T1B

RACK

Thanks for the post and link.

mvscal wrote:

Jungle Law



Before long, a Stryker...

deathmobile

mvscal wrote:They sure do kill a lot of your precious "freedom fighters", don't they?

Actually, I was refering to to Stryker's lethality in regards your own troops.

It's the Iraq war's own Pacer!

Straight from the army's website.

Awesome fella, just outstanding....

:roll:

But there are larger issues still at stake, such as shaving the vehicle’s weight, its potential to rollover and trap soldiers, and whether the current “cage” armor is effective, critics say.

Martyred wrote:Straight from the army's website.

Awesome fella, just outstanding....

:roll:

But there are larger issues still at stake, such as shaving the vehicle’s weight, its potential to rollover and trap soldiers, and whether the current “cage” armor is effective, critics say.

Here's a quote from that article:

“Soldiers know this vehicle is not perfect, they do know and believe it’s the best vehicle available and they have it to use today,” Townsend, whose was the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team to deploy to Iraq, in October 2003, said during the roundtable.

Good to see you are still a complete fucking idiot.

Powerful Story, Great Writer.

That sting opt where they took out the happy dancing T's was grade A choice.


Alas; that waste is primed to go on and on and on.

Rack the read, and the Duece Four trolljob on the Dancing AK-47 Monkeys.

Rack the story and double rack the "AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down".

Good read.
Thanks, mvscal.

I have family that works in Aberdeen and they analyze the data collection going on in Iraq right now. The Strykers are doing so well that the Army be deploying more currently stationed in Alaska in the very near future.

(this conversation took place a few weeks ago and the family member couldn't tell me too much but needless to say, the Stykers are doing very well).

They're probably clear to tell you now, it's the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Wainwright, Alaska, due to go into the country next summer since it's on the

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13 ... er,00.html

Link.


Unless it's a different one. :wink:

Tom In VA wrote:They're probably clear to tell you now, it's the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Wainwright, Alaska, due to go into the country next summer since it's on the

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13 ... er,00.html

Link.


Unless it's a different one. :wink:

They didn't mention the specific Combat team but I'm sure that's the one. Thanks for the link.

mvscal wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:I have family that works in Aberdeen and they analyze the data collection going on in Iraq right now. The Strykers are doing so well that the Army be deploying more currently stationed in Alaska in the very near future.

(this conversation took place a few weeks ago and the family member couldn't tell me too much but needless to say, the Stykers are doing very well).

I admit that I was skeptical, but they've done well. Just as long as they're used to supplement rather than replace Bradleys.

Weird.. that's what my brother-in-law said..

FYI for non-military types:

DrDetroit wrote:FYI for non-military types:

You mean like yourself?

Yeah, like myself, dickhead.

I was wondering what it looked like, so I went to look and thought it a good idea to post a pic.

WTF is your problem, dickhead?

Here's one with the cage armor "mod" DrD.

DrDetroit wrote:Yeah, like myself, dickhead.

I was wondering what it looked like, so I went to look and thought it a good idea to post a pic.

WTF is your problem, dickhead?

No problem chickenhawk.

Hey, B, sorry to burst your bubble, but, the chickenhawk criticism only gooses up you extreme lefties. Reasonable and rational people recognize that is an empty and intellectually dishonest smear.

BTW - lets test your good faith on this point.

Do you characterize Bill Clinton as a chickenhawk? He purposefully avoided service, then went on to take military action against those who did not directly attack the US.

So...is he a chickenhawk?

And are all of those who didn't serve but supported Clinton's war in the former Yugoslavia and deployment of troops to Haiti also considered by you to be chickenhawks?

Don't lie now...

Chickenhawk wrote:

Got it.

No straw man there, B.

I was just checking to see if you were actually playing that chickenhawk card in good faith or not.

I have my answer now and you have KYOA.

DrDetroit wrote:No straw man there, B.

Yea right.

Then by all means, B, point it out.

Then again, if it was there you would have pointed it out...instead, you dodged a good faith question by alleging that I was casting an invalid argument...wrong.

DrDetroit wrote:Then by all means, B, point it out.

Then again, if it was there you would have pointed it out...instead, you dodged a good faith question by alleging that I was casting an invalid argument...wrong.

The argument is invalid, Whether or not Clinton was a Chickenhawk is immaterial to YOUR chickenhawk status.

The argument is invalid, Whether or not Clinton was a Chickenhawk is immaterial to YOUR chickenhawk status.

1) I didn't say it was material. The thing is that you know this, yet you continue on this path.

2) I was testing your good faith in making the argument. To determine whether you were criticizing me in good faith one must test whether you apply the standard consistently or not. We know that you're not posting this criticism in good faith because you won't apply it liberals who hadn't served but supported war in the former Yugoslavia.

3) We also know that you do not consistently apply it because your argument would require you to excuse yourself from any pro football discussion as you have never played pro football, yet you continue posting about pro football.

Continue kicking your own ass.

FDR, Woodrow Wilson, etc.. etc.... chickenhawks.


Furthermore, at the core of the apsersion is the logic that only those that have served in war, can advocate it. This is a fallacy. If having to serve in a war is the measure by which we guage or qualify those that voice it necessity, then we must use the same criteria for those that voice dissent.

