own food and dig a well every time they needed water. I meant that they didn't need another army (ours) tagging along with them to help them do their jobs. Considering the patience I have for you, I should've been a special ed teacher. The rest were useful only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army was doing in its training. Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if you enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time that must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle? Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training. He then goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of advanced individual training. He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's authorized personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn how to work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple months), then the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the platoons are proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the companies are proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by fools) that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure horse****. Where did 3 months come from? Your president has been raving forever about how much progress the Iraqi army is making. What *you* mean by 'self-sufficient' and what the US generals mean are two different things. The 'three months' came from Chris Mathews and some Democrat idiot he had on his show, who seemed to think battalions should be ready to go three months after they're thought of. You are leaving out a great number of battalions, purposely I assume, that can conduct combat operations with minimal support. That's the group that falls between the self-sufficient and the 'follow-up' to American forces. -- John H OK - I used the wrong terminology, but it really doesn't matter, does it? Call them "pieces". If there are 8 possible pieces, and only one is ready (according to someone YOU trust), that means 87.5% of the pieces are not ready, however the person YOU trust defines the term "ready". The person YOU trust is currently a big shot in Iraq, not retired, not a news consultant, not a news anchor. That eliminates the "Oh yeah? Who said that?" nonsense. You lost me with the 'YOU trust' stuff. You are the one who referred to a general's comment about one battalion being self sufficient. . The "you trust" stuff was used as a safety measure, to crush a type of response I see here often, occasionally from you, but almost always from NOYB. It involves questioning the opinion of a source, even if that source is the only person on earth who could possibly have 100% accurate information. The question is, "ready for what?" Being ready to conduct sustained combat operations with *no* external support is one state of readiness. I know of none of our battalions, except perhaps some Marine units, who could do so. Being ready to conduct combat operations with combat support and combat service support is another thing entirely. It is what most of our Army battalions do. Being able only to hold an area that has been secured by another unit is the minimal state of readiness. Are you seriously not understanding this? I'm telling you that Iraqi battalions cannot function without A FOREIGN ARMY (ours) covering their behinds. Obviously, our own battalions function with support, but they tend to be from our own country. The fact that many can now perform with only our 'covering their behinds' is quite an accomplishment. It is much better than being able only to cover *our* behinds! I'm glad to see you now understand, apparently, what is meant by a battalion which is 'self-sufficient', i.e., can operate with no support. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:27:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:jqduo1142ogneshhoq0aie6199lana70bt@4ax .com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@4 ax.com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message s.atl.earthlink.net... It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you believe he is telling the truth? He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to what the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news media lying? Two separate questions for you. Sit down. 1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed, opened and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things are a total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse? 2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour the second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk to themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside bombs? Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it? Silent about what? Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and getting). John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's thing wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or broadcast networks? HO, HO, HO! -- John H Where did you first see Lieberman's article? Wall Street Journal, courtesy of NOYB who posted it here. This was after Hannity made mention of the fact that *none* of the major media gave it any play. -- John H Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"? Mainstream, perhaps. Major media, no. Oh. OK. I see. Can you believe we've had this entire discussion with *no* name calling? Wow! -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message
... I'm glad to see you now understand, apparently, what is meant by a battalion which is 'self-sufficient', i.e., can operate with no support. Rest assured that one doesn't need military experience to understand this, especially when the explanation is nothing but sarcasm. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:27:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:6oeuo156vqtgg71h4vchu6c6uv19q2alj6@4ax. com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:jqduo1142ogneshhoq0aie6199lana70bt@4a x.com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@ 4ax.com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ws.atl.earthlink.net... It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you believe he is telling the truth? He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to what the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news media lying? Two separate questions for you. Sit down. 1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed, opened and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things are a total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse? 2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour the second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk to themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside bombs? Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it? Silent about what? Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and getting). John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's thing wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or broadcast networks? HO, HO, HO! -- John H Where did you first see Lieberman's article? Wall Street Journal, courtesy of NOYB who posted it here. This was after Hannity made mention of the fact that *none* of the major media gave it any play. -- John H Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"? Mainstream, perhaps. Major media, no. Oh. OK. I see. Can you believe we've had this entire discussion with *no* name calling? Wow! I try not to resort to name calling. In this instance, it was easy enough to simply relax and watch your original statement about the news media lose all of its air through a huge leak. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:02:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . I'm glad to see you now understand, apparently, what is meant by a battalion which is 'self-sufficient', i.e., can operate with no support. Rest assured that one doesn't need military experience to understand this, especially when the explanation is nothing but sarcasm. I honestly was not trying to be sarcastic. I thought you wanted to know how individuals and units were trained, so I told you. I certainly meant no sarcasm in any of the explanations. