News Military is pulling choppers out of the bone yard

[Smurf]

This is why I always say that if you need to invoke Clinton to defend Bush you lose everytime.

It's a fallicious argument. "You're worse so we're OK"

 

[Townsend]

It's a fallicious argument. "You're worse so we're OK"

Everything is relative to something else...

How do we know if we're better or worse unless we can compare it to something else? How do you know if your car is fast unless you know how fast other cars are?

Clearly it is not a fallacious argument.

 

[pattylou]

"You're worse so we're OK"

If the other argument is "You're *as bad* as us, so we're OK"

... Then the democrats are still the better party. In one situation the dems are marginally better. In the other, both parties are the same.

So the dems win. Nyah, nyah, nya nya, nyah.

 

[Smurf]

Everything is relative to something else...

How do we know if we're better or worse unless we can compare it to something else? How do you know if your car is fast unless you know how fast other cars are?

Clearly it is not a fallacious argument.

No, what I mean is it's a fallicious argument to use someone else's failure as an excuse for your own failure as well. i.e. Clinton didn't give adequate equipment to the troops, therefore it's okay that Bush isn't either. Or: Clinton didn't increase national security, therefore it's okay that Bush didn't either, thus allowing 9/11 to happen so easily.

 

[Skyhunter]

Everything is relative to something else...

How do we know if we're better or worse unless we can compare it to something else? How do you know if your car is fast unless you know how fast other cars are?

Clearly it is not a fallacious argument.

Wrong is wrong. If it was wrong for Clinton, it is wrong for Bush. If Clinton did not properly equip the troops, he was at fault, same standard applies to Bush. In other words, it is a fallacious argument.

 

[Townsend]

Wrong is wrong. If it was wrong for Clinton, it is wrong for Bush. If Clinton did not properly equip the troops, he was at fault, same standard applies to Bush. In other words, it is a fallacious argument.

Comparing things is not a fallacious argument...plain and simple. I can invoke whatever I like to use as a comparison to something else. That is all this is..

 

[kyleb]

It seems you missed Skyhunter's point.

 

[Townsend]

It seems you missed Skyhunter's point.

Or perhaps he missed mine...

In any case...wrong is not wrong like he was saying...wrong is only wrong if we have something to compare it to...there are also different degrees of wrong.

 

[kyleb]

Moral reltivism, eh? I have never been a fan of that.

 

[solutions in a box]

You just don't get it

No, but I remember when providing proper equipment for our troops in Somalia was un

That seems to be a standard reply to cover the mistakes of the Bush administration. It is getting a bit old, and a bit immature.

After the one incedent in Somalia Clinton's Secretary of defence resigned.

After years of mistakes in Iraq, Rumsfeld keeps insisting that he is doing a good job.

My niece joined the national guard during peacetime to get the college benifits. Her MOS was in computers, primarily designing web sites. With less than a year to go in her enlistment she received orders to go to Iraq.

Se had to leave her four month old baby behind and ended up driving a hillbilly armored humvee in Tikrit.

Her name is Gwen. She came home two months ago minus her left arm.

You conservatives should be so proud of your president. He sent a 24 year old new mother, who's only previous military experience had been in the computer feld,into a combat zone.

I could have possibly supported this had it been a case of national security. IT WAS NOT! By the time Gwen was sent to Iraq the WMD lies had been uncovered.

And don't hand me the old "that is war" bullcrap.
This is your war, go fight it youself you decrepit chicken hawks.

I can easily see the point of the first post in this thread. When I looked at that humvee in the link and it's bizarre positon below the protected wealthy trashy Paris Hilton. I was ashamed of what I saw.

I doubt many here will see or feel anything in that series of pictures.

 

[Skyhunter]

Or perhaps he missed mine...

In any case...wrong is not wrong like he was saying...wrong is only wrong if we have something to compare it to...there are also different degrees of wrong.

Are you suggesting that because Clinton didn't properly equip the troops n Somalia that it is OK for Bush not to properly equip the troops in Iraq?

Your right I miss your point whatever it is and see no relevance in your argument.

 

[Townsend]

Are you suggesting that because Clinton didn't properly equip the troops n Somalia that it is OK for Bush not to properly equip the troops in Iraq?

No

Your right I miss your point whatever it is and see no relevance in your argument.

My point is that it is not fallacious to make comparisons... I am suggesting that if Bush did something wrong but did it in a less wrong way then others in the past then it is in fact relevant and not fallacious to point it out.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't compare things to see what is good bad or somewhere in between? Are you saying that comparisons are somehow illogical?

 

[Skyhunter]

My point is that it is not fallacious to make comparisons... I am suggesting that if Bush did something wrong but did it in a less wrong way then others in the past then it is in fact relevant and not fallacious to point it out.

Thank you. I understand your point now.

However if you are going to compare the two there is no doubt that the current situation is far worse than Somalia. Clinton learned from the mistakes made in Somalia.

How many combat fatalities in the Balkans?

