Trump: "Our military is a disaster"

[ogibillm]

You're so right. who could possibly have foreseen the need for body armor?

Was any army in the world equipped with body armor before the Iraq war?

ours. just not enough of it

It was just coming into use. Do your complaint is that the Pentagon should have been 20 years ahead of all other militaries instead of only 10.

what i think is that when you start a war you have the luxury of making sure you're properly equipped. the bush admin did not do that and lives were lost and bodies damaged because of it.

and yet somehow some here believe he was "pro-troops" while obama, who has done nothing but good things for the military, is somehow the worst cic ever

You're wrong. You never have such a luxury. You don't have 10 years between the time you determine you need to go to war and the time you actually go to war. Even if you did, you don't really learn what equipment you need until the war is in full swing. Do you imagine Hitler's army was equipped up to the standards his generals desired? Not even close. Did anyone understand that the aircraft carrier would rule the ocean before the war started? Nope. They were all busy building massive battleships that would prove almost useless during the war. Did the USA have a tank that was effective against the tanks the Germans had? Nope. The Sherman was a sad pathetic excuse for a tank. They called it the "Ronson lighter" during the war because it had such a predilection for going up in flames.

Only naive idiots presume to know what equipment an army should have had.

You're an idiot who should shut up before you make a fool of yourself.

Whoops! Too late.

it took les than a year to go from 3k vests made a month to over 50k.

we had the time, and you're simply making excuses

 

[bripat9643]

Was any army in the world equipped with body armor before the Iraq war?

ours. just not enough of it

It was just coming into use. Do your complaint is that the Pentagon should have been 20 years ahead of all other militaries instead of only 10.

what i think is that when you start a war you have the luxury of making sure you're properly equipped. the bush admin did not do that and lives were lost and bodies damaged because of it.

and yet somehow some here believe he was "pro-troops" while obama, who has done nothing but good things for the military, is somehow the worst cic ever

You're wrong. You never have such a luxury. You don't have 10 years between the time you determine you need to go to war and the time you actually go to war. Even if you did, you don't really learn what equipment you need until the war is in full swing. Do you imagine Hitler's army was equipped up to the standards his generals desired? Not even close. Did anyone understand that the aircraft carrier would rule the ocean before the war started? Nope. They were all busy building massive battleships that would prove almost useless during the war. Did the USA have a tank that was effective against the tanks the Germans had? Nope. The Sherman was a sad pathetic excuse for a tank. They called it the "Ronson lighter" during the war because it had such a predilection for going up in flames.

Only naive idiots presume to know what equipment an army should have had.

You're an idiot who should shut up before you make a fool of yourself.

Whoops! Too late.

it took les than a year to go from 3k vests made a month to over 50k.

we had the time, and you're simply making excuses

It still took a year, and the generals didn't know that amored vests would become an essential piece of equipment. Humvees were never intended to be amored when they were designed.

 

[ogibillm]

ours. just not enough of it

It was just coming into use. Do your complaint is that the Pentagon should have been 20 years ahead of all other militaries instead of only 10.

what i think is that when you start a war you have the luxury of making sure you're properly equipped. the bush admin did not do that and lives were lost and bodies damaged because of it.

and yet somehow some here believe he was "pro-troops" while obama, who has done nothing but good things for the military, is somehow the worst cic ever

You're wrong. You never have such a luxury. You don't have 10 years between the time you determine you need to go to war and the time you actually go to war. Even if you did, you don't really learn what equipment you need until the war is in full swing. Do you imagine Hitler's army was equipped up to the standards his generals desired? Not even close. Did anyone understand that the aircraft carrier would rule the ocean before the war started? Nope. They were all busy building massive battleships that would prove almost useless during the war. Did the USA have a tank that was effective against the tanks the Germans had? Nope. The Sherman was a sad pathetic excuse for a tank. They called it the "Ronson lighter" during the war because it had such a predilection for going up in flames.

Only naive idiots presume to know what equipment an army should have had.

You're an idiot who should shut up before you make a fool of yourself.

Whoops! Too late.

it took les than a year to go from 3k vests made a month to over 50k.

we had the time, and you're simply making excuses

It still took a year, and the generals didn't know that amored vests would become an essential piece of equipment. Humvees were never intended to be amored when they were designed.

right, who could possibly foresee the need for body armor that could stop a round from an ak47 in iraq? it's not as if that's a common weapon there.

you're making excuses. why?

 

[Rustic]

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't surprise me. The Republicans are war mongers, they make the defense industry rich, they give people a reason to throw their money at unnecessary military spending.

Soldiers know that under the Republicans they have a better change of promotion, there are more jobs and more vacant jobs because of people going home in body bags and wheelchairs.

Actually they like Conservatives because they are willing to give them the weapons and the ROE that allow them to not only protect themselves but to win.
You know nothing of the mind set of a soldier.

