MicroBalrog
New member
If I remember what the Army taught me right, there already is one, jointly owned
And the Dems claim GWB doesn't know how to fight a war
- Thread starter OBIWAN
- Start date
If I remember what the Army taught me right, there already is one, jointly owned
wingedmonkey
Inactive
What I want to know is just how were they going to find out what we are firing at them unless we announced it before hand. Cripes! Just lock and load.
Gun Raffle
Sportsmen for Bush
Gun Raffle
Sportsmen for Bush
Master Blaster
New member
Here's a good logical extension of the "we cant touch it cause a Jew made it" arguement:
Alan Greenspan, a Jew and supporter of Israel, is head of the Federal reserve right? The Federal Resverve is responsible for regulating the entire US money supply. So all of the money in the US has been contaminated by Jewish hands. Therefor, the Arabs, to be true to their ideals, should refuse to take any supplies or assistance from the United States to avoid being contanminated by Jews.
In order to not offend them I vote we cut off all assistance right now.
Alan Greenspan, a Jew and supporter of Israel, is head of the Federal reserve right? The Federal Resverve is responsible for regulating the entire US money supply. So all of the money in the US has been contaminated by Jewish hands. Therefor, the Arabs, to be true to their ideals, should refuse to take any supplies or assistance from the United States to avoid being contanminated by Jews.
In order to not offend them I vote we cut off all assistance right now.
Master Blaster,
The issue isn't that "a Jew" made the ammunition, the issue is that "a currently non-belligerent nation that we would desperately like to keep out of the current conflict" made the ammunition.
It wouldn't matter if the ammunition was made by a US corporation called Cohen's Kosher Cartridge Company; that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is that we are taking great pains in the region to avoid the appearance of being an active military ally of Israel; the perception of which could turn what is currently a localized conflict into a regional war that we are not currently prepared for. We'll deal with them when we're darn good and ready, and on terms and at a time of our choosing...
The issue isn't that "a Jew" made the ammunition, the issue is that "a currently non-belligerent nation that we would desperately like to keep out of the current conflict" made the ammunition.
It wouldn't matter if the ammunition was made by a US corporation called Cohen's Kosher Cartridge Company; that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is that we are taking great pains in the region to avoid the appearance of being an active military ally of Israel; the perception of which could turn what is currently a localized conflict into a regional war that we are not currently prepared for. We'll deal with them when we're darn good and ready, and on terms and at a time of our choosing...
But it is the fact that it is Jewish (Israeli) ammunition that makes it an issue. If say, the ammunition was made in Jordan, they would not care a bit.
The Islamo-fascists need no further provocation. They have dedicated their children's lives to exterminating the Jews. At one point (and maybe now) they believed that Israel was behind 9/11. They apparently believe that Jews drink children's blood, control world markets, etc. A box of Israeli ammo would be drop in the hurricane.
Quartus:
From what I've read about this business, please see my post under One supposes that it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world, there were two suppliers that could meet mil spec, which I assume included delivery times. IMI was one, Winchester Ammunition, East Alton, Il was the other. Winchester got a contract too, for same amount.
I guess that they might have gotten the whole thing, though perhaps they could not meet the total requirement. By the way, assuming that U.S. manufacturing capability has been sold down the proverbial river, by U.S. corporate interests no less, that has nothing to do with IMI.
As to other things that you mentioned, you could have a point, however being as I'm simply a retired Piping Designer/Checker, and sometime Field Engineer/Construction Supervisor, what do I know.
It could well be that we NEVER should have gone into Iraq, given the facts of the matter, whatever they might turn out to be, but that is another question. entirely.
From what I've read about this business, please see my post under One supposes that it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world, there were two suppliers that could meet mil spec, which I assume included delivery times. IMI was one, Winchester Ammunition, East Alton, Il was the other. Winchester got a contract too, for same amount.
I guess that they might have gotten the whole thing, though perhaps they could not meet the total requirement. By the way, assuming that U.S. manufacturing capability has been sold down the proverbial river, by U.S. corporate interests no less, that has nothing to do with IMI.
As to other things that you mentioned, you could have a point, however being as I'm simply a retired Piping Designer/Checker, and sometime Field Engineer/Construction Supervisor, what do I know.
It could well be that we NEVER should have gone into Iraq, given the facts of the matter, whatever they might turn out to be, but that is another question. entirely.
They haven't been at war with Jordan three times in the last fifty years, either.
One last time to attempt to make the point: I am not worried about "pissing off islamo-fascists (or whatever this week's trendy term for violent religious zealots in the Middle East is)", I am worried about providing an inadvertent cassus belli for toppling neutral or friendly regimes in other Islamic states in the area, and causing what is currently a nicely-contained local police action to spread into a regional conflict that we are currently not prepared for.
If we can use the ammo for training at home and have enough domestically-produced ammo for combat use in-theater, what's the beef? It ain't kowtowing, it's common sense.
ONLY if you doubt we are the all-powerful AMERICA that cannot be beaten or even slowed down, and therefore have no need to worry about being attacked from other fronts while we are bogged down in a large war for which we are not prepared.
Why, Tamara, to hear you talk, er, type, you'd think that our military had been emasculated by Bush/Clinton over the last 12 years or so! You'd think our reserves were already strained! You'd think we didn't have unlimited warfare capability! You'd think it it was possible that being bullheaded could get a lot of people killed for no reason!
Sheer lunacy!
There have also been various conflicts in the region that did not involve Jews. We don't allow these other hatreds and rivalries to dictate the minutia of ammunition distribution. Clearly, making exceptions for anti-Semitism is de-facto approval of this distinction.
I understand your point, it is a fine one. However, what I am trying to say is that, not only does doing what you say give tacit approval to an ancient evil, it does not recognize what is actually happening in the region. The destabilizing influences in the region (Islamic fundamentalists) do not require provocation. They see the Israelis using American tanks, helicopters, aircraft, etc. Further, they already believe that international Jewry is behind everything from U.S. policy to ritual baby murder.
I don't care if we buy or use one round of IMI ammo. But the idea that we would allow the racist and extremely dangerous beliefs of our enemies to determine our policies is not common sense at all. Further, this style of appeasement and concession simply reinforces their attitudes.
Carebear, beautifully reasoned and written.
Tamara has kicked up a very important aspect to any war, the nuances of propaganda.
The medievalists, have made it far enough into the 21st, to use video and internet as counterpropaganda.
And yes, because the US has already handled the overseas propaganda aspects of the Iraq war somewhat poorly...handing the enemy something as simple as IMF marked cartridges leftover from a fight, could be trouble. The Islamic looney fringe will have a field day, using that as an another element to their postmodern version of "Protocols". And the most effective weapon they currently possess, is propaganda aimed at the Moslem's who believe their 'greatness' has been left behind. Ideas, even seriously distorted ones, are damn hard to interdict by force alone.
Our Islamic allies/de-facto neutrals do have some major problems with handling their own Islamic extremists/or insurgents from elsewhere.
To the degree that some, like Saudi, essentially pay tributes. Other's have to handle the problem very carefully to balance out the Western/Islamic dichotomies inherent in their cultures, Turkey and the like of the new countries south of Russia being good examples of that situation.
So using short term expedient solutions for material problems, which could provide long term very powerful black propaganda...for our enemies to use against us, and to to further destablize countries like Turkey, Egpyt, Jordon, Lebanon, UAR, Saudi, and etc...could be trouble.
And Israel would be in a very bad situation, if the entire mid-east goes even crazier than it's current norm.
So, in this case, the "want of a nail", could have some unholy consequences.
So, Bush does know how to use the military force aspect of war, but is really out of the running as far as the propaganda aspects. And if this is indeed a "world war", it might do well to remember that in the last one, propaganda didn't win it, but it certainly did help to fight it.
Quite true, the Islamic extremists don't need further 'rationales', but the US isn't in the best propaganda situation to be giving them even more to use.
That's where Bush is very weak in his thinking, the Iraqi war, isn't D-Day. And the Islamic countries which we will need to be interdicting, just might not be throwing kisses and flowers at passing US tanks.
Tamara has kicked up a very important aspect to any war, the nuances of propaganda.
The medievalists, have made it far enough into the 21st, to use video and internet as counterpropaganda.
And yes, because the US has already handled the overseas propaganda aspects of the Iraq war somewhat poorly...handing the enemy something as simple as IMF marked cartridges leftover from a fight, could be trouble. The Islamic looney fringe will have a field day, using that as an another element to their postmodern version of "Protocols". And the most effective weapon they currently possess, is propaganda aimed at the Moslem's who believe their 'greatness' has been left behind. Ideas, even seriously distorted ones, are damn hard to interdict by force alone.
Our Islamic allies/de-facto neutrals do have some major problems with handling their own Islamic extremists/or insurgents from elsewhere.
To the degree that some, like Saudi, essentially pay tributes. Other's have to handle the problem very carefully to balance out the Western/Islamic dichotomies inherent in their cultures, Turkey and the like of the new countries south of Russia being good examples of that situation.
So using short term expedient solutions for material problems, which could provide long term very powerful black propaganda...for our enemies to use against us, and to to further destablize countries like Turkey, Egpyt, Jordon, Lebanon, UAR, Saudi, and etc...could be trouble.
And Israel would be in a very bad situation, if the entire mid-east goes even crazier than it's current norm.
So, in this case, the "want of a nail", could have some unholy consequences.
So, Bush does know how to use the military force aspect of war, but is really out of the running as far as the propaganda aspects. And if this is indeed a "world war", it might do well to remember that in the last one, propaganda didn't win it, but it certainly did help to fight it.
Quite true, the Islamic extremists don't need further 'rationales', but the US isn't in the best propaganda situation to be giving them even more to use.
That's where Bush is very weak in his thinking, the Iraqi war, isn't D-Day. And the Islamic countries which we will need to be interdicting, just might not be throwing kisses and flowers at passing US tanks.
Greg Bell,
Not one soul here is talking about "appeasement" or "concession." What is being discussed is "risk management" and "forethought."
I am thankful that those in charge of in-theater ops seem to have a better handle on these things than the Anti-PC-Police scattered throughout the Barcaloungers of America.
Just because I plan to douse a yellowjacket nest with gasoline tomorrow does not mean I need to go poke it with a stick today. That's in Clausewitz somewhere, I'm pretty sure...
Not one soul here is talking about "appeasement" or "concession." What is being discussed is "risk management" and "forethought."
I am thankful that those in charge of in-theater ops seem to have a better handle on these things than the Anti-PC-Police scattered throughout the Barcaloungers of America.
Just because I plan to douse a yellowjacket nest with gasoline tomorrow does not mean I need to go poke it with a stick today. That's in Clausewitz somewhere, I'm pretty sure...
Congratulations on passing 500.
Clauswitz, maybe, but mayhaps it should be recalled that his theories, were a direct result of almost losing to Napoleon and the impetus brought on by the French revolution. And the repressive attitude he and others advocated, contributed to the failed revolutions of 1848, the anarchists of the latter 19th century, 1905, 1914-18, and 1917-21.
Not a good idea to underestimate the potential of "sheeple". In whatever country they might be located. And careless policies, which might inadvertently create some really effective anti-US leaders in Iraq, could raise all kinds of trouble. Might remember that the one of the first time that aerial interdiction was used on 'civilian' insurgents was in the 20's, by the British, in Iraq. And the Brits were quite busy for several years.
Granted we have A10's and Abrahms, but potential insurgents have a bit more than camels and old single shots too...
As for me, can't get Barcaloungers up here in the Prairie hinterlands...alas.
Clauswitz, maybe, but mayhaps it should be recalled that his theories, were a direct result of almost losing to Napoleon and the impetus brought on by the French revolution. And the repressive attitude he and others advocated, contributed to the failed revolutions of 1848, the anarchists of the latter 19th century, 1905, 1914-18, and 1917-21.
Not a good idea to underestimate the potential of "sheeple". In whatever country they might be located. And careless policies, which might inadvertently create some really effective anti-US leaders in Iraq, could raise all kinds of trouble. Might remember that the one of the first time that aerial interdiction was used on 'civilian' insurgents was in the 20's, by the British, in Iraq. And the Brits were quite busy for several years.
Granted we have A10's and Abrahms, but potential insurgents have a bit more than camels and old single shots too...
As for me, can't get Barcaloungers up here in the Prairie hinterlands...alas.