Comments Posted By SShiell
Displaying 111 To 120 Of 223 Comments
52 SECONDS OF VIDEO OF OBAMA'S PLAN FOR UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT
“Slowing down current weapons projects only makes them more expensive over the long term”
An example is the B-1 (Bone). The Bone development began prior to the Carter Administration. It was to be the B-52 Replacement but the cost at the time was a whopping $85 Million for 250 of the aircraft. Carter cancelled the program at the point where limited production was to begin.
Fast Forward to the Reagan Administration. The Bone was revived but with major differences, hence the designation B-1B. And the differences made the aircraft a shadow of its fromer self - with the cost topping out at over $275 Million a copy. With that pricetag, only 100 were purchased for what previously would have cost for the original 250. Today all but a very few have been sent to the boneyard (pardon the pun).
Why are they gone already? As I said, the B-1B was a shadow of its fromer self. What was to be a supersonic bomber, became supersonic only in a very narrow flight range. What was to have been an offensive dynamo was limited by reductions in offensive capabilities. Why? Cost. Reagan cut a deal with Congress to produce only as many Bones as the original program would have cost - hence only 100 were purchased with reduced capabilities.
Had the original B-1 been purchased, I have no doubt that they would still be in the inventory - a couple of hundred of them at least.
Need another example?
Comment Posted By SShiell On 21.05.2008 @ 10:51
"An Obama presidency would be disastrous…but I can’t see how it’ll come to that."
I remember hearing the same thing about Jimmy Carter.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 21.05.2008 @ 09:57
There are two minor winners in the Democratic race continuing on to the convention.
First: The Media. Hillary and Obama spent upwards of $20 million in Pennsylvania and the Media loved it. Merry Christmas.
Second: John McCain. While Hilary and Obama mud wrestle for the Democratic nomination, McCain can spend his time looking Presidential.
There is a Major winner in all of this and that is the people. For the first time in a lot of years, people's eyes have been opened regarding the blatant bias of the media - this time shilling for the Messiah, Obama. It won't take but a minor leap of faith to see the same this fall. When one Democrat comes out of the bloody fray, MSM will fall in lock step behind the Dem candidate and the folks will be able from that point on to contine to see their blatant bias.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 24.04.2008 @ 15:51
"So the thought of torturing or advocating shooting completely innocent people, rather than give you even the slightest pause, compels you to make a joke?"
No, I paused for a moment. For you to get your knickers in a wad becasue 3 people got waterboarded is the joke.
"Kill the ba$tards becuase they’re murderers, and if they’re not then murder them anyway because . . . hell, I guess no reason really. I just likes me sum killin!"
No. I pointed out that the GC does not recognize rights for combattants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. The Taliban and Al Quaeda are not nation states. Therefore the Geneva Convention protections do not apply to them. Notice the word "Combatants" - I did not say civilians.
"You live your life the way you want to, and believe what you want to, but I have to tell you that’s pretty disgusting."
I will and I give not one sh*t at what you find disgusting.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 12.04.2008 @ 09:31
"If they are not sabotuers, then just pumping lead into them is illegal, war or no, GC or no."
You are right. I forgot about the "Thou shalt not Litter" section. My Bad!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 11.04.2008 @ 23:17
Busboy 33
Scrapiron said: "The Geneva convention was never violated, as a fact if we followed it we would have no prisoners. All of them would have been tried on the battlefield and shot. That would be IAW international law.”
You said: "That’s one of the silliest things I’ve seen posted on this topic, on any board. I’d love to know what part of the GC says shoot people you didn’t capture fighting. Back this nonsensical phallus-waving up please."
Wikipedia (as a source) says: "The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states."
The Taliban and Al Quaeda are not nation states. Therefore the Geneva Convention protections do not apply to them. Scrapiron is correct - A summary Court Martial convened on the battlefield with an immediate execution of the verdict resulting in death by firing squad is perfectly legal by international standards.
That does not imply it is legal by US standards.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 11.04.2008 @ 11:27
"Code pinkos are not trying to get info thus are not torturing anyone."
Rick: Just to be argumentative - if US personnel were to waterboard someone just for the fun of it and not because they needed any information - it would be OK?
Sorry, Rick. That crap don't float. It is like saying you can't say the "N" word unless you are black. If someone is being waterboarded, the person is being waterboarded. Period!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 10.04.2008 @ 12:06
"They do not have the moral standing of a jackrabbit."
On behalf of all the jackrabbits in the world, I would like the opportunity to lodge this protest. To put jackrabbits, whose only sins are to have exceedingly long legs and ears and multiply copiously, in the same category as European Leftards is just plain wrong.
Shame, Shame, Shame.
/sarcasm off
Comment Posted By SShiell On 10.04.2008 @ 12:01
OK - pass the law. Put it into the books. Make it part of the US Code. Then what?
Pass all the laws you want to make an area a gun free zone. Did that help a single person at Virginia Tech?
The day waterboarding is needed, someone will step forward and do what is necessary. And they will do so with the full knowledge of what awaits them if their "crime" is discovered.
And when the results of their waterboarding is known, and people's lives are saved by the results - I am willing to bet there is not a jury in the country that will convict.
So, if it will make anybody feel safer. If it will make anybody feel better about themselves. Go ahead and pass whatever law you want regarding "torture"!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 3.04.2008 @ 15:06
Rick:
There are many reasons you put troops into a fight and one of them is to test them. Malicki has army and security troops in the south that are untested. The Surge and it's respective operations have concentrated in the West (Anbar province), the East (Diyala and associated provinces), in the North (toward Nineveh) and the associated regions around Baghdad. Drive out Al Qaeda was the primary emphasis.But the troops in the South, unless thay have been rotated in and out of the Surge operations, have not been tested. During the VN War, how many US Guard or Reserve Units were called up? Very few. And those that did suffered enormous drop-outs through retirement and resignation from within the unit's membership. The result was that in future conflicts, DOD resolved to ensure the Reserves took on their share of the burden. In more than one sense so as not to build an essentially hollow force. Malicki has to test the troops with these kinds of efforts to determine when and if they can stand up on their own. And you can run exercise after exercise and you will never determine you real capability until it is for real.
The second point I would like to make is don't be too quick to call this a lose for Malicki. Bill Roggio has some good points in his writeup. Some points I would like to make are as follows:
1. The Mahdi Army took some major hits during the operation. You don't lose 200 fighters a day and call that a win. As badly as the Iraqi Army may be, it definitely appears to be head and shoulders above the Sadrists.
2. Even though Malicki representatives went to Iran to broker a stand down of the Mahdi Army, the Iranians would never have agreed to support such a move unless the Sadr folks were taking a beating. You don't agree to a truce when you are winning.
3. Sadr has called for his troops to stand down, but the Iraqi Army continues its operations. That's a pretty strange defeat if you ask me.
4. And lastly, once again Sadr has shown he is "in the rear with the gear". Every time he does this, more and more of his troops can't help but ask themselves the Braveheart question, "Why am I fighting for him?"
I'm just saying . . .
Comment Posted By SShiell On 2.04.2008 @ 17:53
