Fake Turkey Photo-Op?

Day before yesterday. Dallas Morning News carried the story.

ARMY TO HIT LOW FOR READINESS
"Four Army Divisions - 40 percent of the active-duty force - won't be fully ready for combat for up to six months next year, leaving the nation short in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or eleswhere, an Army official said Friday."</font>[/QUOTE]You obviously skipped over the part that said, "The four divisions in question - the 3rd Infantry Division, the 101st Airborne Division, the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Armored Division - all were at the highest rating for combat, known in Army circles as C-1, when they went to Iraq during the past year...

...The lower readiness levels are expected to last from four to six months, partly because of the repair and replacement of equipment, such as the divisions' hundreds of helicopters and thousands of tanks, Humvees and other vehicles.

Also, troops have to be retrained in their required combat skills, such as firing tank rounds. For the occupation duty in Iraq, some soldiers have traded their tanks for Humvees to patrol Iraqi streets. Now they must become proficient again at their usual military jobs.

Another factor is that, after one-year duty in Iraq, the soldiers need time off to spend with their families, the official said. Moreover, the 101st Airborne and the 3rd Infantry divisions are each being reorganized from three brigades to four or five brigades as part of an Army experiment to increase the combat power of the divisions. That reorganization will also affect readiness.

The official likened the rebuilding of the military equipment to a 50,000-mile checkup on the family car, an effort to "extend the life" of tanks and helicopters. But the official noted that the tanks and helicopters are operating, and that the soldiers from the divisions could be sent overseas to a potential hotspot such as Korea.

So here, in the portion of the article you conveniently left out, we see that the reduction in readiness isn't related to neglect on the part of the Bush Administration but simply a period of resupply, more training and a chance for the soldiers to catch their breath, all of which is perfectly normal after coming off a long term deployment.

Next time you quote an article, please don't insult our intelligence by quoting it so grossly out of context. It's just too easy to find it now with computers and show that you were lying.

[qb]

I guess you missed the part of the article where he said, "the soldiers from the divisions could be sent overseas to a potential hotspot such as Korea.

If something happened somewhere else, we would send them,"

I guess you also missed Michael O'Hanlon's quote in the article: "Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said there was no cause for alarm with the Army's decreased combat worthiness.

"While the readiness ratings are 'worth watching, they can be somewhat arbitrary and misleading. For example, a few dozen broken tanks might lower a division's rating. Those tanks could likely be fixed quickly in an emergency".

Again, you're taking us for a bunch of idiots. As anyone who takes the time to read the article for themselves can plainly see, the article explains that C-3 or C-$ does not mean that they aren't ready to fight in a major regional war, but that "said the divisions will slip to C-3, meaning the unit "may need help" completing its mission, or C-4, defined as being able to complete "some or little" of their combat mission. In fact, the spokesman goes on to say, ""If something happened somewhere else, we would send them," the official said. "There's risk [but] it's a manageable risk."

And as I've explained to you already, and as would be clear to anyone who actually takes the time to read the article, these things are not due to neglect on the part of the Bush Admin, but as a natural result of the regrouping process that takes place after any long term deployment. Or, as the spokesman says in the article, "It's a fact of life".

Oh, so then the fact that it had nothing to do with base closings proves that it was all about base closings. Interesting logic.

Ah, yes, the old Haliburton conspiracy theories. Right up there with Ruby Ridge and "black helicopters." You've been listening to a little too much Art Bell.

Hackworth may have a point, had this had anything even remotely to do with base closings but there's a bigger issue here, since you brought it up. Hackworth says that the 4 bil is enough to "maintain four 15,000-person combat divisions at a razor's edge of preparedness", yet, as we see from the information I provided, coming, with two exeptions, from Clinton's own people, not only were they not "at a razor's edge of preparedness", they were in shambles.

What happened to that "razor's edge of preparedness"?

I know you think you're being cute and that we're supposed to understand that you mean Bush here, but, as you can see from the Hackworth piece you quoted this was all supposed to have happened six years before Bush even took office.

