T1B

Dead wrong. There's no record of soldiers going bozo like our current crop of post trauma volunteers. No record of our "allies" fragging us--or anyone. Where? Who? The point you're missing as you attempt to gloss all wars and armies into one basic category, is that by virtue of our military industry having arrived at the biggest ever--by far--we have arrived at a level of systemic incompetence that is not only unprecedented, but crippling in its ever mounting effects.

You are also in some basic denial of the fact that with the exception of the gung-ho response to Pearl Harbor, the American public has intensely--often violently--opposed every single war we've waged. This is not the norm--or what? The reason the Vietnamese--or Afghans--have have defeated our massive war machine is precisely because they DON'T resent their missions, frag their officers, cover-up and spin galling scandals, or foment catastrophic fake wars just to pump the military/corporate money machine at the direct cost to the nation's citizenry. In fact there's never been a national military policy remotely close to America's current design--and incompetence. Your "shit happens" rationale is dead in the water, exposed as ...just nothing. Have a chicken wing and talk snow tires with your boring neighbor.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Dead wrong. There's no record of soldiers going bozo like our current crop of post trauma volunteers. No record of our "allies" fragging us--or anyone. Where? Who?

So? Just because you are supposedly unaware of any record of such things it doesn't mean others are, nor does it mean they didn't happen. Of course they did. That's the whole point of access. We're simply becoming aware of things now in ways that weren't possible in previous wars.

You would have to be insane to think that soldiers never went bozo before this war, or that 'friendly fire' never occured.

The point you're missing as you attempt to gloss all wars and armies into one basic category, is that by virtue of our military industry having arrived at the biggest ever--by far--we have arrived at a level of systemic incompetence that is not only unprecedented, but crippling in its ever mounting effects.

That's a different point than one of mere competency, which was your earlier, misguided point.

In many regards I agree with you about our misuse of the military in recent years, and its debilitating results.

You are also in some basic denial of the fact that with the exception of the gung-ho response to Pearl Harbor, the American public has intensely--often violently--opposed every single war we've waged.

Just categorically wrong.

Next...

This is not the norm--or what?

Correct. It's not the norm.

The reason the Vietnamese--or Afghans--have have defeated our massive war machine is precisely because they DON'T resent their missions, frag their officers, cover-up and spin galling scandals, or foment catastrophic fake wars just to pump the military/corporate money machine at the direct cost to the nation's citizenry.

Nope. North Vietnam won because we had no clear mission and no real conviction. We long ago won the war in Afghanistan. The problem there is in having no clue as to what we're really supposed to accomplish. Miltarily, we're able to do anything we want. We simply don't know what we want, which is never a good position in which to place soldiers at risk.

Your "shit happens" rationale is dead in the water, exposed as ...just nothing.

It's a fact; one which you've yet to refute in the slightest.

Van wrote:

The reason the Vietnamese--or Afghans--have have defeated our massive war machine is precisely because they DON'T resent their missions, frag their officers, cover-up and spin galling scandals, or foment catastrophic fake wars just to pump the military/corporate money machine at the direct cost to the nation's citizenry.

Nope. North Vietnam won because we had no clear mission and no real conviction. We long ago won the war in Afghanistan. The problem there is in having no clue as to what we're really supposed to accomplish. Miltarily, we're able to do anything we want. We simply don't know what we want, which is never a good position in which to place soldiers at risk.

.

Exactly...just what I've said. The fact of their having a real mission and conviction in Vietnam--an essential competency--is indeed exactly why they won and we lost. As for any possible alternative in Vietnam, you've dodged this completely. Would you have nuked North Vietnam? Yes or no? Okay...so now you dodge this again...

The fact is, just like in Vietnam we can pretty much bomb any part of Afghanistan we choose. So? Just as this was ultimately nothing but futile incompetence in Vietnam, so it is again in Afghanistan. Competence means not wasting trillions of dollars, for starters. Where on earth do you begin to suggest that futile attempts to control--not merely bomb (and peer out from bunkers and occasionally dare to walk about armored up like a refrigerator), in any way constitutes "victory," "success," "honor" , or "fiscal sanity"? If you're actually calling the longest war in America's history a win, what the hell is your definition of "competent"? And what are those other American wars not bitterly--often violently opposed--by the American public? Being asleep is one thing, but being a weasel is a 'nuther.

Van wrote:We long ago won the war in Afghanistan. The problem there is in having no clue as to what we're really supposed to accomplish. Miltarily, we're able to do anything we want. We simply don't know what we want, which is never a good position in which to place soldiers at risk.

Afghanistan is a proving grounds for new ordinance and a place to send troops to get "seasoned".
Having a "hot" base of operations keeps the military in a ready reaction state.

