January 30, 2003
Quote of the day
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
Courtesy Some guy on Hardball
January 28, 2003
Gov. Gary Locke has a Dukakis moment
Listening to the Democratic response, I keep thinking of Dukakis in that tank. Dullsville!
No later than the Feb 12 at the most.
"Tonight I also have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in and near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lie ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and Americabelieves in you. "
On 9/10/01, he told the military to stand ready. Then he attacked. Now he is saying the same thing.
Bad News for France
"In all of these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process - it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this Nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. "
So much for that UNSC veto threat.
That's different
During the 9/20/01 speech, GWB used the word Fascism, Naziism, and Totalitarianism. This time, he dropped the pretense, and used Communism instead of totalitarianism.
Environmental Sop in SOTU
Bush just mentioned the hydrogen car. Of course, noone bothers noticing that in order to make hydrogen, you need to produce electricity. In order to produce electricity, you need to produce energy. Since the ecoweenies barf a lung anytime someone mentions nuclear power, and since the ecoweenies barf a lung anytime someone mentions coal, and since ecoweenies barf a lung anytime someone builds a dam, guess what form of energy will be used to produce hydrogen? I'll give you two guesses--it's a three letter word that starts with O and ends with L.
We may have a winner!
It looks like the Donahue Show Death Watch may have a winner! Drudge has one of his circulating light thingies saying that there is a new channel lineup. Once the schedule is announced, I'll post a winner.
Give this man a Pulitzer!
War in Iraq to Focus on Saddam Hussein By Richard Pyle
What genius! What insight! I bow and scrape before someone who can give such analysis. I must stop blogging, for my writing is not worthy of being the quality of Richard Pyle's bellybutton lint. Brit Hume is rotting monkey dung in the presence of such brilliance. Tim Russert is the dried snot on the underside of a schoolyard desk compared to Pyle's wit. The dullard George Will is not qualified to smell the body odor on Richard Pyle's armpits.
"War in Iraq to Focus on Saddam Hussein". Gee, do ya think so, Richard?
January 27, 2003
Superbowl Observations
Well, I watched the games, and came up with the following observations, almost none of which have anything to do with football:
- I don't have a beef with God Bless America being sung by a Canadian. I do have a beef with it being sung as if it were a Canadian song. Dump the soft delicate note crap. Belt it out loud, proud, and unashamed. Compare the original Kate Smith rendition(midway down the page) with what you heard last night. I think the best way to sum up her performance is that Celine Dion's interpretation of the song would be a hit at the UN.
- The Dixie Chicks have done the best national anthem in a long time. It might even be better than Whitney Houston's version of the song.
- Madden thought the officiating was good. I don't. The "fumble" at the kickoff in the first quarter was obviously not a fumble to anyone who saw it. The receiver was obviously pushed out of bounds on the two point conversion in the fourth quarter. The only people who thought different were the refs in the game, and maybe Hans Blix. If the game wasn't a blowout, that would be the water-cooler talk today.
- Anheiser Busch's clown proctology ad makes Miller Lite's mud wrestling ad look tasteful.
- Shania Twain was lip synching. However, that wasn't the two things I was paying attention to.
- I think it is safe to say that live mikes on players is an idea that should die a quick death.
- ABC should dump Skycam. It is the mullet haircut of camera gimmicks. Even the Letterman jokes are 15 years old.
- Dump the post game show. When the games ends, that's it. Award the trophy, name the MVP, then get the hell out.
January 25, 2003
Mick and Keith join the Axis of Hypocrisy
Rolling Stones to give free concert to fight global warming
This is rich. So let's see how much energy this little endeavor will take:
First of all, Mick, Keith, Ron, and Charlie will need to get to the concert. Since it will be free, I'm assuming a stadium venue.. Mick and Keith, being the real heart of the band, will each leave their 10,000 sq. foot mansions(which given the weather these days, must be going though a few hundred million BTUs a day, easy. But of course, we won't count that, since that isn't part of the concert. Since Mick and Keith will be stoned, they'll take a limo to the concert. If they leave from London, they'll be taking a Rolls Royce Silver Seraph limo, 5.4L DOHC v-12, EPA mileage of 12 city/16 highway. Since traffic is rather gnarly in London, we'll assume he's getting a solid 14 mpg. Figure an hour drive to the airport, at 55 mph, and that's about 4 gallons of premium. If he's only leaving from New York, he'll be taking a Lincoln Town Car limo, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he's taking only taking the 6" stretched Cartier L, which, due to its dinky 4.6L OHC v8 gets a phenomenally economical 17 mpg city, and in New York, it's all city driving, so that's the best he can hope for. JFK airport is just about 17 miles away from Park Avenue, so he manages to get away with only a gallon of gas.
OK, so now, Mick and Keith are at the airport. Of course, being major stars, they don't fly first class, they fly on a private jet. Though they're rich, they probably can't afford anything really exotic like a 737, so they're probably forced to fly something pedestrian like a Gulfstream IV. If they're flying from New York(about 3500 miles) they can probably get away with a G400, which will use only about 20,000 to 25,000 lbs of jet fuel to go to LA(at 6lbs per gallon, about 3,500 gallons, or about 100 barrels) If they're flying from London(5700 miles), though, the G400 isn't going to have the range. For that they'll need the bigger, badder G550, which will frugally sip another 5,000 to 10,000 extra pounds of fuel, for a total of 30,000 to 35,000 lbs, or about 5,000 to 6,000 gallons, or 150 to 175 barrels. The fact that it has extra groupie capacity is just gravy.