Funny how when soldiers went to Iraq, under a certain Republican C-in-C, they were buying equipment online and having friends and family send it over to Iraq.

But they were happy with that, apparently.

Thats been going on since there've been wars.
The military can be slow sometimes when it comes to bringing out the latest and greatest due to logistics.

Yes, things like this have always happened. However when it happens under Obama it's the worst thing in the world.

There is a difference between getting the troops the newest shit pronto and cutting military spending.

The right complain mercilessly that the US govt spends too much, and then suddenly we talk about military spending and it's all "we need to spend more", I don't get it.

 

[Campbell]

one of ISIS' roots is in Iraq, you can not separate it from Bush's invasion. iraq is lying in ruins, syria is lying in ruins, too. libya, as well. how do you handle ISIS? what is your suggestion. Bush threw gasoline, dynamite, and WMD (lol) on the middle east. and obama is reaping the "benefits". so, it can never be a tie, even if obama is bumbling along as well. he is in for the ride started by the previous admin.

The United States has been fumbling around in the middle east since the first time we needed extra oil. The Bush family is a "Big Oil" family and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what George Bush was doing.

 

[bripat9643]

It was just coming into use. Do your complaint is that the Pentagon should have been 20 years ahead of all other militaries instead of only 10.

what i think is that when you start a war you have the luxury of making sure you're properly equipped. the bush admin did not do that and lives were lost and bodies damaged because of it.

and yet somehow some here believe he was "pro-troops" while obama, who has done nothing but good things for the military, is somehow the worst cic ever

You're wrong. You never have such a luxury. You don't have 10 years between the time you determine you need to go to war and the time you actually go to war. Even if you did, you don't really learn what equipment you need until the war is in full swing. Do you imagine Hitler's army was equipped up to the standards his generals desired? Not even close. Did anyone understand that the aircraft carrier would rule the ocean before the war started? Nope. They were all busy building massive battleships that would prove almost useless during the war. Did the USA have a tank that was effective against the tanks the Germans had? Nope. The Sherman was a sad pathetic excuse for a tank. They called it the "Ronson lighter" during the war because it had such a predilection for going up in flames.

Only naive idiots presume to know what equipment an army should have had.

You're an idiot who should shut up before you make a fool of yourself.

Whoops! Too late.

it took les than a year to go from 3k vests made a month to over 50k.

we had the time, and you're simply making excuses

It still took a year, and the generals didn't know that amored vests would become an essential piece of equipment. Humvees were never intended to be amored when they were designed.

right, who could possibly foresee the need for body armor that could stop a round from an ak47 in iraq? it's not as if that's a common weapon there.

you're making excuses. why?

You're an idiot with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[ogibillm]

what i think is that when you start a war you have the luxury of making sure you're properly equipped. the bush admin did not do that and lives were lost and bodies damaged because of it.

and yet somehow some here believe he was "pro-troops" while obama, who has done nothing but good things for the military, is somehow the worst cic ever

You're wrong. You never have such a luxury. You don't have 10 years between the time you determine you need to go to war and the time you actually go to war. Even if you did, you don't really learn what equipment you need until the war is in full swing. Do you imagine Hitler's army was equipped up to the standards his generals desired? Not even close. Did anyone understand that the aircraft carrier would rule the ocean before the war started? Nope. They were all busy building massive battleships that would prove almost useless during the war. Did the USA have a tank that was effective against the tanks the Germans had? Nope. The Sherman was a sad pathetic excuse for a tank. They called it the "Ronson lighter" during the war because it had such a predilection for going up in flames.

Only naive idiots presume to know what equipment an army should have had.

You're an idiot who should shut up before you make a fool of yourself.

Whoops! Too late.

it took les than a year to go from 3k vests made a month to over 50k.

we had the time, and you're simply making excuses

It still took a year, and the generals didn't know that amored vests would become an essential piece of equipment. Humvees were never intended to be amored when they were designed.

right, who could possibly foresee the need for body armor that could stop a round from an ak47 in iraq? it's not as if that's a common weapon there.

you're making excuses. why?

You're an idiot with 20/20 hindsight.

again, you're pretending that it was inconceivable that someone woyld think our troops would need a piece of equipment the military had already approved and was distributing that could withstand the most common small arms in the area we chose to invade.

that you find such poor foresight acceptable is sad and shows why you are ao eaily lead by the nosering

 

[jknowgood]

Yup, Like Bush when he DID send them to Iraq...

But Obama DID take them out, they should be thankful...

Yep and all those great soldiers that died fighting king Iraq, died in vain. Thanks Obama.

That's not true...the mission was accomplished before Obama got into office...remember?

So Obama didn't end the Iraq war?