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't compare things to see what is good bad or somewhere in between? Are you saying that comparisons are somehow illogical?

No. I am saying that it is a waste of time and intellectually dishonest to try and divert the discussion from the present by bringing up the past in an effort to divert criticism from the current "president"!

 

[Townsend]

No. I am saying that it is a waste of time and intellectually dishonest to try and divert the discussion from the present by bringing up the past in an effort to divert criticism from the current "president"!

Yes, I can see that to some degree...

I was not really interested in that so much as I was just pointing out that certain arguments are not fallacious...

However I still have not hear any reasonable case to suggest that these helicopters cannot be made serviceable. Clearly they were put into preservation with the intention that if needed they could be brought back into service. What are the major disadvantages and advantages to restoring these helicopters?

After working as an aviation structural mechanic I can assure you that the depot guys will have those things looking and working like brand new. Not to mention all the testing they must pass well before they ever see a single flight.

The Navy and Marine Corps. use the 4790 and after having been a prior quality assurance qualified mechinic I feel that those aircraft will be upto snuff before they are ever used in combat...

 

[Townsend]

If anyone feels that these aircraft will not be upto par please take a look at
http://logistics.navair.navy.mil/4790/index.cfm

This is the manual that guides all Naval Aviation. Those aircraft will not fly unless they can do it in accordinace with the 4790...

 

[kyleb]

I'm fairly confident that the equipment will be restored to meet those guidelines, but I am still rather disappointed to see us digging though our junkyards to equip our military personal.

 

[solutions in a box]

Comparing things is not a fallacious argument...plain and simple. I can invoke whatever I like to use as a comparison to something else,

Quite apparently even oranges and apples.

 

[Townsend]

Quite apparently even oranges and apples.

Thank you solutions in a box for demonstrating for everyone what is in fact a fallacious argument. Now you can put your dunce cap back on and sit in the corner...

 

[Skyhunter]

If anyone feels that these aircraft will not be upto par please take a look at
http://logistics.navair.navy.mil/4790/index.cfm

This is the manual that guides all Naval Aviation. Those aircraft will not fly unless they can do it in accordinace with the 4790...

No doubt in my mind.

I was more concerned with them being obsolete rather than operable. I don't know enough about the helicoptors to offer an opinion. The "Hill Billy Hummers" on the other hand are something else.

 

[Townsend]

I was more concerned with them being obsolete rather than operable. I don't know enough about the helicoptors to offer an opinion. The "Hill Billy Hummers" on the other hand are something else.

I gather that their function would be more or less just to be operable. I don't expect they would be used in any kind of combat situation. Mostly just logistics...

 

[Yonoz]

I don't know enough about the helicoptors to offer an opinion. The "Hill Billy Hummers" on the other hand are something else.

Why are the hummers something else? Because they don't look well? Do you have any experience with vehicle armour?
As I've said earlier, simply because it's not painted doesn't mean it doesn't work well. The armour on these things is not meant to absorb direct hits by 7.62mm rounds. If you try and arm it against that, you either get an extremely big bill or a very heavy hummer.

 

[Yonoz]

I gather that their function would be more or less just to be operable. I don't expect they would be used in any kind of combat situation. Mostly just logistics...

Logistics can be just as dangerous. They will obviously be used to move troops and supplies in situations where it's preferrable not to use convoys. I don't think there's too many situations that answer this description that can not be described as combat.

 

[edward]

Why are the hummers something else? The armour on these things is not meant to absorb direct hits by 7.62mm rounds. If you try and arm it against that, you either get an extremely big bill or a very heavy hummer.

They are something else because they are the main means of transportation for the military in Iraq. The soldiers themselves had to tack on any freaking piece of heavy metal plate that they could find just to survive. And they had a hell of A lot more than 7.2 mm rounds to worry about. They were being pelted with rocket propelled grenades, then the roadside bombs started.

I tip my hat to the soldiers involved. They used; sandbags, body armor left by the dead and wounded, and pieces of metal stripped off of destroyed vehicles, to make their own armor.

In the meantime a factory in the U.SA was turning out factory armored humvees at a very slow pace. The Bush administration waited until the press started releasing the soldiers feelings about the hillbilly armor until they finally asked the factory to increase it's output.

In the long run it took nearly two years to get 2000 armored humvees into Iraq. And yes they are heavy, very heavy.

 

[solutions in a box]

Thank you solutions in a box for demonstrating for everyone what is in fact a fallacious argument. Now you can put your dunce cap back on and sit in the corner...

I can't seem to find my dunce cap. Would you please send it back? And I will sit in my recliner thank you.

 

[kyleb]

Exactly. My complaint does not have to do with the appearance of the equipment by any means. Rather, I am disappointed with the fact that the solders were compelled to personally modify the equipment we provided them with in order to feel safe in using it.

 

[Townsend]

Logistics can be just as dangerous.

Sure, but it's just as dangerous no matter the equipment being used to do the job.