On arriving in LA, they're going to want to kick their feet up and sleep off the jet lag. So they'll book themselves in at the LA Biltmore, and get the Presidential Suite, whose two floors and 4600 sq ft will be air conditioned to a temperature of 65 degrees to remind them of Jolly Old England, expending another few million BTUs. Oops, can't forget that they took the Town Car limo from the airport, so chalk up another gallon getting from LAX to the Biltmore(18 miles). I know, a gallon of gas is pretty piddling stuff, but we have to give them credit. They didn't take a chopper from the airport, did they?
OK, now they've slept off the jetlag, Keith has drank his obligatory pre-concert bottle of scotch, and it's time to go win one for global warming! Of course, being "the greatest rock band in history" means you can't show up in just any old limo, you have to go in style, lest you be shown up by some two bit rapper. So that means the town car, the stretch town car, even the double stretch town car in its bling-bling pimpin' finery ain't gonna cut it. You need to show up in style to show that You Care. What shows that You Care? Why a Hummer Stretch Limo of course! Now the EPA mileage for a normal Hummer is 13 mpg, but Mick and Keith aren't riding in a normal Hummer, but an extra cool pimping one with Neon and a PlayStation, so it'll get maybe 10 mpg if we're lucky, and since it is about 15 miles away to the Rose Bowl, they'll probably use a gallon and a half to get there, maybe a tad more, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, just because we have a rock band and a stadium, doesn't mean we have a concert yet. You also need concertgoers, and lots of 'em! Even though the Stones were past their prime 20 years ago, they can still draw a crowd of aging boomers and ecoweenies, especially of the concert is free. So for the sake of argument, lets say they can fill the Rose Bowl to 80% capacity which would be about 80,000 people. Since this is a concert on behalf of the eco-weenies, I think it is safe to assume they are all driving Volvos, since Sweden is the center of Ecoweeniedom, even though they have an economy that rednecks from Mississippi look down on. Since they think SUVs are evil, and since they will still need cargo capacity to carry stuff, they'll be driving the staple of the eternally pretensious, the Volvo Station Wagon(21 city/27 highway). Some will come as couples, some will come with their friends, so let's say an average of 3 ecoweenies per volvo. Since Los Angeles is a sprawling metropolitan area, let's assume that they drive 55 miles to get there. So that means that about 27000 Volvos will converge at the Rose Bowl to watch the concert, driving 55 miles at 27 mpg, meaning that approximately 54,000 gallons of gas will be guzzled on the drive to the concert, and 54,000 gallons will be guzzled on the drive home, for 108,000 gallons of gas, or 3,200 barrels total. At these totals, even the ride in the private jet is small change.
Some of the crowd, though, will come from miles around, especially the 400 donors to the Sierra Club who live on the east coast and want to go to the concert to show that They Care. They'll fly on a 747 in first class, and a flight from New York to LA is 6 hours in length, and the fuel consumption over the course of that flight will be about 11 tons an hour, for a total of 66 tons or 132,000 lbs of fuel, or 22,000 gallons each way or 55 gallons per ecoweenie. They'll have jet lag too, so they'll stay at the Biltmore, each couple taking a taxi(200 Crown Victorias). It is 18 miles from the airport to the hotel, and 15 miles from the hotel to the stadium for 33 total miles. They'll go back to the hotel then the airport by taxi as well, which means twice that distance, or 66 miles. A Crown Vic gets 18 mpg city, so 3.7 gallons per taxi, times 200 taxis equals 740 gallons for our elite ecoweenie brigade.
All right. So Mick, Keith, and the band are there. The concert goers are there, and the concert's ready to start. Well almost ready to start. A concert is no fun if you can't see the band, so we are going to need lights. And since this gang consists of aging boomer ecoweenies, we'll need real bright ones. Luckily, General Electric has that fixed for us. Their top of the line CSR18000/DE double ended Metal Halide bulb will put all the light on that stage we could possibly need. Of course, one fixture won't do. We'll probably need about 100 of those to light up the stage. At 18,000 watts apiece(yes, a bit more powerful than what you can get at home depot) they should use only about 1.8 megawatts/hour for the duration of the concert(3 hours), or about 4.8 Mwatt/hrs total, generated courtesy of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Not all the light, however, will come from these lights, of course. Some of the light will come from that inevitable rock concert moment when everyone takes out their Bic lighter to create a little mood light. Even though ecoweenies are usually also anti-smoking Nazis, they'll probably buy a lighter for this specific purpose, so we can assume about 2/3rds of the crowd(or 53000 people) will light up at that moment. They'll light up for about 5 minutes total, using 1/5th of an ounce of butane each. That's 10,600 ounces of butane, or 82 gallons of butane.
OK, so now the concert's over. That means Mick and Keith will fly home, meaning another 3500 to 6000 gallons of jetfuel. So let's see what a concert to fight global warming means:
- One round trip via limo to the airport and back: 2-10 gallons of gas
- One round trip on a private jet to LA and back. 7,000 to 12,000 gallons of jet fuel
- One overnight stay at the Presidential suite at the Biltmore Hotel: Umpteen million BTUs for AC
- One round trip via limo to the hotel: 2 gallons of gas
- One round trip via Hummer limo to the stadium: 3 gallons of gas
27,0006700 Rampaging Volvos to stadium and home:108,00027,000 gallons of gas- 400 Arch-Ecoweenies flying round trip to LA: 44,000 gallons of jet fuel
- 400 Arch-Ecoweenies taking a taxi round trip from the airport to hotel and hotel to stadium: 740 gallons of gas
- 100 Bigass lights to light up the stage for concert: 4.8 Megawatt/hours
- 53000 Ecoweenies lighting up their bics for mood lighting: 82 gallons of Butane
So if you are a rock star, want to fight global warming, and show the world that you care, it takes 162,259.2 81,259.2 88260.2 gallons of petroleum products and 4.8 Mwatts+ of nuclear power. Gee, and I thought Barbara Streisand was a hypocrite.