That is exactly why you're there and why you'll remain there. Nothing more, nothing less.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for any possible alternative in Vietnam, you've dodged this completely. Would you have nuked North Vietnam? Yes or no?

No.

Okay...so now you dodge this again...

I've never dodged it, or anything else. You've simply attempted to put words in my mouth before rambling on to your next non sequitur.

We didn't need nukes to win our conflicts in WWII. We used them to expedite the end in Japan, but they weren't necessary in order to win.

Similarly, we easily could have won in Vietnam had we fought that war with the same clear intent and unwavering conviction we showed in WWII. Had we decided simply to put together a Normandy-style invasion force to march to Hanoi and raise our flag there, the North Vietnamese would have been powerless to stop us.

Instead, we dicked around with all manner of political considerations. We did not conduct all-out war. Were we to do so, the results would have been inevitable.

Where I agree with you is in regards to the muddled thinking behind this very issue. I don't believe we should ever commit our troops to battle unless and until we have a clearly defined mission for them, and that mission must include the full backing of both our military and political leadership. We don't fight until we're ready to go in and end it.

Competence means not wasting trillions of dollars, for starters.

No, that's a question of vision and purpose. Militarily, we don't lack competence, we lack political leadership.

Where on earth do you begin to suggest that futile attempts to control--not merely bomb (and peer out from bunkers and occasionally dare to walk about armored up like a refrigerator), in any way constitutes "victory," "success," "honor" , or "fiscal sanity"?

Quit moving the goalposts. I never said it equated to "honor," much less "fiscal sanity."

What I said was that when one army is residing in the presidential palace of another country, and that other country is powerless to dislodge them, then that first army was victorious. That's a military fact, and in that regard the U.S. military remains 10-1-1.

All your political considerations are subjects for a different debate, and I would tend to agree with you regarding many of those particulars.

If you're actually calling the longest war in America's history a win,

Militarily, there is no question it's a win.

what the hell is your definition of "competent"?

The same as any other sane person's...

com·pe·tent adj \ˈkäm-pə-tənt\

Definition of COMPETENT
1: proper or rightly pertinent
2: having requisite or adequate ability or qualities : fit <a competent teacher> <a competent piece of work>
3: legally qualified or adequate <a competent witness>
4: having the capacity to function or develop in a particular way; specifically : having the capacity to respond (as by producing an antibody) to an antigenic determinant <immunologically competent cells>

Militarily, there can be no doubt that the U.S. has met that definition. Have they been flawless? Of course not. No army, navy or air force ever is. They've certainly proven themselves to be competent, however.

Politically? They've definitely floundered of late. Lacking any real clear purpose, our political leadership has been clumsy and hamhanded in their directionless use of our military.

And what are those other American wars not bitterly--often violently opposed--by the American public? Being asleep is one thing, but being a weasel is a 'nuther.

Vietnam is the only war we've ever (somewhat) fought that came even close to meeting your description. There have been no other cases of our populace rising up in any great numbers to oppose our wars; not bitterly, and certainly not violently.

See, this is where you always lose the plot. You can never stick to the actual facts. You simply have to exaggerate like bradhusker in your lame attempts to make invalid points.

Van

I have no idea why you choose to debate LTS, but RACK that above effort nonetheless.

Martyred wrote:Afghanistan is a proving grounds for new ordinance and a place to send troops to get "seasoned".
Having a "hot" base of operations keeps the military in a ready reaction state.

That is exactly why you're there and why you'll remain there. Nothing more, nothing less.

That, otoh, gets 1/2 a Rack.

I prefer to look at it as keeping in game shape. We spend way too much on the military to not be ready at a moments notice.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The fact of their having a real mission and conviction in Vietnam--an essential competency--is indeed exactly why they won and we lost.

It was entirely political. Militarily, the Viet Cong and the NVA were beaten into the dirt. The only reason they "won" was because we weren't there when they finally got up off of their knees.

As for any possible alternative in Vietnam, you've dodged this completely. Would you have nuked North Vietnam? Yes or no? Okay...so now you dodge this again...

Nukes were hardly necessary. All we had to do was continue providing some basic military support to South Vietnam and we would have achieved a status quo ante bellum.

So they're inseparable?

In the Korean War, worries were an overcommitment of American troops and NATO - they'd get bogged down. NATO was terrified Europe would be undermanned and wide open to a Soviet offensive.

If war isn't an extension of politics, you've got your work cut out for you.

Dr_Phibes wrote:If war isn't an extension of politics, you've got your work cut out for you.

Of course it is. That isn't the topic, though.

