Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
LI BeachRat

The gutting of the US military

Rate this topic

52 posts in this topic

Really. You wingers are not in command of many facts are you?

W-T-F  is this??, a pro American post by nippy .....holy sh*t .....  :drool:

always knew you had it in you .....somewhere     :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dena, Gotcow, here's a tribute to the pervasive commercial spyware world in which we live.  The first banner ad on SOL when I opened it a few minutes ago (10:17 p.m. EST) was a Lockheed ad touting the virtues of the F-35.  Discuss the airplane here, immediately get a virtual publicity blurb.  Amazing and creepy.  Did you get that too?

It might've come to me because the computers know I'm a daily visitor to Aviation Week, but it's interesting that it came up here for the first time.

 

 

LIBeachRat, the implacability of the ignorance on which you base your opinions is a thing of wonder.  You're implacably committed to whatever half-assed justifications for your pet hatreds you can find. Nonetheless, let's address that post and keynote a few items.

 

"After WWll the military was cut to 700,000. Than Korean war broke out and the country was in trouble. We went into Korea with some weapons even from WWl and left overs from WWll. The North even had better Jets."

 

Briefly, ( I was right about the BEGINNING ) and not by much, and largely due to the sentimental stupidity of the Labor government in the UK and the gift to the USSR of the design of what was then the best aircraft engine in the west, the Spey. That government really was strongly influenced by Communism,( along with the communist in the USA ) and a keen awareness that the USSR had done so much of the bleeding in WW II.

 

Let me fill you in on something.  The F-86 ( you left out the P-80, why ? ) had a kill ratio of between 7 to 1 and 14 to 1 vis-a-vis the Mig-15, once it was deployed.( but till the F-86 the P-80's got their butts kicked )

 

"We got our butts kicked in the beginning."

 

Yes, we did. ( so I'm wrong or right ) We had a nuclear monopoly at the time, and there was a widespread, popular notion that war had become impossible. We weren't prepared; we didn't see it coming; and postwar military shrinkage was very much at popular demand.  It happened with bipartisan support. The country did want its' peace dividend.

 

"Yes I know you Leftist loved it."

 

Consider increasing your medications. Nobody loved it. ( come on now, need I remind you of the Progressive Leftist ROSENBURGS? )

 

"Which seems to be the whole idea of Progressives. Wilson had stripped the military to the point we had to use weapons supplied by France, going into WWl."

 

The GOP of the turn of the century led opposition, felt by most Americans, to any significant military budget. Our last significant military experience had been the Spanish-American War, hardly a contest with a peer opponent.  We felt safe behind oceans on each side of the continent.  Republican loathing of military expenditures accurately reflected American sentiment at the time; we weren't threatened by anything more than Pancho Villa, why bother? Being semi-disarmed was genuinely popular.  The Great White Fleet championed by Teddy Roosevelt (did you know he was a liberal Republican? That there were such things then?) was getting old. Military un-readiness was not foisted by dastardly liberals upon an America that wanted a better military. There was virtually zero support, in either party, for anything more. ( Was Wilson a Progressive or not ? )

 

"Just before WWll, FDR and Leftist ( remember "scholarships not battleships" ) had the military doing maneuvers with wooden guns. "

 

You had a post on this previously, do you remember ?  You posted a photo of the M1903 Springfield and denounced it as an inadequate ( not inadequate, only what was available )weapon foisted by liberals upon GIs in WW II.  The M1903 was, in fact, a perfectly decent Mauser knockoff ( yes it was, knocked off pre WWl, have one, shots great but no M1 ), made to excellent build quality standards. You'd be hard put to find an owner who doesn't enjoy it. That said, the M1903 was also largely irrelevant to WW II.  The M1 Garand rifle, the best battle rifle of WW II, was the weapon carried by most GIs.  (General Patton called the Garand the best individual weapon ever devised.)  The wooden guns were indeed used for drills, ( so again I was right, wooden guns were used along with trucks marked as tanks and flower shacks as bombs dropped from planes ) between the wars, because Congress was utterly unwilling to spend money for real ones.  And the opposition to re-armament, BeachRat, was led by people like you. The GOP had pegged FDR as a Bolshevik as soon as the first minimum-wage laws were passed, and saw Comintern agents lurking under every bed and in every proposal to borrow money with which to build capital ships.  Deficits were Bolshevik tools to bring the Red Terror to America!  (The Republican Party is consistent: the same old whine in periodically re-dated bottles). Everything that FDR sought to do to deter war, and be ready to deal with it if and when it happened, was fought tooth and nail by the naive, the stupid, and the Republicans.

 

Put crudely, WW II was won despite the pre-war Republican party's best efforts to avoid preparing for it. 

