A must read

bruno said:
they took off with 8 Navy CH53s not configured for that kind of mission and relatively inexperienced pilots.
Click to expand...
You are correct that they were Navy. MH-53s. Nothing wrong with the configuration but they had a very low dependability rating. AF HH-3s would have been much more effective. However, the planners wanted everything to look routine and AF helos on Navy ships were not routine. The pilots were highly experienced. They picked the cream of available USMC CH-53 pilots as aircraft commanders and the Navy, since they owned the aircraft, insisted on filling the copilot seats. What was given up in crew coordination was more than made up by having Marine pilots experienced in the mission and Navy copilots very familiar with those particular aircraft.

This was pre-infancy for joint operations and, in many ways, it showed.
 
This is just terrible, our national security is being crushed for the interest of what? I appreciate all of you in the military and defend freedom. I love you all.
It make me sleep better at night know you are all there. I am deeply saddened.

RGK
 
rkrosnar said:
This is just terrible, our national security is being crushed for the interest of what?
Click to expand...

Most likely the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...which are also ironically being waged in "the name of national security" :rolleyes:


Maximus said:
One in five Americans is on some type of Government assistance, one in eight is on food stamps, Barry is looking to make this a dependant Nation.

Very sad....
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, the person who dropped the ball was Bush (and a string of his predecessors), not Obama...
 
Chockstock said:
Last time I checked, the person who dropped the ball was Bush (and a string of his predecessors), not Obama...
Click to expand...

Apparently we're not talking about funding issues....


....or healthcare.....

...or many many many other forms of obligated funding without a source....
 
From what I've heard this is a play by VADM Pappe to get the government to react in exactly the same way people did in this thread.
 
BR2011 said:
From what I've heard this is a play by VADM Pappe to get the government to react in exactly the same way people did in this thread.
Click to expand...

Certainly the first I would have heard that. It's generally not advisable to do so before you've been confirmed, especially when some of the units to be decommissioned are in some fairly powerful Congressional districts.

That being said, the memo was followed this week by an "All Hands" email from the current Vice Commandant, VADM Pekoske, about how they will make cuts for an additional 1,100 ish Coast Guardsmen for FY11. Think we've been talking about that email at lunch? You better believe it!

The leaked VADM Papp memo circulated for....maybe a week, and then was forgotten. The Commandant of the Marine Corps' "gay barracks" comment got more play.

That would be about 2,400ish Coast Guardsmen in two years, in an organization that has about 40,000 members.
 
vampsoul said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...

Luigi59 said:
Better there than here.
Click to expand...

http://www.military.com/news/article/us-mulls-value-of-major-counterinsurgencies.html

Read this article and be enlightened about why invading either country was a mistake and why our current strategy is a mistake. The wars have done nothing to truly protect Americans (we came a hair's breadth to avoiding epic disasters last Christmas over Detroit and in NYC just days ago...both of which we narrowly dodged more by sheer luck than effort and were the kinds of threats that taking the fight "over there" was supposed to neutralize). In fact, as the article shows, it has only made our military vulnerable and unprepared for future conflicts that will probably resemble NOTHING like counter-terrorism. In the long, long run of this great country, the money, the time, the LIVES, will not be worth it. And until we truly accomplish what we set out to do in Afghanistan - bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice - it seems that everything really will be just a waste (and Bush and his Administration lied to the country about Iraq!). Because right now, our main mission in either country resembles nothing like what we started out to do. Sometime somewhere, our mission morphed into...NATION-BUILDING ("government-in-a-box" LMAO)...which is, somehow a solution to terrorism? Its just, I dont know, WHY this administration and the last believes that creating a whole government out of thin air is even remotely possible. Afghanistan is a "country" with absolutely no infrastructure, no human rights, and a female literacy rate of like 10%. And whats worse is that we're trying to do it by incurring a massive debt from China. Nothing that has come to be as a result of the wars has convinced me that they have been done for the well-being of ordinary Americans.


/rant
 
Of course that article says nothing about the current cuts for the U.S. Coast Guard....now does it?
 
Chockstock said:
......and Bush and his Administration lied to the country about Iraq!...
Click to expand...

Yep, only President Bush and his Administration. :rolleyes:

Can you read the quotes below and point out who worked for the Bush Administration? I'm having trouble finding one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
 
Luigi, I'm afraid you're wasting your time with this young man. It's going to take some real life experiences to open his eyes. As much as I'd like to be there the moment he realizes that he doesn't have the world figured out, I'm certain enough that it will happen without my witnessing it. It will likely happen (if he makes it through a SA) when his brilliant plan has fallen apart and his pissed off platoon sergeant says "Whatcha gonna do, PL?"

ChockStock, you will find that people generally tune out those who either have no experience in the area of which they speak, and tune out those whose thoughts offer little in the way of originality and substance. In this case, you've proven that you have a serving of both on your plate.

Remember this, as it will serve you well life: it's easy to throw rocks at the bull when you're not in the ring.
 
Chockstock said:
and Bush and his Administration lied to the country about Iraq!
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, and Obama and his Administration has lied about absolutely nothing (health care bill ring a bell?). :rolleyes:

No offense, but was a single sentence in your last post a thought of your own? Because its almost verbatim the lectures I had to hear from teachers all throughout high school as they bashed the military and the government. And considering Luigi has been on this Earth longer then either of us, he probably doesn't need the enlightening...although I do think maybe you need to open your eyes a little wider, you seem a bit blinded.

But anyway back to the budget cuts, this obviously effects manpower and personnel. I know that they have put a freeze on Cape May recruitment until November but what does that mean for those at the Academy or those going through OCS? Could it become a similar situation to the one at USAFA where you graduate but don't receive a commission?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top