Does this count as gross incompetence or is it just "shit happens" business as usual? Just checkin'

(CBS/AP) VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Two Navy pilots ejected from a fighter jet after dumping loads of fuel to avoid a major explosion Friday, sending their unmanned plane careening into a Virginia Beach apartment complex and engulfing several buildings in flames, officials said.

Seven people, including both pilots, were injured, officials said. The Navy said both aviators on board the jet ejected before it crashed around noon and were being taken to hospitals for observation.

Definitely just another case of shit happening. Accidents do happen, Nick, and good luck finding a more competent and highly skilled/trained/equipped Air Force than ours.

Naw, I'm with Nick on this one, Van.

If they were any good, they would have slammed into his house...

Uh..okay... :doh:

http://www.military.com/video/forces/na ... 148146001/

I mean if it's just "accidents will happen," then it's a very short leap of loose logic that a ten year colossally expensive war of complete futility is somehow a "win" and that our military machine is "competent." Well, that is of course total bullshit. When a modern extremely expensive jet fighter just fails and drifts into an apartment complex, that's incompetence, period. Just how systemic is the incompetence is the real question. Or what? And why do you insist that our air force is the best? Because it's the biggest? That's shallow and fawning. In fact the basic business model of our gigantic military industrial complex is to make products that are costly, not sturdy or long lasting. Do you know anything of the Russian MIG compared to our crap jets in the Korean war. Or the Osprey fiasco--and several other bloated projects designed to carefully line specific corporate pockets. In short are you really so clueless as to the corporate nature of our military and how this has come to undermine our basic military competence? Apparently so.

Defense contractors absorb you tax dollars, Felchco.

All Americans wars are "wins" by that standard. Don't be an idiot.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Do you know anything of the Russian MIG compared to our crap jets in the Korean war.[/i]

I do. You don't. The MiG-15 was superior to some of the jets we used at the beginning of the war but the F-86 was evenly matched against the Fagot and the F-86F blew it away and racked up a kill ratio of over 100 to 1.

Or the Osprey fiasco--

There was no "Osprey fiasco." It's been in service for seven years now and has an outstanding operational record.

Nick, there are times when your mewling attempts at technology-specific arguments are entirely hopeless.

This is one of those times.

Van wrote:Nick, there are times when your mewling attempts at technology-specific arguments are entirely hopeless.

This is one of those times.

Some of the funniest moments on these boards are when Nicky tries to talk science or technology -- his 100% track record is a testament to his trolling ability. Bouncing a ball off a keyboard would occasionally result in a string of characters that had some scientific merit... but not Crisco.

Just off the top of my head -- e's informed us that uranium is"organic," that high-fructose corn syrup is digested differnt from other forms of sugar, and... jeez, I can't even remember them all.

But any time science, technology, or basically anything involving... facts and LTS is involved, hilarity will ensue.


And his absolute inability to think for himself without parroting the radical left is good for some chuckles, too. Easily the most brainless, incapable of independent thought poster here, by a country mile.

Dinsdale wrote:...his 100% track record is a testament to his trolling ability. Bouncing a ball off a keyboard would occasionally result in a string of characters that had some scientific merit... but not Crisco.

monkeys/typewriters/eventually

Dinsdale wrote: And his absolute inability to think for himself without parroting the radical left...

He parrots the extreme nationalist right just as often.

Um, no he doesn't.

C'mon, Marty, at least try to keep up...

Since everyone miraculously escaped from the Virginia Beach crash, I'll digress to bounce you clowns a bit like so many basketballs.

First up, did someone say "high fructose sugar" and suggest that it's just the same as normal sucrose? Well, guess what?...

Remember when everyone was freaking out about the mass deaths of bees back in 2006? Well, while the general populace may have decided to go back to eating its honey completely care-free, scientists have been hard at work trying to discover the cause.The newest suspect? High-fructose corn syrup.

Scientists with the Harvard School of Public Health recreated the Colony Collapse Disorder that had everyone scrambling to hoard up the last of the honey. They did it by giving them imidacloprid, which is a basic and popular pesticide.

This pesticide doesn't kill bees immediately, but it does mess with their honing systems and makes it difficult for them to find their hives again.

Of course, no one is pouring pesticide on bees, but bee-keepers did begin feeding bees with high-frutose corn syrup. And corn is sprayed with imidacloprid.

And the dominos began falling. And still are, if something isn't done. Bees are responsible for so much of our eco-system, though pollination.

As for uranium, I really don't hear anyone touting the wondrous benefits of nuclear power--and no one dares examine what's happening in Fukashima.

As for the Osprey fiasco, this boondoggle has proven the poster child for overpriced programs upon which the military industrialists will simply not give up.

