Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/13/2004 9:39:47 PM EST
"Our military is overextended. Nine out of 10 active-duty Army divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq or have come back from Iraq. One way or the other, they're wrapped up in it.

Now, I've proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the Armed Forces of the United States – one combat, one support."

Now, am I going to feel like a jackass when it's pointed out that this statement makes sense, or has no one else ever heard of a "support division"?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:42:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 9:44:19 PM EST by Triumph955i]
i have always heard it takes 10 support to keep the 1 fighting man fighting.

if this is his math. add one, add one. it doesnt add up.

hes saying he will have 100,000 fighting men in one fighting division, and one million supporting that fighting division.

hmm....

would people really like to hear that 1,100,000 people are being added to the roster?

gee, it might take a draft to make those kind of numbers.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:44:08 PM EST
I think he .............was a troll in the Navy
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:16:36 PM EST
What's the big deal with youz guys and it being a requirement that a candidate for prez have a military service stint in his background?
Has every prez been in the military?
Is it conceavable that a guy without military service might be otherwise qualified to be a good leader?
There's more to being prez than having spent a few years as a soldier/sailor/airman....
Isn't there?
Really... it seems a bit rediculous the time spent arguing over these guys military service records...
They're both, as with all candidates part of a rich, privilaged segment of American society very few of which ever end up in shit jobs let alone out in some war zone.

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:31:51 PM EST
I think given the circumstances in the world most people would feel more comfortable with someone that either has GOOD prior service or someone that knows enough to shut their mouth and let the civvies set the goals and military carry them out.

Something that sKerry doesn't qualify for on either score.

Besides, it's KERRY that opened this can of worms. HE'S the one that made it an issue, not Bush.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:40:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 10:41:26 PM EST by METT-T]

Originally Posted By Girlieman:
What's the big deal with youz guys and it being a requirement that a candidate for prez have a military service stint in his background?
Has every prez been in the military?
Is it conceavable that a guy without military service might be otherwise qualified to be a good leader?
There's more to being prez than having spent a few years as a soldier/sailor/airman....
Isn't there?
Really... it seems a bit rediculous the time spent arguing over these guys military service records...
They're both, as with all candidates part of a rich, privilaged segment of American society very few of which ever end up in shit jobs let alone out in some war zone.




Yeah, I think military service is a very crucial experience for a president to have, although it's not an absolute prerequisite. The Commander in Chief is, after all, the head of the military. That's not just a run of the mill executive position. Bill Clinton had absolutely no military experience, and the military under him was a disaster. Seemed to me at the time that a big reason for that was Clinton's inability to relate to what the military was about. If a guy can't figure out why it's important to return a salute, why should he be trusted with the authority to commit troops to war?

With this Kerry quote, it's obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about when he advocates adding troops to the active duty force. That makes me question his credentials on and plans for national security policy.

ETA: I see. You're probably not a , just a Canuck.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:40:21 PM EST
I was wondering if his whole "I was an LEO on a task force...." yada yada was even true??? I don't know much about his background as have been avoiding his hideous face and voice

Also, what a BS line about "terrorists can now come into our country and buy AK-47's at gun show without even a background check (in reference to ban lifting). So now our peoplez are not safe."

I'm sure in his previous life he must have been bovine cause he sure is full of boshit...
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:42:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By SigZiggy:
I was wondering if his whole "I was an LEO on a task force...." yada yada was even true??? I don't know much about his background as have been avoiding his hideous face and voice

Also, what a BS line about "terrorists can now come into our country and buy AK-47's at gun show without even a background check (in reference to ban lifting). So now our peoplez are not safe."

I'm sure in his previous life he must have been bovine cause he sure is full of boshit...




I guess as a prosecutor he was technically an LEO. Those guys get badges.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:58:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By METT-T:

ETA: I see. You're probably not a , just a Canuck.



Yup... "just" a Canuck.
There's definately a difference in how Americans view their leaders as opposed to canadians...
I mean for example... in some cases the presidents wife gets airtime.... people care about what she thinks.... She's elevated to a certain status simply by virtue of the fact she happens to be married to the prez.
Up here... most people couldn't tell ya the name of any political figures spouse. They're invisable and hold no decernable influance over anything. I wouldn't regognize Paul Martin's ol' lady if she bit me on the ass.
That.... and noone really gives a rats ass if any of 'em smoked a little herb back in college
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 11:09:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By METT-T:

ETA: I see. You're probably not a , just a Canuck.



Yup... "just" a Canuck.
There's definately a difference in how Americans view their leaders as opposed to canadians...
I mean for example... in some cases the presidents wife gets airtime.... people care about what she thinks.... She's elevated to a certain status simply by virtue of the fact she happens to be married to the prez.
Up here... most people couldn't tell ya the name of any political figures spouse. They're invisable and hold no decernable influance over anything. I wouldn't regognize Paul Martin's ol' lady if she bit me on the ass.
That.... and noone really gives a rats ass if any of 'em smoked a little herb back in college




I don't care if W blew a key of Bolivian marching powder up his nose either.

But I've got to disagree with you on the spouse thing. I mean, really-I don't know anyone whose spouse doesn't hold some sort of influence over them.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 1:37:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2004 1:42:49 AM EST by Rabid_Coyote]

Originally Posted By METT-T:
"Our military is overextended. Nine out of 10 active-duty Army divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq or have come back from Iraq. One way or the other, they're wrapped up in it.

Now, I've proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the Armed Forces of the United States – one combat, one support."

Now, am I going to feel like a jackass when it's pointed out that this statement makes sense, or has no one else ever heard of a "support division"?




Back to your topic.

You're exactly right, I commented on this when he said it. We have Infantry, Armor, Airborne, Cavalry, Air Assault, Light Infantry (MTN) and Marine divisions. Support troops are not organized into divisions.

So what the fuck is a support division? Such a profound lack of grasp of basic 'mil speak' makes me question the competence of the candidate. Especially when the adoring media always oozes with praise for how he has "an amazing grasp of facts at his fingertips..."

By the way, for what it's worth, the US Army is currently undergoing a reorganization that will take us from around 33 combat brigades to 48 combat brigades, largely by utilising more efficient organisation. There will be 4 "unit of action" brigades per division plus seperate Stryker brigades added. Currently there are 3 brigades per division, and the new plan moves more division level assets down to brigade level.

This large increase in flexible, deployable combat power will only require an increase of 30,000 to the Army end strength, and it has already been authorized and is going forward.

The US Army is being transformed to provide 'more thrusts per squeeze'. Stay the course.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 1:55:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By dpmmn:
I think he .............was a troll in the Navy



I would like to officially apologize to the American People for the absolutely abysmal job my beloved Navy (and Alma Mater) have done in providing quality political leaders for our great nation.

I cannot understand it. The overwhelming majority of the guys I knew in the Fleet were just as Conservative as I am, and in some cases WAY more, so it's not bilge oil seeping into the potable water system....

Our track record so far:

Carter
Perot
McCain
KerryCrowe

I have no words to offer that will alleviate your suffering or express my dismay. Please send prayers, because my beloved Service has apparently been hijacked by the Liberal Borg, and is slowly being corroded from within!
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:28:55 AM EST
I want to know how Kerry plans on doubling the size of our special forces?

Is he just going to pull some green berets out of his ass? Maybe he will call up all those old navy seals that work the gunshows.

In all reality he will probably just lower the standards and requirements so anyone can be specops if the want to.
Top Top