You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

rosco 357


Veteran
MY WORDS: i know i post alot about these things,so if ur tired of reading about it forgive me.. what im baffled at is we have precious brave troups in afganistan, and as i see it they are not being supported in numbers and weapons and other ways , even to the extent where they are places, in not a good defensive location. so where lives were loss, those locations were abandoned , we are better than that, why is this happening? why is washington dragging its feet, is rahm listening to the left and having some influence as has been reported , i dont think this administration is up to the task that lies before it. i pray politics is not running the protection of our troups.. if obama blunders this and we have to go on defense on our own soil, near the next election he will not be elected again,, as of now the taliban has the momentum as is being reported on tv as i type..it also is being stated if Afghanistan falls it will become a base to kill as many Americans around the world and here as possible... please read the article of the fight where lives were loss, take care,

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Oct 11, 8:28 AM (ET)

By RICHARD LARDNER
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.

gypsy


Moderator
I have one thing to say, the war was inherited, yet one more chaos that was inherited from the Bush Administration,in eight years we should have established some security there,I blame that again on Bush,an the strategy of our military leaders.
I hope Obama does the thing to save an secure lives,*WhATEVER IS GOOD FOR OUR PEOPLE/AMERICA* my opinion not worth a plug nickel lol! I know..

we should phase out,Americans are tired of the war, an we are not winning~ we are very short/weak on recruitment's.
we cannot afford to let this continue(War) I think it weakens us more..

runawayhorses


Owner
gypsy wrote:we should phase out,Americans are tired of the war, an we are not winning~ we are very short/weak on recruitment's. we cannot afford to let this continue(War) I think it weakens us more..
I think our responsibility is to finish what we started. To abandon everything now would be admittance to a terrible mistake, a sign of weakness to other countries that this country can not afford, or wants. Our troops will be out and the war over in due time. No one wants war, but we must finish our job and do what we said we would do. What exactly is that? I have no idea, but its not finished yet, I can tell ya that.. lol

gypsy


Moderator
I do believe in finishing something started.
I hope we can win in Afghanistan,I am just commenting on in eight years the past administration,Service personal did not do this,now the Republicans are wanting to continue the war. Stressing to Obama to do it.
have we won in Iraq?

runawayhorses


Owner
Bush had the right idea, crush the opposition and make them a "no threat" situation, that was correct strategy, I support it and would have done the same. We must control these idiot nations that will come after us, its all about our security. I'd rather live in a powerful nation than a weaker one, its in our best interest to take these threats out, militarily, spiritually, (oh thats another subject..lmao) destroy them in any fashion that protects this nation. We can't take any chances. Destroy their power, take it way from them, then we can have a cocktail on the beach without any worries. We want our nation safe, free from harms way, thats the "Prime directive" for the pres.

rosco 357


Veteran
gypsy wrote:I do believe in finishing something started.
I hope we can win in Afghanistan,I am just commenting on in eight years the past administration,Service personal did not do this,now the Republicans are wanting to continue the war. Stressing to Obama to do it.
have we won in Iraq?

we have had success in iraq, have pulled troops out and have a schedule for that, as irag is more stable, but i have no facts, but u want to leave Afghanistan, do u fully understand what that means???? and the death of american civilians in the decades to come if it becomes as it would a terrorist training ground,the terrorist will just train in Afghanistan they will not live there but leave to do the work terrorist do,,,what is happening now in afganistan is not bushes fault but this administration,, Afghanistan has no defense but the United States, alot of the problem is on the north border with pakistan, but since we have neglected our strength in afganistan, the taliban has now become very strong in other parts of the country, and they are born every minute, fear for ur grandkids,

gypsy


Moderator
how can it be this administrations fault, with Obama only being in office going on nine months,when the problems weren't solved in eight years ? not trying to argue, just debating the point.
Of course I want to stop the terroists.I want America/us to win ,but not if it takes another time consuming 22 years like the VietNam war,which this is being compared to ..
those are my points,will not continue on the subject.
also I don't want my grandsons going to war, which two of them are going to join,Zach graduates next year~~ I know that is selfish in me,i am sorry, i have lost already to many of my family.
My nephew an his wife(pregnant) are both in the army stationed in Korea, so fear is always on my mind.

rosco 357


Veteran
gypsy wrote:how can it be this administrations fault, with Obama only being in office going on nine months,when the problems weren't solved in eight years ? not trying to argue, just debating the point.
Of course I want to stop the terroists.I want America/us to win ,but not if it takes another time consuming 22 years like the VietNam war,which this is being compared to ..
those are my points,will not continue on the subject.
also I don't want my grandsons going to war, which two of them are going to join,Zach graduates next year~~ I know that is selfish in me,i am sorry, i have lost already to many of my family.
My nephew an his wife(pregnant) are both in the army stationed in Korea, so fear is always on my mind.