Sorry, but as the information I gave you clearly shows, it has nothing to do with base closings.

Actually, I haven't. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Actually, it's not a slur against them at all, but lamenting the fact that Clinton would send our brave men and women into harm's way (when there weren't even American interests there) and then allow the military that they depended on for theur saftey and very lives to fall into what his own people described as a state of disrepair.

Oh, so then basically what you're saying is that we're the tallest midget in the circus: we might have have crappy equipment, but their was crappier.

Honestly? It took four requests for you to post that article and then when you did, you posted it grossly out of context and we found that it didn't say anything resembling what you wanted us to believe it did, so I'm not holding my breath.

See above. You got caught taking that article woefully out of context in order to prop us your failing argument.

Actually, I said nothing about base closings. In fact, I've pointed out (and anyone can see this from the information I've posted) that it's not about base closings. The stats and statement's from Clinton's own spokespeople say that we're talking about day to day operational budgets.

Look, you can bang the "base closing" drum all you want. In fact, please do. It just shows that your argument is so weak that you have to introduce non-sequiter into the argument to distract is from your failure to bac kup your position.

I believe this is what is called "lying". I've never said anything about the Balkans and anyone who reads my posts can see this. Once again, you've been caught.

You haven't demonstrated that "twice as many divisions unprepared". According to the article you posted, the spokesman calls this routine maintenance. In fact, he goes on to describe it as nothing more serious than the military equivilent of a "50,000 mile checkup on the family car".

[ December 11, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

And your source said that the two divisions under Clinton were not at readiness because of their time in the Balkans.

This is a perfect example of the way you fool yourself about things like this. Essentially, they are the same thing, except that Bush's case made it impossible for us to fight a major regional war in the next few months, should one erupt.

Why so much longer than usual? Because the material and training are not in the pipleline. Bush is eating the seed corn.

 

I'd still like to know how Mike McK gets useful government statistics in his phone bill.

 

I invite anyone who's interested to read my posts and compare them with your posts to see who's fooling themselves.

So far, I've come up with many different sources from Clinton's own people and can easily come up with many more, if I thought you would listen to them.

All you've done is presented one article which, when examined, says none of the things you said it did.

 

So, in the end, you're griping about 2 divisions below readiness because (as you admit) they were just back from a deployment.

On the other hand, you're excusing 4 divisions being below readiness because they were back from Iraq.

Reeks of double-standard, it does.

Why not just admit that it's another case of selective outrage?

 

First of all, I didn't "admit" anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth or credit statements to me that I never made.

Second, as I said, I'll simply invite people to read your posts and read my posts and see for themselves.

 

Here's the real test.

Ask the NCO's who've been on active duty during both the Clinton and Bush terms.

Which Commander in Chief would you rather fight a war under? George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?

 

Here's a better one. As the ones actually involved in combat, which weapons systems they think were most effective.

Most NCOs are career military people, accustomed to top-down control. They are trained not to think about orders, but to execute them.

Such people tend to be conservatives. Asking them about the effects of each president, rather than their personal preferences screens that bias.

 

Barbarian observes:
So, in the end, you're griping about 2 divisions below readiness because (as you admit) they were just back from a deployment.

On the other hand, you're excusing 4 divisions being below readiness because they were back from Iraq.

Reeks of double-standard, it does.

Why not just admit that it's another case of selective outrage?

Sure you did. The "evidence" you posted said exactly that. Are you now telling me your "evidence" is wrong?

Perhaps when you cut and pasted this stuff you didn't read it completely. Go back and take a look.

I think that's a good idea. But you might want to go read it yourself.

 

There's a very large difference between you taking the information I provided grossly out of context in order to fool the folks here on Baptistboard (as you did with the article you referenced) and my supposedly having "admitted" to something I never said.

I did read it. The mere fact that you insist on saying that these statements refer to base closings show that I certainly read them more carefully than you did. I would suggest that you spend time reading your own sources so that you don't repeat the mistake you made with that article you referenced.

