How Can Anyone Think The US Military Is Doing a Good Job?

[Swamp Fox]

What, are you a freakin' parrot? You've been KILLED on this more than a few times. Everyone that's wanted a piece of your ass has had one; yet, you keep posting the same baseless bullshit.

YOU are a major disaster.

At least he's consistent. Got to give him that. Stupid, but consistent.

 

[Gunny]

Individual Augmentation (IA). Navy (and even some Air Force) are augmenting Army/Marine units in support for the war. Some of the traditional Army roles are being filled by primarily Navy personnel. No, they aren't sending sailors into hardcore combat units, but they are sending them into Civil Affairs units and more of the protective type missions. Civil Affairs work with the public in an area to find out what their needs are.

There are plenty of jobs doing the basic things as well, admin/personnel type stuff. Each Sailor that goes IA keeps one more Soldier or Marine from doing a third or fourth tour overseas. They have been bearing the brunt of the deployments no doubt, here is how sailors are doing their part for them.
Augmenting is adding to, not filling in for.

Now as any Sailor or Marine will tell you the Marines have Navy Hospital Corpsmen assigned to their combat units. Both are very protective of the other.
That's what is being done as a team.

As for "And for the sake of debate, what do you think they're doing terribly?"
A feeble attempt to get others to join your temper tantrum.

Not sure what you did in the Navy. Doesn't sound like you were on a gator freighter. The ARG itself is the Navy Marine Corps team. The MEU, which makes up part of the ARG, is and LHD and two LPDs. We also pick up a guided missile cruiser when we get into the Arabian Sea.

All of our support when deployed ashore comes from the ships, as well as the aforementioned Corpsmen, and the MEDEVAC bird is Navy.

it's a complete team effort and neither of us would have a job without the other.

The Good Sheptards problem is he's still got Similac on his lips and trying hard to prove it.

 

[Gunny]

At least he's consistent. Got to give him that. Stupid, but consistent.

Yeah, numbnuts keeps calling for the draft while he's primo draft age. With a mouth like his can you hear "Hey you, shetard ... you got point ... again."

 

[Swamp Fox]

Yeah, numbnuts keeps calling for the draft while he's primo draft age. With a mouth like his can you hear "Hey you, shetard ... you got point ... again."

Someone would knife him quiet like and leave him to die in the woods.

 

[Lucky Man]

Not sure what you did in the Navy. Doesn't sound like you were on a gator freighter. The ARG itself is the Navy Marine Corps team. The MEU, which makes up part of the ARG, is and LHD and two LPDs. We also pick up a guided missile cruiser when we get into the Arabian Sea.

All of our support when deployed ashore comes from the ships, as well as the aforementioned Corpsmen, and the MEDEVAC bird is Navy.

it's a complete team effort and neither of us would have a job without the other.

The Good Sheptards problem is he's still got Similac on his lips and trying hard to prove it.

Gunny, I was an airdale my primary job was wortking on the egress, oxygen and environmental systems.
My military career was cut short due to epilepsy so I never had an opportunity for IA assignments.
I try to stay current on whats happening in the Navy and the "sandbox Sailors" are doing a great job.

I find it somewhat humorous TGS has two threads going bashing the military yet he's the only rat on that sinking ship.
He must like spreading peanut butter with a feather too.

 

[BrianH]

Gunny, I was an airdale my primary job was wortking on the egress, oxygen and environmental systems.
My military career was cut short due to epilepsy so I never had an opportunity for IA assignments.
I try to stay current on whats happening in the Navy and the "sandbox Sailors" are doing a great job.

I find it somewhat humorous TGS has two threads going bashing the military yet he's the only rat on that sinking ship.
He must like spreading peanut butter with a feather too.

TGS must be getting used to being on a sinking ship. He's posted numerous threads where his own "evidence" doesn't back up his conclusion.
Just post some pictures of his best friend Al Gore. I prefer the photoshopped ones.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, I was an airdale my primary job was wortking on the egress, oxygen and environmental systems.
My military career was cut short due to epilepsy so I never had an opportunity for IA assignments.
I try to stay current on whats happening in the Navy and the "sandbox Sailors" are doing a great job.

I find it somewhat humorous TGS has two threads going bashing the military yet he's the only rat on that sinking ship.
He must like spreading peanut butter with a feather too.

He's a smarmy college puke who wouldn't know a butterknife from a bayonet if you laid them in front of him with labels taped to each.

 

[BrianH]

He's a smarmy college puke who wouldn't know a butterknife from a bayonet if you laid them in front of him with labels taped to each.

And he's in love with "peer-reviewed journals." He thinks they're the world's lifeline and that everything in them must be true and the law of the land. "Well peer-review journals suggest..." blah blah blah. I've yet to see The Good Shepard bring a good discussion to the table. He's brought good topics, but horrible debate...I kind of like it though. It makes it easier for everyone else.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Not a soul could provide concrete evidence. Typical but rather expected.

I guess claiming you "beat" someone qualifies as substance to the wing nuts of the board.

Again, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

 

[BrianH]

Not a soul could provide concrete evidence. Typical but rather expected.