because obama is stalling on an the advise of the commanding general in Afghanistan, as for ur grandkids i was referring to the dangers of terrorism, we can go away and stay tucked in america but not safe, but the problem will not ever go away,

Guest


Guest
Weapons development is something I now little,if anything about. If the weapons we have now need replacing or upgrading, I don't see how Obama could speed that up. Remember the unprotected Humvees? It took over two years to get them armored. They are now receiving those big MRAPs and will be getting the new MRAVs (smaller,lighter). I am a great believer in our military,but I think too often what weapons are developed and issued will be determined by what state they will be built in or who's party has been best supported by that particular industry. It's ironic that the Kalashnikov was designed by a Russian seargent,still alive. I agree with Tyler that these guys needed to have the shit scared outta them and when Bush went off on them after 9/11, I'm sure the muslim leaders must have thought "What will that crazy bastard do next?" If Obama can't, or won't keep them worried,that will be a serious problem. Right now, I think these incidents seem to be the result of a sudden change in tactics adopted by the enemy shooters. If so, our guys can adjust. They will have to. In a man on man form of combat, who shoots the most bullets accurately,wins.



Last edited by meemoon on Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

gypsy


Moderator
will it go away with war? it hasn't yet.

rosco 357


Veteran
gypsy wrote:will it go away with war? it hasn't yet.

there is no other option, last i looked we have no magic wand,

gypsy


Moderator
War is not always the answer, sometimes it causes more conflict ..if war can stop it~Terrorism~ but so far it hasn't.
then by all means stay an fight..finish it. we *America* are smarter/stronger , than our enemies.we should get er done!

rosco 357


Veteran
gypsy wrote:War is not always the answer, sometimes it causes more conflict ..if war can stop it~Terrorism~ but so far it hasn't.
then by all means stay an fight..finish it. we *America* are smarter/stronger , than our enemies.we should get er done!

we cant stop it, all we can hope for is to contain it to a degree our intelligence agencys can find the next cell or attack here, but muslim populations will grow and also the radical muslims will grow, had u rather fight them over there are here? no we are not smarter than or enemies, to the degree we can stop ppl willing to kill themselves in suicide bombings , but we can slow them down,ONE thing we cant do is to leave them with a free play ground,they want us dead war or no war, but im done on this subject, its in obamas hands now, lets see what he chooses to do, i think he is waffling ,

SSC


Admin
Obama better get his priorities in order , we have a war that is within our grasps of winning..The man has no military background of his own so get out the way and let those who truly comprehend this war call the shots. He is not reacting to the call for more troops, studying this...jesus christ we are losing men while he is scratching his ass. It will be at the earliest the first of the year till a large troop movement can be undertaken..Kinda like his indecisiveness on the H1N1 vaccine, he stalled before ordering its manufacturing..and people are dying every day because of that slow decision.

Guest


Guest
SSC wrote:Obama better get his priorities in order , we have a war that is within our grasps of winning..The man has no military background of his own so get out the way and let those who truly comprehend this war call the shots. He is not reacting to the call for more troops, studying this...jesus christ we are losing men while he is scratching his ass. It will be at the earliest the first of the year till a large troop movement can be undertaken..Kinda like his indecisiveness on the H1N1 vaccine, he stalled before ordering its manufacturing..and people are dying every day because of that slow decision.
Does this analogy make sense? If the weatherman says a level 4 hurricane is gonna hit tommorrow between 10pm-2am, I gotta decide to stay or evacuate. If I'm gonna take action, I MUST DO IT NOW. I'm either gonna board up and batten down,or I'm gonna haul ass. One or the other. But there is no reason to wait unless I have just decided to do nothing at all. Is that what we are seeing?

SSC


Admin
Moon, you are soo right and that is the scary part..Can Obama be so reluctant to send more troops he is willing to continue to endanger those already there, not to mention ignoring the advice of those much more knowledged and wiser than he is...

rosco 357


Veteran
[quote="rosco 357"]
gypsy wrote:War is not always the answer, sometimes it causes more conflict ..if war can stop it~Terrorism~ but so far it hasn't.
then by all means stay an fight..finish it. we *America* are smarter/stronger , than our enemies.we should get er done!
anyone knows we cant stop terrorism the problem now is we dont have the more troops that the General wants to keep the ones we have safe and push back the taliban, the last battle we were way outnumbered, we will never win against the terrorist. what we can't do is allow them to have a free country to train in, like they want Afghanistan for, once we add troops we can push them back .and try to contain them and get pakistan to do more in the north, on their side of the border,
this is not a cut and dry situation,but only a containment,we could kill every taliban there but more will come from other muslim countrys, we have contained north korea since the early 50s, and have had our military stationed there, but i know they are not being attacked in north korea, as they are in Afghanistan, so im done and will watch to see if obama listens to the left or to his generals,, in adding more troops, stupid biden want to take a half step, ok im done with this,,