I have read it and going by the feedback I'm getting, others have read it, too.

 

Barbarian observes:
Sure you did. The "evidence" you posted said exactly that. Are you now telling me your "evidence" is wrong?

 

I served under Carter and Reagan. When the hostages were kidnapped, in Iran, in the late '70s, I kinda figured someday I'd be over there. But we were not allowed thru the Suez canal. When Reagan was sworn in, we were on our way, and as part of the Battlegroup CV66 America,(you name the group after the aircraft carrier you support), we were on our way to the Persian Gulf, and there was a sense of pride in what we were doing, and that the wimpyness of Carter was behind, and ol' Ronnie boy was going to fix it. BTW, we were the first battlegroup to cross the Suez, in '81, since the Vietnam war.

Here's a couple pictures of the ship, in the canal.
The day was May 6, 1981

PIC
PIC

The U.S., representin' in Allah's house. One of the proudest days of my life.

I'd serve under dubya' anyday.

 

Galatian, the Bible says not to answer a fool according to his own folly, so you're on your own on this one.

Again, I would just invite anyone who thinks you're telling the truth (which, judging by the feedback I'm getting, doesn't sound like many) to read your posts and compare them with my posts and see for themselves.

I would also point out that, although you keep saying that they're not ready to fight in a war, the spokesman from your own article says that they are.

You keep saying "the Army says this" and "the Army says that" but then you cite an article in which the Army says just the opposite.

I would also remind you that, according to your own article, the divisions you cite as not being ready are not "not ready", they are merely in a state of routine maintanence, such as is common after any long deployment. The spokesman in your article says that this is no more serious than the military equivilent of "a 50,000 mile check up on the family car".

Contrast this with the descriptions of the Clinton era military by Clinton's own people, which describe the military as being in a shambles. Blame it on the Balkans, blame it on base closings, blame it on Bush. Heck, blame it on the bossa nova for all I care. It just makes you look foolish when people read these things for themselves and see that you're not telling the truth.

The fact that you've taken the sources I've cited out of context and lied outright about what they said, taken your own article out of context and lied about what it said, cited an article by David Hackworth about an event that occured six years before Bush and then you still tried to blame it on Bush makes a better argument against you than I ever could. And the fact that you have lied about me, put words in my mouth and taken my words out of context tells me that it was foolish of me to think that you could be reasoned with.

 

Matthew 5:22"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

I would particularly ask them to note how you think that two divisions, coming back from deployment, being unready is terrible under Clinton, but four of them under Bush is just fine.

It says that the US will not be able to fight a major regional war for the next six months. That sounds to me as though it means that we won't be able to fight a major regional war for the next six months.

Nope.

Yep. Precisely as it was with the two divisions coming back from the Balkans. Are you beginning to realize what you did here?

Obviously, you have a great deal of trouble with people who disagree with you. Maybe it is best if you don't try from now on.

 

Bro. Curtis,

Kinda makes you proud they named an aircraft carrier after Ronnie, doesn't it?

 

Probably should have named a federal prison for him instead. After all, a record number of his appointees ended up there.

 

Look for the usual suspects--they are never happy unless they are unhappy--on these boards to complain next that there is an artificial (fake) Christmas tree at the Baghdad airport.

 

And while we are on the subject of fake and phoney liberal comments on the Baptist Board, where was even "fake" outrage from the lefties here about Macy's Department Store "fake" in their Christmas Parade?

Yes, that homosexual transvestive dressed as Mrs. Santa Claus in the New York City Christmas Parade was a "fake" lady, liberals.

Or are plastic centerpieces in a combat war zone more troublesome to the lefties than female impersonators at a children's festival?

 

So there is no outrage over Macy's Department Store. Having a rich department store betray your children is not a serious as a picture of a turkey.

Liberals evidently do think that there is good in everyone--even homosexual transvestites at a children's Christmas party.