xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, Zambroski said: No, I don't understand military assignments at all. It all just seems a bit bewildering to me. Well if you plan on slamming Obama for it, maybe you should... He has plenty of worthy things to be upset about with his handling of the military. No need to make up some narrative. It is just normal turnover... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Well if you plan on slamming Obama for it, maybe you should... He has plenty of worthy things to be upset about with his handling of the military. No need to make up some narrative. It is just normal turnover... Oh, my bad, maybe you are right. I guess I wonder why so many generals have presided over that area under Obama? Isn't it a bit more than usual in that position? Edited August 22, 2016 by Zambroski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 45 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Oh, my bad, maybe you are right. I guess I wonder why so many generals have presided over that area under Obama? Isn't it a bit more than usual in that position? Not really. ISAF for example was on a year and a half basis for W too. Obama did have two Generals who really fucked up PR wise. McC and Petraeus. When you fuck up like that you deserve the boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 30 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Not really. ISAF for example was on a year and a half basis for W too. Obama did have two Generals who really fucked up PR wise. McC and Petraeus. When you fuck up like that you deserve the boot. Yeah, but ISAF was NATO coalition idiocy, but still with a somewhat clear mission (if not maybe all legit). And even if it wasn’t, the forces reached over 160k under Bush, not the woefully inadequate and paltry number there now under Obama. Which, is much easier to command and control. As far as "turnover" goes, in the history of the US military, never has there been such an exodus of high ranking military officers. (General or Admiral level). Not only that, but the overall numbers of officers “squeezed” out or a popular term is “purged” under Obama is again at a ridiculously high level in our military history. The point I am trying to make (and make earlier in my posts) is that Obama is a woefully inadequate leader who has shown little or no respect at all for the military officers in which he commands, and, in return, is given the same appreciation. This is why his turnover in that region is higher than it should be….and not exactly all reported accurately either. This administration is looking for a “specific” brand of military agent. And they are having a helluva hard time finding one that will continue to work (obey) as they desire against their oaths and war knowledge/instincts. And that last line you had up there that I put in BOLD. YEP! Unless of course, you are a valued member of the current political "regime". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 The woefully inadequate and paltry number there now has a kill ratio of over 10,000 to 1, and has pushed isis out of 50% of the territory it once held. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 10 minutes ago, 1jkw said: The woefully inadequate and paltry number there now has a kill ratio of over 10,000 to 1, and has pushed isis out of 50% of the territory it once held. JESUS! Did you just make those numbers up for "dramatic effect"? Yes, let's go with that. Are you insane or just really giddy abut something this morning? I'm not going to do some math for you to show you the level of "kooky" those numbers really are...you can do that. Kill ratios have been officially "nixed" as a reasonable means of measuring success after Vietnam (for obvious reasons). It still a macho thing for Americans to boast about....but pretty irrelevant. Those numbers are always gonna be high since we own the air in any conflict. And 50% is super duper relative. Our enemy over there is not a traditional massive force. Don't get me wrong either...the amount of soldiers there doesn't belie their quality. The percentage and quality of highly trained soldiers left (and rotating) there now is way better than the massive buildups of years past which in a large part were basically trained forces and support troops. My point was, whatever "mission" these guys are trying to accomplish is being hindered by a poor supporting cast here in DC. And now that the "Ruskies" are digging in...we should leave it to them. It's their "backyard" and they don't have near the "Tom Fuckery" going on there as we do here. They are better lead and don't allow liberal "twattery" to inflict damage internally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, Zambroski said: JESUS! Did you just make those numbers up for "dramatic effect"? Yes, let's go with that. Are you insane or just really giddy abut something this morning? I'm not going to do some math for you to show you the level of "kooky" those numbers really are...you can do that. Kill ratios have been officially "nixed" as a reasonable means of measuring success after Vietnam (for obvious reasons). It still a macho thing for Americans to boast about....but pretty irrelevant. Those numbers are always gonna be high since we own the air in any conflict. And 50% is super duper relative. Our enemy over there is not a traditional massive force. Don't get me wrong either...the amount of soldiers there doesn't belie their quality. The percentage and quality of highly trained soldiers left (and rotating) there now is way better than the massive buildups of years past which in a large part were basically trained forces and support troops. My point was, whatever "mission" these guys are trying to accomplish is being hindered by a poor supporting cast here in DC. And now that the "Ruskies" are digging in...we should leave it to them. It's their "backyard" and they don't have near the "Tom Fuckery" going on there as we do here. They are better lead and don't allow liberal "twattery" to inflict damage internally. You are the guy who talks just to hear the sound of his own voice aren't you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) 1 minute ago, Momorider said: You are the guy who talks just to hear the sound of his own voice aren't you Well of course. But I don't read aloud while I type, so this isn't really that enjoyable. Edited August 22, 2016 by Zambroski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, Zambroski said: JESUS! Did you just make those numbers up for "dramatic effect"? Yes, let's go with that. Are you insane or just really giddy abut something this morning? I'm not going to do some math for you to show you the level of "kooky" those numbers really are...you can do that. Kill ratios have been officially "nixed" as a reasonable means of measuring success after Vietnam (for obvious reasons). It still a macho thing for Americans to boast about....but pretty irrelevant. Those numbers are always gonna be high since we own the air in any conflict. And 50% is super duper relative. Our enemy over there is not a traditional massive force. Don't get me wrong either...the amount of soldiers there doesn't belie their quality. The percentage and quality of highly trained soldiers left (and rotating) there now is way better than the massive buildups of years past which in a large part were basically trained forces and support troops. My point was, whatever "mission" these guys are trying to accomplish is being hindered by a poor supporting cast here in DC. And now that the "Ruskies" are digging in...we should leave it to them. It's their "backyard" and they don't have near the "Tom Fuckery" going on there as we do here. They are better lead and don't allow liberal "twattery" to inflict damage internally. Actually the number is near 45,000, I went with the lowest number I found. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace debunked the one arm tied behind the back meme, he said they investigated and found that the generals agreed with the ROI. I have no problem if we pulled out lock stock and barrel tomorrow, maybe the congress should pass a resolution to remove all troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Well of course. But I don't read aloud while I type, so this isn't really that enjoyable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Actually the number is near 45,000, I went with the lowest number I found. On Fox News Sunday, , he said they investigated and found that the generals agreed with the ROI. I have no problem if we pulled out lock stock and barrel tomorrow, maybe the congress should pass a resolution to remove all troops. Ok...I must be misunderstanding what you mean? I guess I don't know how your "kill ratios" are being calculated. Do you mean total enemy killed? A typical kill ratio is how many dead on the "bad side" vs. how many dead on ours (I know....not meaning to insult you though). I think that total is around 35:1 since 2003 in the Iraq/Afgan theater? Not sure. And not sure what the left alone Afgan kill ratio is at all. It's probably considerably more accurate though. Since the dead are easier to "kick". Not sure what meme you are talking about. You kinda lost me on this one..but that's cool. I'll see if I can find the episode. And I have to check but didn't we already pass that resolution? Or did O just say we were leaving and didn't quite get there? I'm fuzzy on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, Momorider said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 51 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Ok...I must be misunderstanding what you mean? I guess I don't know how your "kill ratios" are being calculated. Do you mean total enemy killed? A typical kill ratio is how many dead on the "bad side" vs. how many dead on ours (I know....not meaning to insult you though). I think that total is around 35:1 since 2003 in the Iraq/Afgan theater? Not sure. And not sure what the left alone Afgan kill ratio is at all. It's probably considerably more accurate though. Since the dead are easier to "kick". Not sure what meme you are talking about. You kinda lost me on this one..but that's cool. I'll see if I can find the episode. And I have to check but didn't we already pass that resolution? Or did O just say we were leaving and didn't quite get there? I'm fuzzy on that. I was talking isis in Iraq and Syria. We have lost 3 since the start against isis in Iraq. The latest claim is near 45,000 enemy killed, I picked the lowest estimate found at 30,000, pick any number you like, lets say 10,000 bad guys and 3 of ours, 3 too many but still good odds. I assumed you were talking Iraq as Bush never had anywhere near 160,000 troops in Afghanistan, I don't think W ever had more than 30,000 there. The meme was in reference to isis in Iraq as well. As far as Afghanistan, the danger you state the low number of troops poses to our troops just doesn't add up, we have lost 5 so far in 2016, way to many but the lowest number since the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Hey, all a good convo here. But my hang up is still the "kill ratio" numbers. I haven't checked on the web cause I'm on my shitty phone and I hate trying to research on it. However, no matter how I try and figure it with those numbers, I can't make it work for me. Also, we should probably start drawing a distinction between Iraq and Afghan and dates also if we are going to be more clear with each other. I'll circle back to this later....got some horse shit to take care of this afternoon. Hey, between us, we can probably sort this whole thing out for the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 On 8/21/2016 at 6:57 PM, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Yes, really... Do understand military assignments? I mean this isn't subjective, it is fact. Hey XLT good to see you here! So on a lighter note how's is the golf game going in the heart of Wiscony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 13 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said: Hey XLT good to see you here! So on a lighter note how's is the golf game going in the heart of Wiscony? I haven't done much all summer. Been working too hard. New house. The normal excuses for stripping away a man's enjoyment and sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: I haven't done much all summer. Been working too hard. New house. The normal excuses for stripping away a man's enjoyment and sanity. If it were the old days would you be happy living off the land with a great wife and kids...growing your own food and hunting and fishing but really no toys because it would be the late 1800's..would you be happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 10 hours ago, Capt.Storm said: If it were the old days would you be happy living off the land with a great wife and kids...growing your own food and hunting and fishing but really no toys because it would be the late 1800's..would you be happy? No... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted August 24, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted August 24, 2016 10 hours ago, Capt.Storm said: If it were the old days would you be happy living off the land with a great wife and kids...growing your own food and hunting and fishing but really no toys because it would be the late 1800's..would you be happy? No because then he couldn't come here and play the knowitall bearded hipster faggot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said: No because then he couldn't come here and play the knowitall bearded hipster faggot. Still in your head... That is sad. Hold my pocket, bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said: No because then he couldn't come here and play the knowitall bearded hipster faggot. Plus life expectancy in 1880 was about 42 so I don't know about you but I would be long dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted August 24, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted August 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Still in your head... That is sad. Hold my pocket, bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 1 minute ago, Biggie Smails said: ...Cant even do something new? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted August 24, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted August 24, 2016 23 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: ...Cant even do something new? Why when this is so appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 9 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: No... ok,i was just curious. 9 hours ago, Biggie Smails said: No because then he couldn't come here and play the knowitall bearded hipster faggot. past history here i see. 9 hours ago, Momorider said: Plus life expectancy in 1880 was about 42 so I don't know about you but I would be long dead momo,most people would rather take the 42 years rather then be you for 84. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.