Update: It turns out they are holding the benefit concert at the Staples Center and not at the Rose Bowl(I guess the Stones aren't the draw they used to be). Therefore, instead of 27,000 rampaging volvos, there will be only 6700 rampaging volvos, using 27,000 gallons of gas. Nonetheless, the volvos will still be rampaging.
Update: Guess What? Bill Clinton is going to go to fight global warming too. That means a limo ride from Chappaqua to Westchester Airport (1/2 gallon), and a second G4 from their to LA and back, for another 7001 gallons of fuel. Of course, Bill won't pay for it himself, he'll have some Hollyweird bubblehead pay his way. I'm assuming he'll ride with the band. Groupies are just interns for rock stars.
The UN in Microcosm
I think this story sums up the UN quite nicely. A man runs into the UN inspector's compound, screaming "Save Me!" The inspectors' response? Turn him over to the tender mercies of the Iraqi secret police. And Euroweenies wonder why we have no respect for the UN.
January 24, 2003
January 22, 2003
Bill Mauldin Dead
Bill Mauldin, creator of the WWII cartoon Willie and Joe, died today.
In addition to his cartooning career, he also starred opposite Audie Murphy in The Red Badge of Courage.
U.S. Promises to Hold Iraqi Oil 'In Trust'
The Scare Quotes Sentinel is reporting that if(when) we invade Iraq, all the oil revenues will be put in a trust run by the US government:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) promised that a U.S. military occupation would hold Iraq's oilfields "in trust" for the Iraqi people.In an interview with U.S. newspapers on Tuesday, released by the State Department on Wednesday, Powell said the Bush administration was studying different models for managing the Iraqi oil industry if the United States invades.
"If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people," he said.
Let's hope that the persons in charge manage it better than this trust fund. Or this one.
January 21, 2003
Oh G-d no!
First they made Jerry Lewis a success. Then they made stinky cheese. Then they kissed Michael Moore's butt. Now they've given us another comic book about a Euroweenie. Didn't they put us through enough suffering with Captain Euro? When will these twerpocrats ever be stopped?!?
Darwin Award Nominees
There should be some special category in the Darwin Awards for these people. There is stupid, there is monumentally stupid, then there are the politically motivated morons who are willing to get themselves killed so that they can taste Saddam Hussein's toejam.
I guess you could call this shoplifting
There are some things you just can't attach those magnetic anti-theft devices to.
January 17, 2003
I've come to a decision
Today I've decided to launch an exploratory committee into becoming a member of the Democratic party. I have taken this dramatic step because there are definite advantages which need to be considered, of which, the following are only a small sample:
- Democratic women are easy.
- By the simple act of becoming a Democrat, I automatically become a presidential candidate. Even if I get defeated so badly that I make Mondale look good, I still get to be called a "former presidential candidate".
- I can say any racial epithet as much as I want, and all NBC News will say is that I'm just an addled old coot--even though I'm 36.
- Did I mention that Democratic women are easy?
- I can get engaged in trysts with any intern or barnyard animal in such a perverted a manner that it makes Penthouse Letters look like Ladies Home Journal, and there will be hundreds of Democratic campaign consultants who will say, without a hint of irony, that "just because it's a sheep doesn't make it wrong."
- I can make any sort of moronic pronouncement, and I'll be called an intellectual for saying it. How else can you explain the career of Michael Moore?
- I will become instantly attractive to every bubble-headed, silicone-enhanced actress in Hollyweird. And since they are Democrats, well, you get the idea[nudge, nudge].
However, there are drawbacks:
- I will have to say nice things about Barbara Streisand, even when she misspells my name.
- I will have to plant my lips permanently on the butt of Yasser Arafat.
- Democratic women are ugly. Republicans get Ann Coulter. Dems get Bella Abzug.
- I will have to pretend Al Sharpton is a likeable guy.
- If some other Democrat gets involved with an intern or barnyard animal, I'll have to go on national television and say that "just because a sheep is involved doesn't make it wrong."
- I will actually have to listen to every bubble-headed, silicone enhanced actress in Hollyweird, and pretend that they actually know what they are saying.
Once my exploratory committee has arrived at a decision, I'll let you all know, and I'll commence with the fundraising of my campaign to become a democrat. Any Hollyweird actresses please contact me later for "urgent consultations" .
January 14, 2003
Useless info of the Day
The actor who played Gauron on Star Trek:TNG also played a bad guy on MacGyver. Just call me the master of useless information.
Update: By the way, the original Love Boat was on at 9:00 pm on Saturday nights on ABC and was immediately followed by Fantasy Island.
Update: And Mad Max's last name is Rockatansky(in the American dubbed version). For some reason God has given this knowledge to me, and I have promised only to use it for good. Somewhere my evil trivia-twin is out there, and it is my sworn duty to vanquish him.
