1 man, 1 question...

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
Geez man . . what a reach!

I thought you said you were smart (G9) . . .and this is what you've got? . . "you sounded just like Hitler." .. ?

I truly am sorry for having to post this.

[RoninLB]

I guess Rummy gave a stupid answer? I guess the message didn't get across to smart people? I guess putting the procurement political bs in the hot seat was to hot a subject for objective reporting? I guess you gotta use cannon fodder whenever you can?

[island911]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
I truly am sorry for having to post this.

Geez, what's with all the screen-captures? . . looks like a lot of sorry work. You know you COULD have just posted a link . . . but then people would see the context, I suppose. (you wouldn't want that.)

He Shaun, what's worse than an Idiot?



. . . an idiot who thinks he's a "G9"


Oh, and, s o r r y I had to to post this.

[on-ramp]

island911 got OWNED!

[djmcmath]

I'm definitely in favor of the military having the best possible tools available for doing their jobs -- but I'm biased, being from the submarine community. We of the silent service have been mostly fortunate -- when we ask for money, we get it, more often than not. Most of the known universe has no clue what happens at test depth, and they don't want to know, so when we say "We need a $35,000 breaker made by Umpty-Froobitz," they say "Ok, we'll take that out of funding somewhere else."

But land-based troops don't have that luxury. There's a pretty tight limit to the amount of money those poor bastards have available, and my heart really goes out to them. Worst case is the Marines, who have been doing so much with so little for so long that they could do anything with nothing forever. If you've ever lived with Marines for a while, you'll know exactly what I mean. Everything they have is old, broken, run-down, and worn out, because they just don't have funding for new stuff.

My point is that you're arguing for The Perfect Vehicle -- fast, light, and so heavily armored that it'll absorb RPG hits, with enough weaponry available to ... oh wait, you've made no arguments for having weapons on our armored vehicles. Anyway, the media has done an excellent job of persuading the public that they want it both ways -- fast/light and heavily armored, as well as fantastically expensive, with precision engineering, and new, but with none of the costs associated with developing that kind of dream machine.

So if you want the military to have better equipment, you need to vote for people who will increase military spending. Or join the military -- we're desperate for good people! If you must play armchair quarterback, at least give the guys with the resources, background, and information necessary to make decisions like that some slight benefit of the doubt.


My $.02, as an admittedly biased warfighter,

Dan

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
Geez, what's with all the screen-captures? . . looks like a lot of sorry work. You know you COULD have just posted a link . . . but then people would see the context, I suppose. (you wouldn't want that.)

He Shaun, what's worse than an Idiot?



. . . an idiot who thinks he's a "G9"


Oh, and, s o r r y I had to to post this.

No, just trying to help others not have to slog through it. the thread does read better though, here it is:

Abortion vs. innocents killed in war

Those screen captures a lot of work? really? that was 3 minutes. Here's a lot of work:

Project 73 911 R/RS -- Week 3

You have a similar debate technique as mule. When the argument doesn't go your way, attack the other side with inconsequential smears and move the conversation off message.

Nice.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by on-ramp
island911 got OWNED!

I don't have a receipt, can I still take him back?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by djmcmath
I'm definitely in favor of the military having the best possible tools available for doing their jobs -- but I'm biased, being from the submarine community. We of the silent service have been mostly fortunate -- when we ask for money, we get it, more often than not. Most of the known universe has no clue what happens at test depth, and they don't want to know, so when we say "We need a $35,000 breaker made by Umpty-Froobitz," they say "Ok, we'll take that out of funding somewhere else."

But land-based troops don't have that luxury. There's a pretty tight limit to the amount of money those poor bastards have available, and my heart really goes out to them. Worst case is the Marines, who have been doing so much with so little for so long that they could do anything with nothing forever. If you've ever lived with Marines for a while, you'll know exactly what I mean. Everything they have is old, broken, run-down, and worn out, because they just don't have funding for new stuff.

My point is that you're arguing for The Perfect Vehicle -- fast, light, and so heavily armored that it'll absorb RPG hits, with enough weaponry available to ... oh wait, you've made no arguments for having weapons on our armored vehicles. Anyway, the media has done an excellent job of persuading the public that they want it both ways -- fast/light and heavily armored, as well as fantastically expensive, with precision engineering, and new, but with none of the costs associated with developing that kind of dream machine.

So if you want the military to have better equipment, you need to vote for people who will increase military spending. Or join the military -- we're desperate for good people! If you must play armchair quarterback, at least give the guys with the resources, background, and information necessary to make decisions like that some slight benefit of the doubt.


My $.02, as an admittedly biased warfighter,

Dan

Dan, very good points, but it's on the table that the money is there, the Pentagon just isn't spending it.

[island911]

Yeah, right, on-ramp. You two are like Bevis & Butthead; huh huh huh . . .he's like Hitler . . .huh huh huh .. .

You guys . . .too thick to address the point, so out comes the "Hitler". G-Nineyas

[island911]

Originally posted by island911
So let me ask you this, Shaun; how much armour is ENOUGH armour, for a HumVee?