The Osprey, built by The Boeing Company and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., has experienced serious drawbacks since its first flight March 19, 1989. The program’s mechanical, technical and even political difficulties have delayed its entry into the fleet and at times even threatened to end the program.

The 1986 estimated cost of a single V-22 was about $24 million with a projected 923 to be built. The first Bush administration cancelled the project in April 1989, by which time the cost of a single craft was estimated at $35 million. However, Congress continued to allocate funding for the program in a November 1989 authorization. Throughout Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney’s tenure, he and Congress wrestled over the question of the V-22 as he felt the project would cost more than the amount appropriated. Eventually he relented, proposing that $1.5 billion be spent in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to develop the project. The arrival of the Clinton administration into the White House in 1992 provided new support for the program.

Osprey crashes have resulted in 30 deaths. No one died in a June 11, 1991, Osprey crash, but a crash July 20, 1992, in Virginia killed three Marines and four civilians. The Osprey was grounded for 11 months after this crash. A crash in Arizona April 8, 2000, killed 19 Marines, grounding the aircraft for two months. Another crash in North Carolina Dec. 11 of the same year killed four Marines. After the December crash, the Osprey was grounded until May 29, 2002.

The Virginia crash resulted from a combination of an engine surge, nacelle fire and a drive shaft failure, according to the V-22 Resource Book. The Arizona crash was blamed on a situation called a vortex ring state. A vortex ring state can result when a rotary wing aircraft with a high rate of descent and a low air speed falls into its own rotor turbulence and loses lift. The December crash was caused by a hydraulic system failure coupled with a software glitch.

So, it was indeed a fiasco which was resolved by pumping untold billions of dollars into it until the damn thing could fly...so we could....attack Iraqi civilians? The lesson of the MIG is not that we couldn't pour billions of dollars into new and fancier jets, but that the Russians could build the solid and reliable MIG for a fraction of the cost. The point--of which you are all in stone denial--is that the COST of our gigantic military industry has grown--like a tumor--to the point where it is dominating our entire economy--for the worse. Did you know that the American military industry is the biggest employer in the world? And...you may have noticed that our economy in general is in the crapper. Gee..any dots to connect, you fatuous billikens? A military is supposed to defend, support, and enhance a nation, and this is what defines its competence. Ours has proven the opposite on every count. Or what?

Truman wrote:Um, no he doesn't.

Um, yes he does. Try reading his posts some time.

One part Buchanan, one part Lindbergh, add a pinch of Larouche...shake, pour and serve.

"Fatuous billikens" was pretty solid.

Martyred wrote:

Truman wrote:Um, no he doesn't.

Um, yes he does. Try reading his posts some time.

One part Buchanan, one part Lindbergh, add a pinch of Larouche...shake, pour and serve.

Where does the utterly fake Canadian get off assessing anyone? B-juice, you are a fraud who doesn't dare post more than a sentence or two because you don't want your grammatical markers revealed--so you can keep on pretending to be this character and that. And that's all good, just like a play. But...you've forgotten to actually develop any characters or say anything. You're about as "socialist" as I am a "nationalist." You've also suggested I'm similar to Mall Cop--a twisted crypto-Nazi who loves Israel!! Really? I guess you are pretty tired and lazy when it comes to actually, you know, posting actual takes.

So...I take your collective mumbling as a tacit surrender on the issues discussed, and as usual expect nothing from you than a one would expect from a basketball. :wink:

Just a little dribbling practice to keep your thoughts sharp..

In a small but growing number of cases across the nation, lawyers are blaming the U.S. military's heavy use of psychotropic drugs for their clients' aberrant behavior and related health problems. Such defenses have rarely gained traction in military or civilian courtrooms, but Burke's case provides the first important indication that military psychiatrists and court-martial judges are not blind to what can happen when troops go to work medicated.

After two long-running wars with escalating levels of combat stress, more than 110,000 active-duty Army troops last year were taking prescribed antidepressants, narcotics, sedatives, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs, according to figures recently disclosed to The Times by the U.S. Army surgeon general. Nearly 8% of the active-duty Army is now on sedatives and more than 6% is on antidepressants — an eightfold increase since 2005.

"We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now.... And I don't believe the current increase in suicides and homicides in the military is a coincidence," said Bart Billings, a former military psychologist who hosts an annual conference on combat stress.

The pharmacy consultant for the Army surgeon general says the military's use of the drugs is comparable to that in the civilian world. "It's not that we're using them more frequently or any differently," said Col. Carol Labadie. "As with any medication, you have to look at weighing the risk versus the benefits of somebody going on a medication."

enough