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:03:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:27:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:6oeuo156vqtgg71h4vchu6c6uv19q2alj6@4ax .com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:jqduo1142ogneshhoq0aie6199lana70bt@4 ax.com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0 @4ax.com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ews.atl.earthlink.net... It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you believe he is telling the truth? He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to what the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news media lying? Two separate questions for you. Sit down. 1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed, opened and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things are a total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse? 2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour the second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk to themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside bombs? Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it? Silent about what? Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and getting). John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's thing wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or broadcast networks? HO, HO, HO! -- John H Where did you first see Lieberman's article? Wall Street Journal, courtesy of NOYB who posted it here. This was after Hannity made mention of the fact that *none* of the major media gave it any play. -- John H Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"? Mainstream, perhaps. Major media, no. Oh. OK. I see. Can you believe we've had this entire discussion with *no* name calling? Wow! I try not to resort to name calling. In this instance, it was easy enough to simply relax and watch your original statement about the news media lose all of its air through a huge leak. Cool. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:02:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. I'm glad to see you now understand, apparently, what is meant by a battalion which is 'self-sufficient', i.e., can operate with no support. Rest assured that one doesn't need military experience to understand this, especially when the explanation is nothing but sarcasm. I honestly was not trying to be sarcastic. I thought you wanted to know how individuals and units were trained, so I told you. I certainly meant no sarcasm in any of the explanations. Yeah, but you kept coming up with that 3 month bull****, which was in no way connected with anything I said. Don't forget that your game became transparent well over a year ago, John. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:25:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:02:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... I'm glad to see you now understand, apparently, what is meant by a battalion which is 'self-sufficient', i.e., can operate with no support. Rest assured that one doesn't need military experience to understand this, especially when the explanation is nothing but sarcasm. I honestly was not trying to be sarcastic. I thought you wanted to know how individuals and units were trained, so I told you. I certainly meant no sarcasm in any of the explanations. Yeah, but you kept coming up with that 3 month bull****, which was in no way connected with anything I said. Don't forget that your game became transparent well over a year ago, John. That question was asked yesterday on the Chris Mathews show. The question went like, "It only takes three months or so to train an American soldier, why should it take so long to train Iraqis?" I certainly meant no offense to you with the '3 month bull****'. It just seems to be a common misunderstanding. Your initial question was, "Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if you enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time that must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?" The Army has to consider a 'unit' ready for battle, not just an individual soldier. I don't know to which 'game' you are referring. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:25:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:02:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... I'm glad to see you now understand, apparently, what is meant by a battalion which is 'self-sufficient', i.e., can operate with no support. Rest assured that one doesn't need military experience to understand this, especially when the explanation is nothing but sarcasm. I honestly was not trying to be sarcastic. I thought you wanted to know how individuals and units were trained, so I told you. I certainly meant no sarcasm in any of the explanations. Yeah, but you kept coming up with that 3 month bull****, which was in no way connected with anything I said. Don't forget that your game became transparent well over a year ago, John. That question was asked yesterday on the Chris Mathews show. The question went like, "It only takes three months or so to train an American soldier, why should it take so long to train Iraqis?" I certainly meant no offense to you with the '3 month bull****'. It just seems to be a common misunderstanding. Your initial question was, "Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if you enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time that must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?" The Army has to consider a 'unit' ready for battle, not just an individual soldier. I don't know to which 'game' you are referring. Read your paragraph about the Chris Mathews show. It had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. I asked an honest, open ended question about training duration. Your game involves pinning one person's words on another. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:08:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:25:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:02:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... I'm glad to see you now understand, apparently, what is meant by a battalion which is 'self-sufficient', i.e., can operate with no support. Rest assured that one doesn't need military experience to understand this, especially when the explanation is nothing but sarcasm. I honestly was not trying to be sarcastic. I thought you wanted to know how individuals and units were trained, so I told you. I certainly meant no sarcasm in any of the explanations. Yeah, but you kept coming up with that 3 month bull****, which was in no way connected with anything I said. Don't forget that your game became transparent well over a year ago, John. That question was asked yesterday on the Chris Mathews show. The question went like, "It only takes three months or so to train an American soldier, why should it take so long to train Iraqis?" I certainly meant no offense to you with the '3 month bull****'. It just seems to be a common misunderstanding. Your initial question was, "Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if you enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time that must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?" The Army has to consider a 'unit' ready for battle, not just an individual soldier. I don't know to which 'game' you are referring. Read your paragraph about the Chris Mathews show. It had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. I asked an honest, open ended question about training duration. Your game involves pinning one person's words on another. ?????? "pinning words" You asked about the shortest training time. The three months training time had been mentioned on a liberal show the day before. *I* associated the two, and wanted to make sure they weren't confused. No aspersions on you. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com