 

 "So Russia and China doubling their forces and we cut. Usual Progressive thinking. They tried changing the language to German twice, Chinese/Korean once. Since that didn't work, they now are counting on Russia or China again."

 

 That last quote is incoherent, but I think, tentatively, that what you mean is that leftists tried to help the Germans beat America twice and now are trying to help Russia or China do so now.  In fact, containment of the Soviet Union began with a Democratic Administration, under Truman. ( excuse me but wasn't it FDR who gave away eastern Europe to Stalin? )

 

"And lets not forget who really won the Vietnam war, the same Progressives quislings American haters who've been at it since Wilson." 

 

The Vietnam War was a failure ( no it was not, after Tet, the VC were all but none existent, and the bombing of the North would have ended it but for collage Leftist anti American propaganda ) started and expanded by two Democratic Presidents with the full support of the GOP.  They shared a common belief in a domino theory of Communist expansion; Johnson in particular totally failed to understand the war they were in, or their inability to create an anti-Communist government and a free market economy out of a civil war in a French colony. I would say Johnson had no grasp of war at all, Vietnam or otherwise, and neither did the people who advised him in his Cabinet or supported him in Congress.  That support, alas, was bipartisan. It was absolutely a failed war, and it fell to President Nixon to get us out.  The "Progressive quisling American haters who've been at it since Wilson" is a gaudy figment of your imagination; the failure was born out of common, received wisdom shared by both parties that was totally wrong. I'll say this, though - liberals learned a great deal more from failed nation-building in Vietnam than Republicans have been willing to do.

 

We now have a war of generations, in the Middle East.  The decision to initiate it was made by the second President Bush, one of yours, BeachRat.  He started it and wasn't willing to ask for the national effort needed to bring it to a decisive resolution: that would have required a bigger military effort than was compatible with his desire to cut taxes for that treasured, so-oppressed 1%.  Through his ineptitude, bin Laden won his war.  Usama bin Laden lived long enough to make world jihad, including the murder of Westerners and Americans in particular, a near-universal tenet of violent Islam.  Before bin Laden, every Muslim country had plenty of semi-psychotic insurgents who periodically murdered their neighbors, but they were a chronic local problem. ( Obama had no hand in creating Isis ? )  Now, they're ours.  We have allowed the ideology of the people who brought us 9/11 to metastasize into a war that doesn't have an end game, just an endless series of defensive and limited pre-emptive moves. Our enemy has the strategic initiative, and it's all due to you and yours, BeachRat.

 

Stand up and take a bow.

 

 

Love your Leftist Marxist historical revisionism. Our leftist collages are doing a great job turning out top rated propagandist.

Edited by LI BeachRat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love your Leftist Marxist historical revisionism. Our leftist collages are doing a great job turning out top rated propagandist.

You give us your interpretation of history, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love your Leftist Marxist historical revisionism. Our leftist collages are doing a great job turning out top rated propagandist.

 

Disregarding his comments about you, he's right.

 

Other than Lichum, I consider Brian one of the most knowledgeable posters here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregarding his comments about you, he's right.

 

Other than Lichum, I consider Brian one of the most knowledgeable posters here.

 

I concur. But let us not forget our erstwhile fishweewee. He ain't exactly an intellectual slouch.

 

The 40,000 man cut to the Army will be outside of the sequester cuts, and are likely unwise, IMO.

 

As to our straight wing jet inferiority in the Korean War, some of that was compensated for by our superior pilots. I seem to recall a Medal of Honor being awarded to a Navy pilot of an F9F Grumman Panther for shooting down 3 or 4 Russkie Mig-15's near Vladivostok in late 1952(?).

 

Most of those enemy Mig-15's were flown by Russians, not North Koreans or Chinese.

 

Also, while the M1 Garand was a fine  battle rifle in WWII, in comparison to most of its competition, the German StG 44  may have eclipsed it. The AK-47 was a direct rip-off of the 44, and our enhanced Garand, the M-14, paled in comparison, for Close Quarters Combat.

 

Most German military equipment was superior to ours, but not enough to make a difference in the eventual outcome.

 

(We still haven't come up with a superior machine gun to the German MG-34/42, which is still made as the MG-3, for the German Bundeswehr, although the Belgian FN-MAG we use is a damn fine weapon. :th:)

 

Next to these few minor quibbles, I find little fault with Brian's posts on this matter, although I'm very uncomfortable with the Army's cuts to its ground pounders in these tenuous times. Ill timed and unfortuitous, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the cuts, we're in agreement.  As to the StG44, it came along late in the war and was only produced in limited numbers; there never were enough to make a standard battle rifle of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love your Leftist Marxist historical revisionism. Our leftist collages are doing a great job turning out top rated propagandist.

 

 

Perhaps one of the funniest of the ironic posts in PG history.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.