Navy SEALs forced to share rifles?! Um, wheres the COMMANDER and Chief?

Pretty good write up on it here.

Sharing rifles may seem inconsequential. It's not. The weapons, which are outfitted with telescopic targeting sights and laser pointers, are fine-tuned to individual specifications and become intensely personal pieces of gear.

"They want their rifles," Hunter said. "It's their lifeline. So let them keep their guns until they're assigned desk jobs at the Pentagon."

Navy SEALs Tell Congressman There Is a Combat Rifle Shortage
 
Ammunition also is in short supply for training, the SEAL said, because the bulk of it is being used for combat missions.

Hunter also questioned whether the expense of expanding the size of the special operations forces could have left too little in the budget for weapons.

To meet heavy demand, the number of active-duty troops assigned to Special Operations Command, which includes SEALs, Army Green Berets and Rangers, and Air Force combat controllers, has grown dramatically during the past decade — from more than 33,600 to 56,000. There are 2,710 SEALs.

The overall budget for Special Operations Command is $10.4 billion and the Obama administration is proposing a $400 million increase over the current total for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
 
Hussein has been a dismal Commander in Chief. He is not well-liked by the rank and file soldiers. And it's unforgivable what he's done to our Veterans. So many good honorable Vets have died waiting for treatment on his watch. That may be his biggest shame as President.
On the bright side, their remains aren't being buried in landfills anymore. Maybe if the Republicans controlling the purse strings were more concerned about veterans and less about obstructing Obama, they would properly fund hospitals and get the appropriate weapons to the troops needing them.
 
"Navy SEAL teams don’t have enough combat rifles to go around, even as these highly trained forces are relied on more than ever to carry out counterterrorism operations and other secretive missions, according to SEALs who have confided in Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

After SEALs return from a deployment, their rifles are given to other commandos who are shipping out, said Hunter, a former Marine who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. This weapons carousel undercuts the “train like you fight” ethos of the U.S. special operations forces, they said."


Obama can hand-deliver thousands of guns and grenades to Mexican Drug Cartels, but he can't ensure the SpecOps guys he is sending to Iraq and abroad to fight his wars have their OWN weapons?! To be fair, R-Mac Thornberry, head of the House Armed Services Committee is scrambling right now to find out what the hell is going on now that this story has broken out, as well.

Get your ass in gear, guys, and support our troops!


Navy SEALs forced to share rifles? - Hot Air

Duncan Hunter is not a reliable source of anything, except maybe horseshit.
 
Hussein has been a dismal Commander in Chief. He is not well-liked by the rank and file soldiers. And it's unforgivable what he's done to our Veterans. So many good honorable Vets have died waiting for treatment on his watch. That may be his biggest shame as President.

He's not well liked by people like you who call him a war criminal for killing hundreds of terrorists with drones.
 
Obama has given the Muslim Brotherhood weapons.
Obama has given Mexican Drug Cartels Weapons.
Obama has given Al Qaeida (Libya) weapons.
Obama has given ISIS weapons.


Regarding the drone strikes, Obama himself was the person that terrorists had rights and deserved their time in civilian court...while he ordered the deaths of foreigners and Americans by drone strike, denying them of their chance at a day on court. Obama just needs to work on 'consistency'.
 
Hussein has been a dismal Commander in Chief. He is not well-liked by the rank and file soldiers. And it's unforgivable what he's done to our Veterans. So many good honorable Vets have died waiting for treatment on his watch. That may be his biggest shame as President.

He's not well liked by people like you who call him a war criminal for killing hundreds of terrorists with drones.

Most soldiers especially Vets, despise him. He's been a disgrace.
 
Hussein has been a dismal Commander in Chief. He is not well-liked by the rank and file soldiers. And it's unforgivable what he's done to our Veterans. So many good honorable Vets have died waiting for treatment on his watch. That may be his biggest shame as President.

He's not well liked by people like you who call him a war criminal for killing hundreds of terrorists with drones.

Most soldiers especially Vets, despise him. He's been a disgrace.


They love Obama, you're just misinformed
 
After the Soviet Union collapsed, we in the military heard a lot about the "peace dividend", which was code for drastic cuts in the military budget.

It was not unusual for us to buy spare parts out of our own pockets to keep the command at full readiness.

And I'm sure everyone remembers all the stories about soldiers having to buy their own bulletproof vests in the Iraq War.
 
Hussein has been a dismal Commander in Chief. He is not well-liked by the rank and file soldiers. And it's unforgivable what he's done to our Veterans. So many good honorable Vets have died waiting for treatment on his watch. That may be his biggest shame as President.

He's not well liked by people like you who call him a war criminal for killing hundreds of terrorists with drones.

Most soldiers especially Vets, despise him. He's been a disgrace.

Prove it. Or go kill yourself.
 
Hussein has been a dismal Commander in Chief. He is not well-liked by the rank and file soldiers. And it's unforgivable what he's done to our Veterans. So many good honorable Vets have died waiting for treatment on his watch. That may be his biggest shame as President.

He's not well liked by people like you who call him a war criminal for killing hundreds of terrorists with drones.

Most soldiers especially Vets, despise him. He's been a disgrace.
Veterans for Obama
 
I wonder why the soldiers aren't allowed to buy their own weapon?

I was under the impression that you could bring your own weapons. I got this by reading Seal Team Six, where in one battle, a specific man had a larger caliber gun, but in the prolonged fight, ran out of munitions. He ended up being forced to pick up the crappy enemy weapon, until he could get a rifle from someone leaving combat.

The problem with bringing your own weapon, is that all the spare parts, are for the stock issue. And obviously if your gun of choice doesn't use the cartridges available, then you may run out of bullets.
 
Military uses are troops as human shields in order to score more of a budget to waste on stupid shit

You think the pentagon can't afford rifles? Lol. You suckers !

I posted this story the other day. Billions wasted in afghan alone . But the pentagon can't afford guns !?

Us has spent more fixing afghan than post WW2 Europe .
 
Last edited:
I wonder why the soldiers aren't allowed to buy their own weapon?

They can buy their own sidearms as far as I know.
But to purchase an automatic/three round burst assault rifle is going to run you at least 15 to 20 grand.
 
Military uses are troops as human shields in order to score more of a budget to waste on stupid shit

You think the pentagon can't afford rifles? Lol. You suckers !

I posted this story the other day. Billions wasted in afghan alone . But the pentagon can't afford guns !?

Us has spent more fixing afghan than post WW2 Europe .

Well of course we've spent more in afghan than Europe.

Most of Europe was in a peaceful state, outside of the Nazi control and war machine.

When we defeated the Nazis, France, Spain, and all the rest of western Europe didn't return to in-fighting, and civil war.

When we removed the Taliban, all these warlords popped up to take control.

Moreover, after WW2, there were very few influential countries with enough money to destabilize the region. Stalin tried in some cases, but Russia was in bad shape economically.

Afghanistan, had influence pouring in from numerous directions.

Additionally, we had a mental break down at the top, because too many thought we could just topple a government, and everything would be fine. We chased out the Taliban, but did so without replacing them. Now granted we avoided replacing them, because we were tried of people claiming we setup puppet governments. So we didn't setup a puppet government, and the result was chaos.

When we occupied Japan, we basically left the entire government of Japan intact. Which is why it didn't turn into a nightmare. Japan also wasn't in constant civil war.

Similarly, in Europe, after we got rid of the Nazis, all the regional governments, were maintained, and thus rebuilding was started fairly quickly.

Also, you have to remember, that in Europe, all of the people there were already educated, and trained, and able to be productive. All that was needed, was capital investment, which resulted in they themselves quickly becoming self sustaining.

After years of Taliban rule, the people were not all that educated, and private business not well supported. And thus many couldn't quickly get back on their feet, even without the civil wars, and tribal fighting.

So, yes Afghan, and Europe, is Apples and Oranges.
 
Um...I thought Congress controls the purse strings...how does a lack of equipment become the President's fault and not Congress?

Say it with me now...Sequestration!
 

Forum List

Back
Top