THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

I make it clear operations costs are not all that greater due to the conflict however politicians can used it as an excuse to funnel funds into companies they are in bed with such as our former Vic President former company Blackwater and the military can used it as a reason to fast track upgrades to their equipments.

Neither can be place at the feet of the basic cost of the conflict itself.

I suppose things like replacing equipment damaged in combat, ordinance expended, etc. should just be in their normal support budget, eh?

Don't make me think you're a fool, too.

Never mind, you are a fool.

LOL and more LOL

Since this conflict began one repeat one MI tank for example had been knock out and as far as I know no fast movers aircrafts had been knock out.

The cost of the helicopters and light vehicles that had been destroy due to enemy actions is small to say the least.

Because helicopters, and humvees, and sewer systems, and roads, and power plants are all free, right?

You're a fool, if you think the cost of the war is limited to the salaries of the soldiers.

Oh by the way the M1 tank was knock out not destroy as it took a bath by falling off a narrow bridge when it driver was shot by a sniper. Off hand the cost of a refurnish could not had been over a million or so.

Equipment lost in this kind of conflict by the nature of the conflict is going to be low price and nothing compare to the upgrading/uparmoring costs.

You can buy one hell of a lot of humvees and even helicopters for the price of one attack jet for example.

They might not be free but they are cheap compare to the kind of heavy equipment lost in any high intensely conflict or even a Vietnam type conflict.

Let see for the cost of one attack jet or one MI tank you can buy roughly 2000 humvees or 6 helicopters.

Given the loses it is not a major military budget item.

As far as power plants and sewer systems, that is not part of the cost out of the military budget but the state department budget.

Sorry a drop a zero it is only 200 or so humvees not 2000 but still not a major budget item.

Are you thats blind that you think he presented evidence ? He didnt distinguish between the "front" and combat. A "front" can be a hundred miles deep. His own source contradicted what he said and he got thumbs up for that ? Is A2K full of PC fools ?

Thats exactly what he did reference, you lime light stealing clown. Read what he wrote. You have read his source and now present yourself as an expert ?

Jesus, where do you get this **** from ? A FEW, a VERY FEW, served as drivers. There were so few, the individuals are known.

Stop making **** up or someone may call you on it.

How many people do you think fit in a cockpit ? 20 ? 60 ? Woman pilots are an example similar to snipers. They put women by them selves because they would corrupt combat morale. As for all female mechanic units, how many enemy did they kill in hand to hand combat, not counting mice ?

Do you really think it contradicts ? It looks like it goes off at a tangent to me, but to the garden variety fool who doesnt know anything about the military it probably looks impressive ...drags out the oohhs and aaahhhsss but contributes nothing.

I believe it, it is irrelavant but thanks for trying hard.

You cant present rubbish and blame someone for disagreeing, not even in your PC world.

What arms were you in ?

As it happens, i didn't read MM's source. I've already done the research on this at least twice (i think more often, but can't state that to a certainty), and posted the results at this site on at least two occasions. That's why i knew who Lilya Litvak, Marina Raskova, Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Rosa Shanina were--without having to read MM's source. By the way, the first citizen of Soviet central Asia to be awarded the Order of Hero of the Soviet Union was a woman, a machine gunner, given the award posthumously. It is hilarious to me that you come up with your typical gobshite stories, for which you provide no substantiation, and yet you display your typical MO of slandering those who not only disagree with you, but provide source information for what they have written. So, you're claiming that women who bomb German positions, women who shoot down German aircraft, women who kill hundreds of Germans as snipers are not involved in combat? What sort of fantasy world do you live in? Do you think men's aviation regiments had no mechanics, no support troops? Do you think an aviator can shoot down enemy aircraft or bomb enemy positions if they don't have the support of mechanics and other support troops? Alexandra Samusenko commanded Soviet men in combat, so do you claim that doesn't count?

As usual, all we have is you ranting, and providing absolutely no substantiation for your bullshit claims--and confronted with the poverty of your claims, you immediately descend into invidious remarks.

Nothing new there.

USN 1978 - 2003

I was a navy corpsman, a combat medic, with a marine rifle company for most of my career.

Love those questions you post, as though answering them is relevant. I dont suppose someone of your intellect would be disposed to read this thread from the beginning, where you would understand that what was discussed is homosexuals serving in combat units, and the discussion moved on to women in logistic units and how disruptive they were...we are now discussing how disruptive they would be in combat serving in units with men.

All your examples involve all female crews, snipers, fighter pilots, bomber crews, maintenance crews, anti-aircraft crews but you are applying staistical analysis when you say one woman was awarded decorations for manning a machine gun. Why do you think the Soviets didnt have females integrated into combat units ?

I used the ref provided..you can see that ref cant you ?

You cant see this as your MO ? Open your eyes.

Can you refer me to an archive army order ? No ?

The vast majority of women serving in the soviet forces were segregated. I dont have a problem with that. I object to women wanting to serve with men so they can turn it into a ****-fest and get pregnant when ever they want. What do you think Stalin would do with women who tried to avoid serving ? He shot senior commanders for trivial reasons.

So, you're claiming that women who bomb German positions, women who shoot down German aircraft, women who kill hundreds of Germans as snipers are involved in male/female mixed combat teams? What sort of fantasy world do you live in? Do you think men's aviation regiments had mechanics, support troops that regularly engaged in bayonet charges ? Do you think an aviator can shoot down enemy aircraft or bomb enemy positions if they don't have the support of mechanics and other support troops or are those troops busy fighting germans with rifles ? As usual we have your self proclaimed expertise to deal with, despite you not even addressing the topic. Do you think the Love Boat in the first gulf war was only a male fascist propaganda invention ?

And you say you never saw any lack of professionalism in women ? No one ever got sick of where they were and "accidentally" got pregnant ? What about the Love Boat ? You were in when that happened .

You choice of arguments is perplexing...I would think you'd go with the facts: Women were only brought in because the soviets needed bodies and there were no more men, they were put into support roles and only gained combat roles when the soviets had no choice, they were intentionally placed in the rear so that they could allow a man to go up and fight, and they were removed when no longer needed.

Although you still lose, because the red army experience shows that when women get the chance to participate in warrior crafts they can do them well.

I have never said women lacked courage. I have said that they can not endure hardship alongside men because they expect to be protected. I have said they take opportunities like getting pregnant to get a better life.

I am happy for them to serve in segregated units, but they want to run barefoot through the boys. Why cant homosexuals serve in their own units ?

and the Soviets indicate otherwise, but they also where made of much tougher stuff than modern American women. The Soviets completely destroy your argument unless you can show that they were so much different than modern western women that they dont predict what would happen if we fully let women into combat now.

I must warn you though that I know that for over a year when we Americas were hard up for troops in Iraq commanders pulled all kinds of scams to get women to help out in combat roles that they legally could not do. All accounts are that they did well, with the stipulation that commanders picked out who they would take into combat. They fully realized that they must be careful about who they picked.

I'll be happy to concede the point if anyone can show they got pregnant at the same rate as modern women and still served.

I am happy to concede the point if anyone can show they served alongside men and didnt cause problems.

They were a far fewer percentage than we have today and served in segregated units that did not physically fight men .

I agree with your last post, that women are an additional burden. I think that the cost is worth it, you don't. Openly gay will be an addition cost over DADT and will be much more of a burden than before DADT, but I think that cost is probably worth it, I just don't think that now is the right time to make the change.