They will obviously be used to move troops and supplies in situations where it's preferrable not to use convoys. I don't think there's too many situations that answer this description that can not be described as combat.

Not necessarily...

They use helicopters to move things faster and for rescue missions and what not. Their use is not the same as what you would have for an offensive aircraft like the apache. The Marines have many options to use for offensive air support up to and including Navy aircraft.

The reason they are in this position has to due with that crap osprey and not with poor funding...(which I always felt the Marines were terribly under funded). The argument is that the republicans are not doing their part in buying the Marines new equipment do to their mistakes. This implies that these older helicopters cannot get the job done as well as a new bird could.

Why is it that these older helicopters cannot accomplish the job just as well as newer helicopters? Does anyone have any good reason to believe that they will not be able to accomplish there mission just as well as if they had brand new helicopters?

It seems to me that most of the avionics on that bird will be replaced with new avionics. The only thing old will be the airframe, which really has very little impact on mission performance. Perhaps the pilots will have a shorter bingo time...or other small differences but I really don't see how that would have much of an impact.

The biggest impact comes in the form of maintenance and parts availability. I can't say how maintenance friendly these older birds are compared to newer birds and I have no idea what the situation is on parts availablity. Those factors are likely to be the most important aspect of the effectiveness of these aircraft and not the age of the airframe...

In any case I think it's too early to say whether this was a bad decision or not. It may end up working out very well for all we know...

 

[Townsend]

Exactly. My complaint does not have to do with the appearance of the equipment by any means. Rather, I am disappointed with the fact that the solders were compelled to personally modify the equipment we provided them with in order to feel safe in using it.

But this is not the same thing...

We will really have to wait and see what comes of this before we can draw such conclusions...wouldn't you agree?

 

[Yonoz]

They are something else because they are the main means of transportation for the military in Iraq.

I understood the context of "somethings else" in regards to Skyhunter commenting he does not know enough about helicopters to form an opinion. Thus I meant "in what way are the hummers something else [than the helicopters, so that you may form an opinion about the hummers and not the nelicopters]". This is also why I asked whether he had any experience dealing with vehicle armour.

The soldiers themselves had to tack on any freaking piece of heavy metal plate that they could find just to survive. And they had a hell of A lot more than 7.2 mm rounds to worry about. They were being pelted with rocket propelled grenades, then the roadside bombs started.

I tip my hat to the soldiers involved. They used; sandbags, body armor left by the dead and wounded, and pieces of metal stripped off of destroyed vehicles, to make their own armor.

In the meantime a factory in the U.SA was turning out factory armored humvees at a very slow pace. The Bush administration waited until the press started releasing the soldiers feelings about the hillbilly armor until they finally asked the factory to increase it's output.

In the long run it took nearly two years to get 2000 armored humvees into Iraq. And yes they are heavy, very heavy.

Arming a vehicle against those types of weapons is either extremely expensive or so heavy it necessitates a stronger propulsion, thereby increasing the size of the vehicle until you end up with a tank with no gun. Even then, that armour can be penetrated by seemingly simple, however large, devices.
Since a direct hit by anything stronger than a bullet is nearly impossible to arm against, and the weight/propulsion problem, the level of protection is usually that of armour capable of stopping shrapnel. Sandbags really are great - they're cheap and effective.
In this type of asymetric conflict the US military needs to exhibit creativity and resourcefulness, on all levels - and mounting armour on non-armoured vehicles in the field is exactly that.
Perhaps there should have been a higher rate of production of the factory armoured hummers, but I do not see anything wrong with that pictured hummer. It would have been worse if they hadn't the resourcefulness and creativity to do it.
Military history has many stories of improvisations turning the tide of battle.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm fairly confident that the equipment will be restored to meet those guidelines, but I am still rather disappointed to see us digging though our junkyards to equip our military personal.

Do you honestly want to see a military budget ten times the size of any other in the world increased further? At least we're doing one thing in a cost-efficient fashion. Spending money doesn't solve everything. Look at the insurgents. What do you think their military budget is? They aren't exactly losing.

This reminds me of a passage from Apocalypse Now in which Willard notes the reason the US couldn't win in Vietnam. US troops were busy ogling playmates at USO parties, while "Charlie's" idea of R&R was cold rice and rat meat. One army was worried about maintaining some semblance of their civilized luxuries while the other was worried about nothing but winning.

 

[Yonoz]

Exactly. My complaint does not have to do with the appearance of the equipment by any means. Rather, I am disappointed with the fact that the solders were compelled to personally modify the equipment we provided them with in order to feel safe in using it.

Those vehicles were not designed for this type of conflict.
It takes time to armour soft vehicles. It may be a little unusual for such a well-supplied military to have to resort to non-industrialised, non-out-of-the-box solutions but that's the kind of thinking needed to fight this type of conflict.
Maybe these preparations should have been done earlier, but there's nothing wrong with armouring a vehicle in the field from scrap metal.