I guess claiming you "beat" someone qualifies as substance to the wing nuts of the board.

Again, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

Yeah ok ....the most powerful and effective "disaster" on the face of the earth.......

Continue to run your obstacle course TGS....

For the record, it's not a claim. Many on these message board have owned your ass a time or two. It's not that difficult. Hell, it just takes a man to admit it. I'll admit that I've been owned a few times, and have even admitted mistakes. Why don't you just admit that your claim is an opinion that you can't fully prove or back up.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Many on these message board have owned your ass a time or two. .

I guess claiming you "beat" or "owned" someone qualifies as substance to the wing nuts of the board.

Typical tactic of the ill-informed and lazy.

 

[Gunny]

I guess claiming you "beat" or "owned" someone qualifies as substance to the wing nuts of the board.

Typical tactic of the ill-informed and lazy.

About time you confessed your sins. Your accusations are just about dictionary-definition ill-informed and lazy. The information is available. You really ought to consider making use of it PRIOR to running your suck, junior.

 

[BrianH]

I guess claiming you "beat" or "owned" someone qualifies as substance to the wing nuts of the board.

Typical tactic of the ill-informed and lazy.

The "ill-informed and lazy" have run all up and down your ass on your own threads. "Ill-informed and lazy" describes your meager attempts to take information, and make a sloppy and loosley organized conclusion that, in no way, reflects the information. You've done it with this thread, you've done it with the global warming thread, and you've done it to the military draft thread....If we're "ill-informed and lazy", I couldn't imagine the adjectives we can use to describe you......welll maybe I could.

 

[BrianH]

I guess claiming you "beat" or "owned" someone qualifies as substance to the wing nuts of the board.

Typical tactic of the ill-informed and lazy.

And by the way, normal people, when they bring up an issue and state their opinion (especially on an internet message board), they intend on making their position known and proving that it's correct. So technically, when you've argued for weeks about your "position" and been proven wrong, you've been owned. It's not an objective by people of these boards, but is a nice perk....

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

And by the way, normal people, when they bring up an issue and state their opinion (especially on an internet message board), they intend on making their position known and proving that it's correct. So technically, when you've argued for weeks about your "position" and been proven wrong, you've been owned. It's not an objective by people of these boards, but is a nice perk....

How so?

 

[manifold]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I suggest you read the thread on quoting.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, concerning Irak:

There were significant errors, which were two fold:

1: Political interference in the way the operation was commenced. For example AFAIK leading Generals demanded more troops (as according to some standart doctrines for controlling possibly insurgent countries), even before the war started. Unfortunatly, Rumsfeld was dead set off occupying Irak with much less than conventional military assumptions would imply. Also, there were political "taboos" on cooperating with certain Iraki elements on ideological/politcal grounds, f.e. in the Anbar region cooperation with various Sheiks was limited due to political/ideological ("Tribal Scheiks are not a part of Iraks Democratic future") considerations. Needless to say, the security situation really improved when this considerations where no longer thought to be valid.

The biggest errors where made in the beginning, however, the bad decision to disband Iraks army (Yay, lets create 300K unemployed persons who are armed with assault rifles) or to heavily persecute low to midgrade Baathists were also a politically motivated.

There were mistakes on the level of the military, Abu Ghraib could have been avoided with better training and more competent leadership. Also, some "tactics" employed in the beginning likely had a very bad effect on the overall situation. "Wound checking" assumed "Terrorists" in front of Cameras will simply create many more terrorists than it would possibly kill, apart from beeing stupid and a warcrime.

All in all, the US militarys performance seems to be "normal" at the present. In general, insurgencys filled by religious motives are a bitch to deal with, especially if the local gouverment is unstable and the insurgents receive foreign support.

 

[OohRah Mama]

Wow. Quite a compilation of points and opinions. I'm a bit skeered to jump in. But that's never stopped me much before.

I have two combat-vet Jarhead sons. One enlisted before 9/11/01, the other after. One just got sucked out of IRR to be redeployed. They knew they had signed up voluntarily, and for a minimum of eight years, so you won't hear them bitchnmoan (well, any more that Marines usually do - it's a favorite pasttime). They are also are 180 degrees apart in political philosophy and their views on the war in Iraq. One despises both our presence in Iraq and the politicians who sent him & his brothers there. The other feels we belong there and believes that those politicians had our national safety at heart. Both fought for their Brothers and completed the mission they were given.

How anyone on earth can equate Presidential policy with military performance is beyond my scope of understanding. And it's that sort of convoluted "logic" that makes me thrilled that my boys don't have people who think that way watching their six. I hope.

It's much too simplistic to think that military service automatically denotes agreement with the official political decisions that directs them.

Please separate the ones who fight, from the ones who send them to fight.

 

[Odd1_Out]

It isn't that our military isn't doing a good job, it's that the job they are being sent to do isn't a very good one. We're just occupying Iraq now, and while they may still need our help, we shouldn't have had to stay there for as long as we have. That, and the fallacious pretenses that this war was started over, are the reasons that the job our military is doing is being criticized.