Guest


Guest
I just don't get it. What possible benefit can there be in waiting for......what? Obama can send 40K troops, or 20K troops, or no troops at all; it's his call. But why wait? For what? Bite the bullet and do yer job. Yer right Roscoe; this region is no less important than Korea,and maybe even more so. McCain was excoriated for suggesting we will be in this region for a "hundred years". Well, we've been in Korea for 60 and no one sees us pulling outta there anytime soon. In some areas of this world, we are the dam, the shoulder, and the light.

gypsy


Moderator
Sure we are in Korea,we have service/army/navy people almost in every country, but we aren't fighting there.Did we win the Korean war?
if we can't win against terrorism,but can contain/control the country,why wasn't it done in the past eight years? if we can't win why do they say sending in more troops will get a win? there really aren't any answers.
I do want what is best,but I hate to see lives lost for a war we can't win..

gypsy


Moderator
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/16/lawmakers-opposed-iraq-war-organize-afghanistan-build/?test=latestnews

My words,Obama is waiting,so he can get it right,there is no urgency to send more troops at this point. well read the article,I think it is a good one~ guess what it is FOX


Sources: McChrystal Wants Up to 40,000 More Troops in Afghanistan
Congressional liberals who led the charge against the Iraq war are starting to turn their attention to Afghanistan, putting pressure on the Obama administration to scale back even as it prepares to consider a likely request to increase the U.S. troop presence.

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

*


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is privately requesting between 30,000 and 40,000 more troops, a request that has produced "sticker shock" and "huge resistance" among key lawmakers, sources told FOX News.

Congressional liberals who led the charge against the Iraq war are starting to turn their attention to Afghanistan, putting pressure on the Obama administration to scale back even as it prepares to consider a likely request to increase the U.S. troop presence.

Members of the "Out of Iraq" caucus are organizing into a new group whose mission will be to question the military surge in the country President Obama has deemed critical to the fight against terrorism.

"He will hear from us," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., who was a founding member of the Iraq caucus.

"Afghanistan is not Iraq. The terrain is different. It's difficult. It's harsh. There's a question whether you could ever end all of your efforts successfully," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, who is part of both groups.

The resistance to the war is forming from inside the president's own party. In recent days, a number of prominent Democrats have questioned calls to increase the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan.

This could put Obama squarely between his party and his top military advisers and officials.

Though Obama has already sent 21,000 troops and trainers to the country, an official request is widely expected for more U.S. troops beyond the 68,000 that will be there by the end of the year.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel Tuesday that the war effort requires another 4,000 U.S. troops to train the Afghan army and an unspecified number of additional U.S. combat forces to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Obama on Wednesday said there is no "immediate decision pending" on more troops to Afghanistan.

Asked if U.S. and NATO forces are winning the war, the president offered no direct response.

"My determination is to get this right," he said. "You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle, without having absolute clarity about what the strategy's going to be."

Meanwhile, Obama aides dismissed questions about the mounting opposition to the war from within the Democratic Party.

"The president is looking at this not through a political lens, but how do we get a very important national security concern right?" White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

FOX News' James Rosen contributed to this report.

rosco 357


Veteran
meemoon wrote:I just don't get it. What possible benefit can there be in waiting for......what? Obama can send 40K troops, or 20K troops, or no troops at all; it's his call. But why wait? For what? Bite the bullet and do yer job. Yer right Roscoe; this region is no less important than Korea,and maybe even more so. McCain was excoriated for suggesting we will be in this region for a "hundred years". Well, we've been in Korea for 60 and no one sees us pulling outta there anytime soon. In some areas of this world, we are the dam, the shoulder, and the light.

i agree marc, very good post, im baffled by obama putting the troops there now in added danger,when bush senior went into kuwait and iraq in desert storm his top general would only go in with over whelming force as was the plan, as it turned out to me it was a bit of over kill but thats ok, but i think actually in desert storm we learned alot about how our weapon systems performed , sadam never knew we could do what we did, hit him before they could even see our planes or tanks. .plus we got rid of some of the old 40 year old 2000 pound iron bombs when we carpet bombed the republican guards and others, , , i have talked to guys that were there at work, they said at night in saudi arabia u could see the sand vibrate from the ordinance that was being fire or dropped in kuwait. one thing in desert storm was the king of kuwait, i was amused when he wanted to know all about the USS MISSOURI when it was in the gulf shooting the big i think 16 inch guns. anyway u know more strength is how obama is being advised, i think its the left that has his ear also, so he waffles,

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum