LATimes: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

[Zen-like Todd]

Offer a path to citizenship for illegals already in the country for a minimum 4 year service in the military. Done.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

[RabidFan]

Translation = the closest Sarge has ever come to saying 'oops'. :laugh:

CLASSIC

[ChiefBigMeat]

Troops cost a buttload of money. You pay troop A for housing. You pay troop A for food. For every one troop A that you have, you have about five extra troops to support the one. A troop in the chow to make grub for troop A. Another troop in the finaince section to make sure troop A gets paid correctly. Another troop in supply for troop A. It goes on and on

That's why they've been civilianizing everything. It's cheaper to pay some goob GS whatever money to do a job than it is to have a troop do it, no matter how low ranking troop A may be.

And again, we have systems coming to fruition that need to be paid for. New air tankers, the F-22 to name a few in the Air Force.

Unless you want to increase the budget, that money has got to come from somewhere, and now it's coming from the personel budget

:laugh: :laugh:

I think that is the closest Sarge has ever come to saying, "yeah, you're right"

'Civilianizing' = Bloated defense contracts

'Systems coming to fruition' = bloated defense contracts

'Coming from the personnel budget' = all the money is going to bloated defense contracts instead of protecting our soldiers

[Redskins Diehard]

:laugh: :laugh:

I think that is the closest Sarge has ever come to saying, "yeah, you're right"

'Civilianizing' = Bloated defense contracts

'Systems coming to fruition' = bloated defense contracts

'Coming from the personnel budget' = all the money is going to bloated defense contracts instead of protecting our soldiers

Your understanding of the "civilianizing" concept is completely wrong. just so you know.

[bird_1972]

He just learned the word...it was in the Hate Bush word of the day calendar.

I am sure someone will be along that always jumps on AFC about thread titles to jump on him...right guys?

Difference between AFC and Chom is that Chom at least sticks around to debate his point (like him or not) whereas AFC seems only capable of insulting the other side without providing any kind of intelligent banter at all.

[Redskins Diehard]

Difference between AFC and Chom is that Chom at least sticks around to debate his point (like him or not) whereas AFC seems only capable of insulting the other side without providing any kind of intelligent banter at all.

And this relates to the bs thread title how?

Anything to add pertinent to this thread?

[rincewind]

And this relates to the bs thread title how?

Anything to add pertinent to this thread?

C'mon man - you've got to admit that at least Chom was man enough to correct the title. Please, please put out ONE time AFC has ever done that. He is constantly called out on it, and totally ignores it. Why he hasn't been put on the 'No new threads' list is beyond me.

[Redskins Diehard]

C'mon man - you've got to admit that at least Chom was man enough to correct the title. Please, please put out ONE time AFC has ever done that. He is constantly called out on it, and totally ignores it. Why he hasn't been put on the 'No new threads' list is beyond me.

I have never defended AFC, or any other poster on "my side" for anything. The fact is that whenever he posts one of those there is a swarm of people to correct it. My personal thoughts of both AFC and Chomerics are inconsequential and are actually pretty similar. I think posting those thoughts are against other rules in this forum.

Chom was man enough to correct his title, and biased enough to post it in the first place.

Still nobody will discuss the fact that none of the officers responsible for asking for troops have come out and said they did and were denied. Frankly the Division commander should have been asking his direct superior for additional troops. It is not Bush's or Rumsfeld's job to allocate troops in theater. If these guys didn't give their subordinates the troops they need then that is where the issue is. And like I said before, if the Centcom commander at any time asked for troops and was denied then I would have more of a problem with it than those that just want to say Bush's cabal messed something up.

[tizzod]

I don't know, I would consider the source a little bit, I think. The LA Times?

Also, these Democratic hearings are bugging me. "Yeah, let's get as many people as we can saying how horrible everything is, without inviting one person to defend it!"

I don't play on either side, but the politics in this is getting on my nerves. But that's the game.

[bird_1972]

And this relates to the bs thread title how?

Anything to add pertinent to this thread?

Just responding to one of your posts. Learn to read.

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't know, I would consider the source a little bit, I think. The LA Times?

Also, these Democratic hearings are bugging me. "Yeah, let's get as many people as we can saying how horrible everything is, without inviting one person to defend it!"

I don't play on either side, but the politics in this is getting on my nerves. But that's the game.

The LA Times is not the issue in my opinion. It is the sources they are citing.

[Redskins Diehard]

Just responding to one of your posts. Learn to read.

And that answers the second question. I know how to read. Thank you for the suggestion though.

[bird_1972]

And that answers the second question. I know how to read. Thank you for the suggestion though.

You dropped a line earlier in the thread suggesting that there weren't as many people taking Chom to task for something he did wrong in presenting his slanted arguement.

You compared him to threads AFC typically starts that are slanted, but in the opposite direction.

My comment to you and what I was trying to "add to the discussion" was that your dig against the members of this board for not treating Chom as they would AFC holds no water for a couple of reasons:

1) Chom corrected his mistake (you acknowledged this already)

2) Chom will at least stay in the thread and address most criticism directly whereas AFC (with whom you compared Chom) does nothing of the sort

Now ... is that better?

[Sarge]

Offer a path to citizenship for illegals already in the country for a minimum 4 year service in the military. Done.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

I prefer the recruits speak English

[Sarge]

:laugh: :laugh:

I think that is the closest Sarge has ever come to saying, "yeah, you're right"

'Civilianizing' = Bloated defense contracts

'Systems coming to fruition' = bloated defense contracts

'Coming from the personnel budget' = all the money is going to bloated defense contracts instead of protecting our soldiers

It wouldn't matter what was coming on line, we'd still have to pay for it

As my last explaination was obviously over the heads of some of the audience, I'll make it simpler and in easy to understand words

Say you have ten cans of Play doh

With time, the Play doh starts to get hard and worn out. Pieces fall off and stick to the carpet. You eat some of it.

Eventually, if you want more Play doh, you have to go get more

Now, if you get a can of Play doh everytime you go to the store, you keep a constant inventory (in-ven-tor-e) of Playdoh, some new and some old. And you're not shelling out a huge amount of money all at once

On the other hand, if you wait until all your Play doh wears out, then you have to shell out a buttload of money all at once to get 10 cans of fresh Play doh

That is the situation we face now

I can re-do this post in the crayon font and big letters if there is something you don't understand

[Larry]

We find ourselves having to modernize and bring systems online that should have been on line ten years ago. Hence, the money has to come from somewhere.

Now it's coming from the personnel budget,and will next year as well

And 10 years ago, when the CJCS was before Congress, accusing Congress of doing exactly the same thing (taking money away from personnell and maintenance to spend on bigger defense contractors), your reaction was?

I'm starting to notice a pattern, here.

When Congress was taking money from personnell and maintenance and handing it out to defense contractors in the 90's, then that was "Clinton slashing the military".

When Congress is taking money from personnell and maintenance and handing it out to defense contractors in the 00's, then it's "Well, we need to make up for Clinton."

[Sarge]

And 10 years ago, when the CJCS was before Congress, accusing Congress of doing exactly the same thing (taking money away from personnell and maintenance to spend on bigger defense contractors), your reaction was?

I'm starting to notice a pattern, here.

When Congress was taking money from personnell and maintenance and handing it out to defense contractors in the 90's, then that was "Clinton slashing the military".

When Congress is taking money from personnell and maintenance and handing it out to defense contractors in the 00's, then it's "Well, we need to make up for Clinton."

No, we weren't getting much money for anything back then. THAT's the pattern. THere were no new weapons systems brough on line during Klintons reign. Nothing,nada, zip. Well, unless you want ot count the "Non-lethal" crowd control stuff

Now, there were systems in the pipeline. If I remember correctly the F-22 was supposed to be coming online in late 90's, but it got put off, which in turn increases the cost

I also remember delays the Global Hawk, the Predator, the GPS-guided bomb systems and the Long Bow Apache, all of which are in use today.

Many of the weapons that we should be fielding now, or that are just coming on line, incurred lenghty delays in development because of Klinton delays and under-funding.

Klinton also delayed the V-22 Osprey and the Joint Strike Fighter, as well as delaying teh Milstar space communications satellites.

That's what I can remeber off the top of my head. I'm sure if you Google it you can find more

All of this stuff has been coming on line now or in the past few years, but should hav ebeen on line in the 90's

[Larry]

Sarge, (not going to quote the entire post because it's more of a general thing, anyway),

When was the last time a defense system wasn't delayed?

Has there ever been a major new weapons system that came in before projection?

The only one of the systems you point out that I know much about was the V-22. If I'm not mistaken, Boeing was pushing that thing on Carter fer cryin out loud. (I know I heard about it before Clinton, but I don't remember how long before Clinton.) Was it delayed because Reagan just hated shiney new gosh-wow military hardware?

(And, isn't it possible that the reason it was delayed during Clinton's administration was because the pesky thing kept crashing? Could that have had something to do with it?)

In any case, what I'm seeing you saying is that a lot of new things that're showing up nowdays were funded under Clinton, but you think they should've been here sooner.

[twa]

Offer a path to citizenship for illegals already in the country for a minimum 4 year service in the military. Done.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

OT, but I think thats already in effect

More than 25,000 immigrants have become citizens and another 40,000 have become eligible for citizenship through the military since President Bush signed an executive order in July 2002 speeding the process.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4185659.html

[Redskins Diehard]

OT, but I think thats already in effect

More than 25,000 immigrants have become citizens and another 40,000 have become eligible for citizenship through the military since President Bush signed an executive order in July 2002 speeding the process.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4185659.html

They aren't illegals...and some of this soldiers were the best I saw.

[Joe Sick]

I prefer the recruits speak English

I wouldn't mind some that couldn't also speak Farsi, as long as they aren't gay. We don't need those kinds...

One thing I don't understand about handing out the civilian contracts, is how in the world can it be cheaper to pay a Halliburton truck driver 90k a year, than to pay a private 30k?

[Thiebear]

I wouldn't mind some that couldn't also speak Farsi, as long as they aren't gay. We don't need those kinds...

One thing I don't understand about handing out the civilian contracts, is how in the world can it be cheaper to pay a Halliburton truck driver 90k a year, than to pay a private 30k?

Private 30k?

.........-15

_________

..........15k

[Redskins Diehard]

I wouldn't mind some that couldn't also speak Farsi, as long as they aren't gay. We don't need those kinds...

One thing I don't understand about handing out the civilian contracts, is how in the world can it be cheaper to pay a Halliburton truck driver 90k a year, than to pay a private 30k?

The "cost" a Private goes well beyond the salary you are paying them. You have to pay to recruit them, house them, train them, feed them, provide medical care, dental care, etc. That disregards the fact that you have to find someone willing to join the Army and drive the truck for that salary.

I assume you mean you would like some that speak Farsi. I wonder how long it takes to train someone for that? And you do know they can be as gay as they want, so long as they keep it to themselves.

[Joe Sick]

The "cost" a Private goes well beyond the salary you are paying them. You have to pay to recruit them, house them, train them, feed them, provide medical care, dental care, etc.

And Halliburton doesn't have to do these things?

[twa]

They aren't illegals...and some of this soldiers were the best I saw.

Some of the ones I knew were,but perhaps they crossed back to file :laugh:

But you are correct on making good soldiers.