January 13, 2003
This came out of the Guardian?!?
In this article in the Guardian which is about the collapse of the Mayans, there is a very instructive paragraph all the way at the bottom:
'More than 200 million people now live in marginal lands - round the Sahara and in Bangladesh, for example,' Fagan adds. 'Another major fluctuation and the death toll could dwarf anything that has affected humanity before.'Stott says: 'The fluctuations indicate the cold periods are the calamitous ones - which suggests all our fears about global warming may be misplaced.'
And from the Guardian, no less.
January 12, 2003
Why UN inspectors shouldn't moonlight
The staff here at No Replacement for Displacement(ok, me) have done some digging, and we've found out who was behind the officiating at the Giants game last week, and the Steelers yesterday. I can't say I was surprised:
January 11, 2003
A new Breakthrough in Blogging!
First came the blog.
Then Jeff Jarvis came out with the vlog integrating video technology with blogging..
Then Victor Lams broke new ground with the Plog blending the genius of puppets with blogging to create a better world.
Now, we here at No Replacement for Displacement have seen such brilliant(and demented)use of new technology, and wish to stake our own claim to the world of multimedia blogging. The best thing about this new technology is that it requires no new hardware, no new software, and won't chew up bandwidth like its going out of style. So, now, for your perusal, I present this new, patent pending, breakthrough in blogging.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the clog. Enjoy.
The European Way
Steven Den Beste nails it as to how to take care of the North Korea nuclear crisis:
There's no hurry here. Let's be calm and slow and deliberative, OK? Let's spend LOOOTS of time in negotiations and consultation. Let's negotiate and dither and consider carefully what we should do. (Let's be European.)
I guess you could say that's a compliment for the Europeans, in a way.
Colder? Global Warming! Warmer? Global Warming!
The Scare Quotes Sentinel is reporting that we are going through one of the coldest periods in the United States in the past seven years. Why is it getting so cold? Global Warming. Or is it supposed to get warmer? Or is global warming supposed to make it wetter? Or Drier? Or stormier? Whatever the weather is, I am certain some evil SUV is behind it.
January 09, 2003
Do you like Bovine Scatology?
Then go to this site. It can:
- scale B2B systems
- orchestrate frictionless niches
- transition magnetic supply-chains
- transform ubiquitous deliverables
- reinvent B2C initiatives
- evolve collaborative infrastructures
- evolve clicks-and-mortar e-tailers
It can't do anything useful, but it can do some of that stuff.
I want this car
Ralph Kinney Bennett waxes eloquent on the Cadillac V-16 show car:
If you hear that some poor Sierra Club member choked on his trail mix and ran his Prius into a tree, blame it on Cadillac. The General Motors luxury automaker introduced a show-stealing 1000-horsepower (yeah, that's right, three zeros) V-16 concept car, at the North American International Auto show in Detroit, this week.
This is automotive nirvana for me. No SUVs, just long low, and with enough horsepower to be competitive in Pro Stock. Too bad it doesn't come with a blower. You can never have too much of them horsies..
The difference between legitimate criticism of the military and being anti-military
This is absolutely the last post I am going to make on the subject. The post I wrote about Basic Training was criticism. This letter(courtesy Instapundit) is anti-military:
From: Peter Kirstein
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:46 PM
To: Kurpiel Robert C4C CS26Subject: Re: Academy Assembly
You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage. Help you recruit. Who, top guns to reign death and destruction upon nonwhite peoples throughout the world? Are you serious sir? Resign your commission and serve your country with honour.
No war, no air force cowards who bomb countries with AAA, without possibility of retaliation. You are worse than the snipers. You are imperialists who are turning the whole damn world against us. September 11 can be blamed in part for what you and your cohorts have done to Palestinians, the VC, the Serbs, a retreating army at Basra.
You are unworthy of my support.
Peter N. Kirstein
Professor of History
Saint Xavier University.
Note the difference. Shout people like me down, and people like him are going to be the ones shaping defense policy.
Basic Training, Part III
Argh. This is getting crazy. It seems that I should have paid more attention to the comments in my Basic Training post. A lot of it is because a whole bunch of kiddies have posted comments which slam not just basic training, but the Green Berets, the Rangers, and George S. Patton himself. So first off, let me state the following:
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN BASIC TRAINING!!!
I am not talking about the Rangers, the Green Berets, the Navy SEALs, Marine Force Recon, Delta Force, or any other type of elite/special forces/really badass unit. Those units are immaterial to what I was talking about, and, as recent events have shown, they have done an excellent job in Afghanistan. A force of Rangers parachute into the middle of Islamofascist Central, gather intelligence, and get pulled out with no more than a couple of sprained ankles. At most a battalion of various special forces are infiltrated into the theatre, and in the course of two months direct enough firepower onto the Taliban to crush them flat as a stain. Not since the Rourke's Drift have so few troops had such an impact on a battlefield. So let me repeat--whatever criticism I have of the Army does not extend to the special forces, OK?
Now I am going to go through all the comments, and pick out the real gems among them and comment, and try to salvage in some way shape or form my credentials as being in favor of a strong military. This writing might be disjointed, but that is because I'm responding to umpteen different posts, from umpteen different people, of varying attitude. I'm not responding to them all, just the best of the bunch.
From Grognard:
Canteen on muzzle I can understand. Even though the M16 is only about 8 lbs., firing the thing from the standing position can fatigue the arms, especially if you lack a lot of upper-body strength. Adding weight to the weapon will make it seem lighter and easier to manage when it comes down to actual firing. As far as technogeeking goes, I have lost count of how many shooters I've coached who were flinching while trying to shoot. Dry-firing is about the best way to overcome that, even better if you have some sort of device to kick you in the shins every time you flinch and miss the simulated target with your laser.
Accurate shooting is 90% attitude and 10% skill. Canteen and laser exercises assist the skill. A DI or PMI jumping up and down screaming at you because you are an idiot assist the development of proper attitude.
But, there is no substitute for the satisfaction of seeing the little holes punched through your target. Paper or plastic.
From Bravo(no e-mail or webpage):
As far as the origional article goes: Putting a dime or quarter on the front sight post of your rifle during dry firing is the single best way to learn trigger control... a slight sideways pull translates to a miss in real life. If you can get the dime to stay on the post while you are dry-firing the rifle, then you've applied a correct squeeze to the trigger.Hanging a canteen off the muzzle is not for making the rifle heavier. You do it because the water inside will begin to move if you move. The canteen will start to swing visibly so the coach can see it. Slight movements in the muzzle translate to BIG movements as the round travels down range.
When I saw the canteen drill being performed, it was done while the soldiers were in a prone firing position. The explanation was that it strengthened the muscles for firing. To me, that made no sense. If a recruit is expected to do dozens of pushups and pullups, shouldn't he by default be able to hold an 8lb rifle? However, the idea that by its absence, the rifle feels lighter makes some sense(though not when in a prone position). The idea of using the canteen as a motion sensor, though, makes A LOT of sense, and honestly, I hadn't thought of using it that way. BTW, there was an actual dime balancing thingy that goes on the muzzle brake(I think that's the term) on an M-16. The Army probably calls it the M-1a2 dime balancer or something . And I wouldn't be surprised if they also have a milspec dime, which the pays General Dynamics $2.50 apiece ;.
From an unnamed poster:
There are alot of differences between marines and Army. The differences are in scope of practice more than ablility to serve. The Army operates on a more continental basis with more specialty on a wide variety of topics on everything from medicine to clerical work to the infantry. No one in any of the said branches are there forced to its the joy of America its a voluntary service. Now takin that fact the overall concept of marines better than army is a rather arrogent one. I joined up to serve my country and not to be better than anyone else. Infantry, however, in the army its not that bad. When you get up into Ranger, Special Forces, Green Berret and then the legendary Delta Force. Anyone one of these specialties is just as good if not better than the marines. So overall lets cut the crap of marine better than army and do it for the country.
But I'm not talking about Infantry training. I'm talking about Basic Training. And you are right, the Army has a broader mission, and has to deal with logistics to a degree the marines really don't. Marines are expeditionary in nature, the Army is concerned more with fighting a major war. That means the army has more logistics, more specialized units, medical units, etc that the Marines don't have. But that isn't my point. If the shit hits the fan, and those clerks, truck drivers, and various and sundry others who make up the rear area of the modern Army are pressed into service, the only infantry training they will have will be basic. And I think Basic training in the Army falls short. Not advanced infantry training. Not Ranger School. Not special forces training. Basic Training.
From an unnamed poster:
Who in the hell wrote all that bull shit up top apperantly has not been to either Army basic or marine boot camp. What a dumb ass? You're going off tv shows. Hell, Star Trek is on tv but that doesn't mean its real. You said Army Bct isn't segragated. Take a look at Ft.Benning or Ft.Knox see how many women are there. How about you actually try one one off the branchs before you talk shit about it.
First of all, yes, it is from a TV show(two different ones, in fact), but not solely from a TV show. I have heard about the problems with coed basic from sources other than that show as well. Also, unless I am mistaken, neither the Army nor the marines do basic training in public, and I doubt they would want to have that training done in the middle of Yankee Stadium. Secondly, both services projected the image that their leadership wanted to project. I seriously doubt that the approval for either documentary was done at any level less than the Pentagon itself, and the Pentagon deliberately showed Coed Basic training as a model to be followed(even if there are Army camps which are male only).
So I get my information where I can. And I do want that information. As a citizen, it is my responsibility to learn all I can about what is going on in government, including the military, so I can make an informed choice come November, and lobby my congresscritter to provide for creating the strongest military possible. I could just sit on the sidelines and applaud, but what does that serve? When your training budgets are cut, do you want me to sit on my hands, or do you want me to speak out? What I am doing now is no different.
From InfantryMarineLt:
I have been in the Marine Corps for 8 years, 6 of which enlisted, the last two as an Officer. I have been through Parris Island recruit training, Marine OCS,TBS, Marine infantry school etc. There is nothing in life I am more proud of then my corps, and the proud Marines who serve in it. However, I am the first to admit that much of the "hype" about Marines is not accurate.
The extra weeks of Marine recruit training, as opposed to Army basic is primarily the water survival course which lasts an entire week. Also you have a much longer training phase on the rifle range. The discipline is harsher than the Army, and there is more "top of the lungs yelling." We also have an everyday obstacle course, which the Army does not. Also, many of the obstacle courses we go over 2 or 3 times, whereas the Army only hits them once. But as far as most other aspects I wouldn't think it is that much worse.
To me, the issue isn't the extra three weeks of training. Sure, it would be nice for Army basic to be 12 weeks instead of 9, but that wasn't my beef. The discipline is the main issue.
The main flaw of Army BCT is that each location varies in certain aspects, different locations emphasize different things in greater or less detail, whereas there only two MRT locations. Ft. Knox and Ft. Benning do not even train female recruits, so they are all males.
I don't consider that a flaw. That's a feature. That different locations use different methods can contribute greatly to effectiveness. It means DIs can vary their training somewhat, which means there is an opportunity for some creativity in how training is structured, and that means that there is more opportunity for improvement. In business it's called "sharing best practices," and provided the end goal to such creativity is building a more effective(not more PC) army, I'm all for it.
And to cover the last area in question, elite military units. Marine recons, and force recons are some very highly trained guys no doubt, but I would say giving the different functions, they are not "the most elite of elite." The Army special forces (they are the green berets) are trained o perfection. They are in my opinion the most highly trained infantry fighters in the world. Navy SEALs undergo the harshest training by far....yet much of it is combat irrelevant. I mean sure, the tougher you are the more combat ready, but not necessarily the more combat trained. Rangers school is no joke, I have been to it to get a look, and they are put through harsh training, but its oriented towards making them ready to lead the Army into war, not so much special secret combat missions like SEALs and Berets.
I'm not touching the SEAL quote with a ten foot pole :-). Someone else talks smack about Rangers, and the entire complement of Rangers jump down my neck. Someone talks smack about SEALs, I'm going to wake up one morning finding my boat sunk by a limpet mine. Thank heaven noone has talked smack about pilots yet. I don't think the neighbors want to be subject to JDAM urban renewal.
From Bravo(again):
I'm a former Marine Infantryman, and a former Drill Instructor. Someone said that the Rangers were just volunteers or something? You're just wrong. I'll tell you what, if you think that way, you aren't qualified to carry a Rangers rucksack. Without going into it, they're some hard core guys, and... for what it's worth, Ranger School is the most desirable school in the Marine Corps Recon Community. Getting INTO the Rangers is about as hard as anything gets, but getting out is really easy, all it takes is one or two small slips. Further, the Ranger Regiment is comprised of the best soldiers in the Army. I'd be proud to serve with any of them.As far as the differences between Marine and Army recruit training, the Corps has its reasons... We seperate the sexes so that everyone can focus on training. We spend more time on team building and instilling Esprit de Corps. The focus of recruit training in the Marine Corps is to turn out basically trained Marines: Men and Women who will go on to further training within thier fields. The Army is simply weeding out the bottom 10% and gettng the rest ready for a career in the Army.
Which is the main issue of the original post. I want to see more team building and esprit de corps in the Army. It was my top beef. I think segregating the sexes goes a long way towards encouraging that. I wouldn't be surprised if the male only Basic Training camps show more of that than the coed camps. But the Army didn't want to show a male only camp! Maybe my opinion might have been different had I seen a male only camp. But the Army wanted to show a coed camp, they wanted to be PC, and that impression, right or wrong, is of their own making. As for the first paragraph, no complaints from me. You're spot on.
I fully agree that Army Basic Training is sorely lacking, but lets NOT confuse that with Ranger training or compare it to Recon (They are different animals by the way).It is apparent by reading this thread, who has served and who has not...
Also, stand by for a whole bus load of Rangers to drop by and say "Hi... how about a nice big cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
Semper Fi
So it was you, huh? Why I oughtta.....
From Rachel Green:
I do not agree with the comment you made about the Army not dividing sexes. In service for military you need to be able to get along and treat everyone equal. Just becasue you are a female does not mean that they want to distract the males. If you are there you want to work hard otherwise you wouldn't be there right? If you were at war you need to talk to females and learn to work with them so why not start now at basic training.
Because it isn't the time to do it. The concentration needs to be on discipline, esprit de corps, and physical competence. Integrating the sexes promotes fraternization, proves to be a distraction(trust me, when I was 18, I was distracted by anything remotely female), and reduces physical fitness of troops. And I am not the only one to think this way. Colonel David Hackworth(ret) says much the same thing:
...as we enter 1998, the Marine Corps is the only outfit in Clinton's armed forces that can still fight the hard fight.The Army, the Navy and the Air Force have caved into political pressure that has marginalized their fighting ability and made the often quoted statement that "America has the finest fighting force in the world" the biggest lie since the Pentagon said "Gulf War syndrome doesn't exist."
I'm an old Army doggy not a Marine. So saying this is out-right heresy and will cause a lot of Army loyalists to want to nail my dog tags to my forehead.
But I'll take the risk. Because if our armed forces continues to slide down the gender-bending tube -- which is destroying fighting spirit and driving out fighters -- we'll lose future battles, wars and eventually our freedom.
So it isn't me, know-nothing civilian, who says that, but the most decorated living soldier, who joined the army as a teenager and rose through the ranks to full colonel. And he is saying the exact same thing I am.
Posted by: Tracy-Paul Warrington:
First, it's obvious by the verbiage who's a real-deal and who's not.
True. But in my case, I haven't represented myself as anything other than what I am--a civilian who is profoundly interested in keeping the military as combat effective as possible.
Second, my son's Infantry OSUT was 14 weeks and is now an Airborne Infantryman. He sees no real difference between Army and Marine Infantry; and he works with them almost every damn day.
True. But I'm not comparing those with advanced infantry skills. If that were the case I wouldn't have created the shitstorm that has occurred.
Third, the only people who can make any educated comparison are the experienced military personnel. The rest of you are children playing an adult's game; albeit very poorly.
The reality is that such policy as coed basic training, etc are made by civilians. Congress in conjunction with the President set much of military policy. Congress makes the budget for the military, and the President is responsible for much of the policy, and voters appoint both. Military readiness is an issue I think is important enough for me to speak out on. When congress fails to adequately fund for spare parts and new equipment, I'll speak out. If pay scales for personnel are too low, I'll speak out. And when I see something amiss in basic training, I'll speak out too, and I'll vote accordingly.
Fourth, the Army and Marines have different purposes and missions. It's almost coincidental they have anything in common. Both services are happy with the way they conduct training and operations; both have handicaps; both have dedicated troops trying to improve things. The rest of you candy-asses remind me of college students quoting rhetoric with no clue whatsoever what-the-hell you're talking about.
But their missions overlap as well. At heart, the smallest unit of both is the infantryman. The difference is that the Marines are primarily expeditionary in nature(rescue Americans from a Third World Rathole, etc), and the Army is concerned more with supporting a sustained campaign(march on Baghdad, defend the inner German border/DMZ), with all the logistics that entails. But there is overlap in those roles as well. The Marines took part in a campaigning role in the Gulf War. The Army was used as an expeditionary force in Panama. So there is crossover.
Lastly, I was in Somalia for nine months as the XO of the Special Operations Command and Control Element in Mogadishu. I worked with Rangers, Marines, SF and 10 other 'elite' units from around the globe. This horse crap that Somalis did not engage the Marines because of Aideed's son or they were afraid of them is pure unsubstantiated drivel. The Rangers did not fail in their mission. They got the SNA Leaders they were looking for and accomplished the mission with no casualties. They, and several other units, took casulties when they went after the downed air crews. They were making the pick up on fallen comrades AFTER they finished the Mission. That is what we call in the Army "HOOAH".
That is an interesting take on Mogadishu, and not something that has been talked about much. I think the Rangers did an AWESOME job there under thoroughly lousy conditions. Minimal air support, no armor, and surrounded by a bazillion bad guys. What burns me up about Mogadishu is not happened during, but what happened before and after. Had one lousy platoon of Bradleys or M1s been on scene(to break roadblocks), there would have been no casualties at all. Had there been AC-130 support, there would have been no casualties. But the Rangers were left out there with nothing to back them up. What happened afterwards was worse. I remember at the time my blood boiled when I heard that we were flying Aideed to some conference. The guy killed Americans and we acted as his chauffeur. It still burns me up today.
posted by jarhead(no web address or email):
p.s. as for all of you fuckwads whose only experience with the military is either through TLC and Discovery, SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
You have no idea what you are talking about. So, quit commenting on what you THINK the military is all about. And as for you little Delayed Entry Program wannabe's, my advice to you is to simply close your cockholsters and open your eyes and ears and absorb as much info as possible.
It isn't just me who says it. David Hackworth says much the same thing. The Center for Military Readiness said it multiple times. So it isn't just from "watching a TV show," ok? What I saw confirmed what I had read from numerous sources who know a hell of a lot more about the army than me.
So, now that I've managed to go through every post that I wanted to go through. So let me sum up.:
1) I didn't say anything about Rangers at all. Zero, Zip, nada. It wasn't even the main thrust of my post until the Ranger board read posts by other people and rained hell upon me for what they said.
2) Balancing the dime(and there was a plastic dime balancing thingy that went into the muzzle brake!!) and hanging the canteen didn't seem to make much sense. But having read a number of plausible reasons to use it, I'm willing to change my mind and admit I might have been wrong. The use of lasers instead of a rifle range is still kind of technogeeky, though.
3)As far as coed basic training, and the effects on discipline, physical fitness, esprit de corps, etc, I still think I'm right, and postings here from DIs, and writings from David Hackworth and others confirm this. The fact that the documentary was filmed at a coed camp shows that the Army brass and the civilian leadership want to promote this. They could have sent the film crew elsewhere, but they didn't. The Army I saw in the documentary is what the Army itself wants me to see. .
4)The idea that civlians have no right to comment on the military is pure horseshit. First of all, that little thing called the first amendment which gives me that right. Second, Civilian oversight of the military is as old as the Republic itself. Lincoln never served a day in the military, and fired his generals left and right. If instead of Lincoln, it had been a civilian more deferential to the military, the Confederacy would have won the war. Churchill harassed his generals daily, and came up with the idea of the Mulberry artificial port used at Normandy. Generals routinely are called before Congress to testify about any and all sundry matters. Pay for soldiers is an issue decided by civilians. Choosing one weapon system over another is decided by civilians(Cheney killed the A-12 program, and Rumsfeld killed the Crusader). Civilians routinely write their congressmen about military issues and routinely comment in the media and elsewhere on military issues. If I was talking about how woefully Rangers were underpaid(and frankly, all the armed forces are woefully underpaid), I doubt I would be getting so many nastygrams saying I am a dumbass civilian who should STFU. If it weren't for civilian oversight of the military, we'd be just another third world shithole.
January 07, 2003
North Korea is Overrated.
There is a lot of talk about how North Korea poses a threat to South Korea, and about how powerful the DPRK military is in relation to the South Korean army. While the Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK--commies) has a WMD capability, and Seoul is within range of medium range missiles, in a head to head conventional conflict, the Republic of Korea(ROK--good guys) could wipe the floor with their northern neighbors, without any US help whatsoever. Taking a look at the matchup between the two nations point by point shows that the DPRK advantage in numbers is easily lost by their aging equipment and poor training.
Air Force
The DPRK air force has about 550 fighter aircraft. Forty of these aircraft are Mig-29 Fulcrums, 45 are Mig-23 Floggers, 150 Mig-21 Fishbeds, and nearly half of the combat strength of the DPRK air force consists of Mig-17s and Mi-19s, with a smattering of Su-25s and Su-7s. So basically, of the 550 fighter aircraft the DPRK posesses, only 40 are truly modern, another 45 are getting on in years, and 150 are obsolete but capable. The rest are essentially junk, and would have difficulty intercepting a B-52, let alone an F-16.
As far as training is concerned, the DPRK likewise must have a serious problem training these pilots. The fuel shortages that are affecting the rest of the country have to be affecting the air force as well. That means less hours in the cockpit. Less hours in the cockpit means lower quality pilots means more dead DPRK pilots in combat and accidents.
Now compare this with the ROK air force. The ROK have 468 fighter aircraft. They have 160 F-16s(roughly equivalent to the Mig-29 in capability), 130 F-4s(marginally superior to the Mig-23), and 195 F-5s(marginally superior to the Mig 21). So, if there is a major air action, the DPRK air force is going to lead a short and violent life--and that is without any assistance from the USAF or USN.
Army
The situation on the ground is different than that in the air. There is a lot more parity between the DPRK and ROK on the ground. The DPRK has much more artillery than the ROK(about twice to three times the number), and even though much of it is obsolete, if it can throw a shell a few miles with the accuracy of a WWII weapon, that is good enough to disrupt operations and make life hell for the grunts and any soft targets out there. They might be vulnerable to counterbattery fire from more modern/accurate ROK weapons, as well as ROK airpower, but there are enough of them, in enough prepared positions to make the first weeks of war rather bloody, especially in Seoul itself.
As far as armor is concerned, the situation is much like that of the respective air forces. The DPRK has more, but the quality isn't that good. Their best tanks are the Type 59(Chinese) and the T-62(Russian). There are about 200 Type 59s in service, and 1800 T-62s. The rest of the Tank force consist of T-55s(you saw them as burning wrecks during Gulf War I), PT-76s(an amphibious tank with a 76mm gun and thin armor), and T-34s, which are a WWII design. In other words, half of the DPRK tank force is of obsolescent design, and the other half are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.
The ROK army is much better equipped than their northern neighbors. First of all, half of their armored force uses the K1/K1A1 tank, which is roughly similar in capabilities to the M1. The other half of their armored forces consist of the M-47/M-48 Patton tanks, which are about as effective as the T-62. They also have a smattering of T-80s from the Russians as well.(About as effective as an early M1 or an M60A3, but that is a WAG on my part).
Again, training is probably an issue for the DPRK. Proper training of all those mechanized forces is a fuel and spare parts intensive activity. Given how thirsty a main battle tank is for fuel, and the weakness of the DPRK economy in general, I can't believe that the bulk of the DPRK army does the sort of training necessary to have an effective force. The resources just aren't there.
The one advantage the DPRK has over the ROK is that the DPRK is forward deployed, and always on alert. That means that it is possible for the Kim Jong Il to get his army moving on short notice. However, to counterbalance that, I think it is doubtful that they could achieve anything better than tactical surprise. The South Koreans are just too ready for just that eventuality, and the defensive belt along the DMZ is so crammed with mines and emplacements that I find it doubtful that the North Koreans could advance quickly enough to prevent a calling up of reserves in the south. The longer the campaign went, the worse off North Korea would be. Their aircraft would be methodically shot down in the air or destroyed on the ground, their advantage in artillery would hit by air raids, and their armored columns cut to ribbons. Then, inevitably, the tide would shift, and the North Koreans would be forced into retreat.
So basically, I guess is what I am saying is that South Korea could stand on its own two feet if it wanted to. The big question is can the South Koreans withstand the initial onslaught? I think they can. I don't think we should withdraw our forces, but if a conventional conflict came to the Korean penninsula, I don't think we'd be in as bad shape as people have been led to believe. The problem is that if the communists attacked, there would be a lot of civilian casualties in Seoul.
For more info, go here.
I guess he can call this Payback Tuesday
Our favorite limousine leftist, Michael Moore, had a bit of a little trouble in London recently. Quoting for posterity(IMDB doesn't have an archive):
American satirist Michael Moore has stormed out of Britain after a bust up with the London theatre hosting his one-man show. The Bowling For Columbine moviemaker performed Michael Moore - Live! to packed audiences for two months before Christmas at The Roundhouse in Camden, North London. But on the penultimate night he reportedly flew into a rage, verbally attacked everyone associated with the theatre because he thought he wasn't being paid enough. During the performance he complained he was making just $750 a night. A member of the stage crew says, "He completely lost the plot. He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the £5-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all conmen and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public." Staff retaliated by refusing to work the following night, which led to the show being held up for an hour. Eventually he made a groveling apology to staff and the angry audience finally took to their seats. A source reports that Moore then packed his bags and flew to New York the next day without saying thank you or goodbye to anyone.
Isn't it nice to know that our buddy Mikey, that hero of the working man, runs around screaming at a bunch of minimum wage clerks because he's making "only" $750 a day?
January 06, 2003
Hugo Chavez, do you have Prince Albert in a Can?
Hugo Chavez, proto-dictator of Venezuela, and the man most responsible for turning the country from an oil exporter to an oil importer, received a very important call from Castro today. Well, it wasn't really Castro, but two DJs from Miami.