If you haven't served ... "We must fight" and "We must not fight" ..... = ChickenHawk.

Tom In VA wrote:FDR, Woodrow Wilson, etc.. etc.... chickenhawks.


Furthermore, at the core of the apsersion is the logic that only those that have served in war, can advocate it. This is a fallacy. If having to serve in a war is the measure by which we guage or qualify those that voice it necessity, then we must use the same criteria for those that voice dissent.

If you haven't served ... "We must fight" and "We must not fight" ..... = ChickenHawk.

You sign up yet?

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:FDR, Woodrow Wilson, etc.. etc.... chickenhawks.


Furthermore, at the core of the apsersion is the logic that only those that have served in war, can advocate it. This is a fallacy. If having to serve in a war is the measure by which we guage or qualify those that voice it necessity, then we must use the same criteria for those that voice dissent.

If you haven't served ... "We must fight" and "We must not fight" ..... = ChickenHawk.

You sign up yet?

Why do you keep asking that question when I've told you the results of my efforts time and time again ?

Tom In VA wrote:Why do you keep asking that question when I've told you the results of my efforts time and time again ?

Just curious. You do know that the reserve enlistment age has been raised?

http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2005/20050322_280.html

Never thought of it that way, Tom. Good point.

So, B, what say you? Are you casting that criticism in good faith and in a consistent manner?

Of course not. That means that your criticism is both empty and intellectually dishonest.

It's a canard used by those who cannot articulate a reasonable and relevant response to the war on terrorism.

Why yes, yes I do. And actually, there has been some consideration for raising the limit entirely to 40 or 42.

Whether or not this bodes well for me remains to be seen.

DrDetroit wrote:Never thought of it that way, Tom. Good point.

Thanks, but it's one I should have footnoted appropriately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29

mvscal wrote: Voting is another privilege that should be restricted to veterans.

[size=Ginormous]BWAAHAAHAAHHAAAA!!!!!![/size]

DrDetroit wrote:Never thought

Damn right you haven't. The next original thought you have will be your first.

Tom,

It does not logically follow that one who has not served is incapable of leading others to war. But when I see service age men and women who are more than willing to let others fight a war they ostensibly support...

...well I can only think of one thing.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Never thought

Damn right you haven't. The next original thought you have will be your first.

Tom,

It does not logically follow that one who has not served is incapable of leading others to war. But when I see service age men and women who are more than willing to let others fight a war they ostensibly support...

...well I can only think of one thing.

And that's a fallacy.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Never thought

Damn right you haven't. The next original thought you have will be your first.

Tom,

It does not logically follow that one who has not served is incapable of leading others to war. But when I see service age men and women who are more than willing to let others fight a war they ostensibly support...

...well I can only think of one thing.

And that's a fallacy.

Please do explain.

Tom In VA wrote:If you haven't served ... "We must fight" and "We must not fight" ..... = ChickenHawk.

If you have not served, you probably had a scholarship and didn't have to.

Because your assumption is based solely on age.

Not all men and women between the ages of 18-35 are qualified to serve in the military. There are a myriad of criteria.

First, the obvious, is health. During the physical there are a number of things that can get you disqualified. Eyesight, hearing, skeletal integrity, blood pressure, heart, diabetes, mental issues, mental retardation, ad infinitum..... The military does not want or need, any liabilities.

The second is lifestyle, felons, criminal misdemeanors, drug habits, drinking habits, married, children, etc... etc... all are factors involved in the military considering prospective enlistees. The "wrong" answer to any one, can get you an invitation to leave the MEPS. Intentional false answers, some possibly greenlighted by recruiters, can get your ass dragged out of formation in the middle of BASIC by MPs.

Aptitude tests only indicate the potential MOS (Military Occupational Specialties) ?, for which a prospective enlistee is qualified. There's a minimum on that test as well.

Your presumption, is one inferred without a factual basis. That's why it's a fallacy.

Tom In VA wrote:Because your assumption is based solely on age.

Not all men and women between the ages of 18-35 are qualified to serve in the military. There are a myriad of criteria.

First, the obvious, is health. During the physical there are a number of things that can get you disqualified. Eyesight, hearing, skeletal integrity, blood pressure, heart, diabetes, mental issues, mental retardation, ad infinitum..... The military does not want or need, any liabilities.

The second is lifestyle, felons, criminal misdemeanors, drug habits, drinking habits, married, children, etc... etc... all are factors involved in the military considering prospective enlistees. The "wrong" answer to any one, can get you an invitation to leave the MEPS. Intentional false answers, some possibly greenlighted by recruiters, can get your ass dragged out of formation in the middle of BASIC by MPs.

Aptitude tests only indicate the potential MOS (Military Occupational Specialties) ?, for which a prospective enlistee is qualified. There's a minimum on that test as well.

Your presumption, is one inferred without a factual basis. That's why it's a fallacy.

Well, forgive me for assuming that guys like Detard are qualified to serve. I guess I like to give you dittochumps the benefit of the doubt. But obviously I think too much of you.

BSmack wrote:But obviously I think too much of you.

Who you kidding ? You don't think too much about anything.