Well?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
Well?

yeah, I already answered this.

quote:Originally posted by island911
Ask Bill Clinton . . . or Monica.

Man, you are just being a liberal media TOOL . . so was the guy who asked the question.

So let me ask you this, Shaun; how much armour is ENOUGH armour, for a HumVee?



I counselled you earlier on using too many rolleyes, be careful with them.

How much armor is enough? Why that much the military deems is enough AFTER first evaluating a situation, developing a spec, testing that spec, putting that spec into the field, evaluating results against that spec and developing a new solution.

Island, all of this has been done. The Army has a solution. The Pentagon just didn't fund it.

Now was the soldier a tool or the reporter? You ask yourself, why did this soldier agree to ask the question? Why did the crowd of soldiers get excited about it? Why did Rumsfeld not have an answer.

You can call people tools all day long, it won't save lives. That soldier is a hero for stepping up to the plate. Rumsfeld is a traitor to this country for not supplying known critical equipment to his own troops. Tool indeed.

[Staylo]

Originally posted by island911
Yeah, right, on-ramp. You two are like Bevis & Butthead; huh huh huh . . .he's like Hitler . . .huh huh huh .. .

You guys . . .too thick to address the point, so out comes the "Hitler". G-Nineyas

Brilliant Island. It would appear that you just confirmed Shaun's theory on your debate technique.
So let's be honest, who is the real troll here?

[island911]

You just don't get the subtlety or context, G9 Girl.

I am not supporting Rummys response. I am pointing out the lack of critical tinking on the part of those who want to argue over HumVee armourment levels. It's a Red Herring. (if you know what that is . . IN CONTEXT of an argument.)

(sigh)Go ahead, change the subject to how I'm Hitler . . .then follow-up with how my debate technique, "smears and move the conversation off message." (that was sarcasm, btw.)

Staylo, go back and read who threw-out "Hitler"

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
You just don't get the subtlety or context, G9 Girl.

I am not supporting Rummys response. I am pointing out the lack of critical tinking on the part of those who want to argue over HumVee armourment levels. It's a Red Herring. (if you know what that is . . IN CONTEXT of an argument.)

(sigh)Go ahead, change the subject to how I'm Hitler . . .then follow-up with how my debate technique, "smears and move the conversation off message." (that was sarcasm, btw.)

Staylo, go back and read who threw-out "Hitler"

yes, you are very smart. I defer to you.

[Staylo]

Originally posted by island911
You just don't get the subtlety or context, G9 Girl.


Staylo, go back and read who threw-out "Hitler"

I have read it, but I’m not drinking the Kool-aid.
Hey, I actually enjoy watching you throw out irrelevant off topic insults to support your persona as a keyboard bully.
Every circus needs a clown, you go girl!

[island911]

Wow, more; avoid the topic/ attack the person. Brilliant.

[dd74]

Originally posted by island911


The question was an obvious set-up . .. leveraging an existing concern.

I've got to ask you critics; is a Humvee quicker, or slower, when modified with massive amounts of steel-plating?

I mean what do we really have out there?

Do we have a surgical, fast, quiet moving force in Humvees, or a heavy, noisy, big-blowem-up tank force?

. . . or some Gruppe B'ers with Humvees, thinking they can weld-on stuff until it looks like the Abrams?

FWIW, I'm fine with giving our troops the tanks. . . no more of this door to door search crap . . . just point that big gun and BOOM goes the building.

. . .That is what you whiners want . . right?

By all means, the question was a setup. But again, the setup pales in comparison to the question itself. In other words, the question posed a "scoop."

Hummers as a much a target as anything or anyone else. Put all the armor in the world on one, and it won't be any less a target. With the insurgents, it's timing and luck when they can kill a Hummer.

The larger picture that this points to is a lack of preparation for this war; a lack of study of the enemy and the potential of peripheral instigators spilling over the border. There aren't enough troops there, equipment and the morale is falling quickly. As I might have said, the soldier who asked the question is a Nat'l Guardsman, who have, on a whole, been poorly-equipped for this battle. They've been made to be seen as the poor step child to the other soldiers in the war.

[turbocarrera]

How the hell are you supposed to armour humvees when Halliburton's margins are only 800%? Get real people!

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
i'll dig out the thread a little later where your friend Bryan first pointed out that you sounded just like Hitler.

wait, I did what??

[bryanthompson]

ah, ok. just got to page 2, saw your fancy screen shots.

Anyway, Its funny that lefties won't rest until every one of our soldiers are "safe", yet they celebrate the 1000th casualty, every attack is met with criticism and deep thought about how it's going to make us less safe. They want to bring our troops home, but they don't seem to be willing to fight for a victory.

I realize that democrats don't understand the concept of actually WINNING a war, so they should really just shut up and let the adults handle it.

If you want each of our soldiers in a titanium bubble of safety, it can be arranged... But then quit b!tching about the cost of war.