 

[jknowgood]

How about the fact that body armor was not yet developed? Do you meant the armored Humvees that were never designed to have armor?

well neither of those statements are true

Not true? The body armor that we had in 2003 was heavy and not as effective as the newer body armor, Humvees were NEVER designed to have armor and when it was added the performance suffered so badly, we had to rush development of MRAPs to replace them.

Please stop talking out of your ass! Have some self-respect!

so body armor was developed, as were armored vehicles.

make whatever excuses you want, but we sent our military to iraq with sub par equipment, largely due to sub par planning

Do you have any idea how long it takes to design, produce and deploy a complete weapons system? Sometimes decades!

The Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle even had to have a birdcage added to it because RPGs were blowing holes in the armor. That addition acted like a catcher's mask to detonate the RPG before it even hit the armor. Think anyone thought of that before the RPG was upgraded?

You fight the war with equipment you had when the war started. If you wait, you cannot win.

and yet we chose when that war started.

so why didn't we also choose to have the right equipment? it was either because the bush admin didn't care or didn't know better. either way they shouldn't be looked on fondly by any serviceman

You dumb shit, Clinton gutted the army. Bush had to deal with what he had.

 

[ogibillm]

well neither of those statements are true

Not true? The body armor that we had in 2003 was heavy and not as effective as the newer body armor, Humvees were NEVER designed to have armor and when it was added the performance suffered so badly, we had to rush development of MRAPs to replace them.

Please stop talking out of your ass! Have some self-respect!

so body armor was developed, as were armored vehicles.

make whatever excuses you want, but we sent our military to iraq with sub par equipment, largely due to sub par planning

Do you have any idea how long it takes to design, produce and deploy a complete weapons system? Sometimes decades!

The Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle even had to have a birdcage added to it because RPGs were blowing holes in the armor. That addition acted like a catcher's mask to detonate the RPG before it even hit the armor. Think anyone thought of that before the RPG was upgraded?

You fight the war with equipment you had when the war started. If you wait, you cannot win.

and yet we chose when that war started.

so why didn't we also choose to have the right equipment? it was either because the bush admin didn't care or didn't know better. either way they shouldn't be looked on fondly by any serviceman

You dumb shit, Clinton gutted the army. Bush had to deal with what he had.

and none of that factors into the slow rollout of armor

and clinton's 'gutting' was done by a republican congress

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 59935

Let me ask you something: if we caught an Iranian Navy ship in Biscayne Bay, FL, or the Potomac, or Penobscot Bay, Maine would we arrest them? Would we insist on boarding their ship, and make them keep their hands in sight at all times?

Would we hold them for at least 24 hours? Would we be sure to treat them well, and feed them?

So what's the difference again?

Mexico 'Invades' Texas: 33 Soldiers Cross Border in Humvees

I accept your surrender.

Translation: I nailed your ass to the wall. Mexican army accidently entered the US and there were ZERO arrests or detainments.

 

[ogibillm]

View attachment 59935

Let me ask you something: if we caught an Iranian Navy ship in Biscayne Bay, FL, or the Potomac, or Penobscot Bay, Maine would we arrest them? Would we insist on boarding their ship, and make them keep their hands in sight at all times?

Would we hold them for at least 24 hours? Would we be sure to treat them well, and feed them?

So what's the difference again?

Mexico 'Invades' Texas: 33 Soldiers Cross Border in Humvees

I accept your surrender.

Translation: I nailed your ass to the wall. Mexican army accidently entered the US and there were ZERO arrests or detainments.

we have much friendlier relations with mexico than we do iran.

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 59935

Let me ask you something: if we caught an Iranian Navy ship in Biscayne Bay, FL, or the Potomac, or Penobscot Bay, Maine would we arrest them? Would we insist on boarding their ship, and make them keep their hands in sight at all times?

Would we hold them for at least 24 hours? Would we be sure to treat them well, and feed them?

So what's the difference again?

Mexico 'Invades' Texas: 33 Soldiers Cross Border in Humvees

I accept your surrender.

Translation: I nailed your ass to the wall. Mexican army accidently entered the US and there were ZERO arrests or detainments.

we have much friendlier relations with mexico than we do iran.

Not according to the Obamaites. They claim we too would take any foreign military who strayed on US soil prisoner like Iran did.

 

[ogibillm]

Let me ask you something: if we caught an Iranian Navy ship in Biscayne Bay, FL, or the Potomac, or Penobscot Bay, Maine would we arrest them? Would we insist on boarding their ship, and make them keep their hands in sight at all times?

Would we hold them for at least 24 hours? Would we be sure to treat them well, and feed them?

So what's the difference again?

Mexico 'Invades' Texas: 33 Soldiers Cross Border in Humvees

I accept your surrender.

Translation: I nailed your ass to the wall. Mexican army accidently entered the US and there were ZERO arrests or detainments.

we have much friendlier relations with mexico than we do iran.

Not according to the Obamaites. They claim we too would take any foreign military who strayed on US soil prisoner like Iran did.

nope. nobody has claimed that.

we likely would have detained iranian sailors if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Actually they like Conservatives because they are willing to give them the weapons and the ROE that allow them to not only protect themselves but to win.
You know nothing of the mind set of a soldier.

Funny how when soldiers went to Iraq, under a certain Republican C-in-C, they were buying equipment online and having friends and family send it over to Iraq.

But they were happy with that, apparently.

Thats been going on since there've been wars.
The military can be slow sometimes when it comes to bringing out the latest and greatest due to logistics.

Yes, things like this have always happened. However when it happens under Obama it's the worst thing in the world.

There is a difference between getting the troops the newest shit pronto and cutting military spending.

The right complain mercilessly that the US govt spends too much, and then suddenly we talk about military spending and it's all "we need to spend more", I don't get it.

Of course you dont.

 

[bripat9643]

You're wrong. You never have such a luxury. You don't have 10 years between the time you determine you need to go to war and the time you actually go to war. Even if you did, you don't really learn what equipment you need until the war is in full swing. Do you imagine Hitler's army was equipped up to the standards his generals desired? Not even close. Did anyone understand that the aircraft carrier would rule the ocean before the war started? Nope. They were all busy building massive battleships that would prove almost useless during the war. Did the USA have a tank that was effective against the tanks the Germans had? Nope. The Sherman was a sad pathetic excuse for a tank. They called it the "Ronson lighter" during the war because it had such a predilection for going up in flames.

Only naive idiots presume to know what equipment an army should have had.

You're an idiot who should shut up before you make a fool of yourself.

Whoops! Too late.

it took les than a year to go from 3k vests made a month to over 50k.

we had the time, and you're simply making excuses

It still took a year, and the generals didn't know that amored vests would become an essential piece of equipment. Humvees were never intended to be amored when they were designed.

right, who could possibly foresee the need for body armor that could stop a round from an ak47 in iraq? it's not as if that's a common weapon there.

you're making excuses. why?

You're an idiot with 20/20 hindsight.

again, you're pretending that it was inconceivable that someone woyld think our troops would need a piece of equipment the military had already approved and was distributing that could withstand the most common small arms in the area we chose to invade.

that you find such poor foresight acceptable is sad and shows why you are ao eaily lead by the nosering

I didn't say it was inconceivable. You're implying that it was obvious. The term "need" is also a matter of opinion. The troops didn't wear body armor during the invasion, and there were almost no casualties.

You 20/20 hindsight only proves that you're a jackass.

 

[bripat9643]

Mexico 'Invades' Texas: 33 Soldiers Cross Border in Humvees

I accept your surrender.

Translation: I nailed your ass to the wall. Mexican army accidently entered the US and there were ZERO arrests or detainments.

we have much friendlier relations with mexico than we do iran.

Not according to the Obamaites. They claim we too would take any foreign military who strayed on US soil prisoner like Iran did.

nope. nobody has claimed that.

we likely would have detained iranian sailors if the shoe was on the other foot.

Actually not. Iran violated international law by detaining our troops.

 

[jknowgood]

Not true? The body armor that we had in 2003 was heavy and not as effective as the newer body armor, Humvees were NEVER designed to have armor and when it was added the performance suffered so badly, we had to rush development of MRAPs to replace them.

Please stop talking out of your ass! Have some self-respect!

so body armor was developed, as were armored vehicles.

make whatever excuses you want, but we sent our military to iraq with sub par equipment, largely due to sub par planning

Do you have any idea how long it takes to design, produce and deploy a complete weapons system? Sometimes decades!

The Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle even had to have a birdcage added to it because RPGs were blowing holes in the armor. That addition acted like a catcher's mask to detonate the RPG before it even hit the armor. Think anyone thought of that before the RPG was upgraded?

You fight the war with equipment you had when the war started. If you wait, you cannot win.

and yet we chose when that war started.

so why didn't we also choose to have the right equipment? it was either because the bush admin didn't care or didn't know better. either way they shouldn't be looked on fondly by any serviceman

You dumb shit, Clinton gutted the army. Bush had to deal with what he had.

and none of that factors into the slow rollout of armor

and clinton's 'gutting' was done by a republican congress

So you admit the republican congress gave Bush the balanced budget, not Clinton?

 

[idb]

Yup, Like Bush when he DID send them to Iraq...

But Obama DID take them out, they should be thankful...

Yep and all those great soldiers that died fighting king Iraq, died in vain. Thanks Obama.

That's not true...the mission was accomplished before Obama got into office...remember?

So Obama didn't end the Iraq war?

Apparently it was Mission Accomplished years before.