Comments on: Obama and the Military http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/ News and Analysis from Different Moderate Perspectives Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:23:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Jason, Managing Editor http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-66212 Jason, Managing Editor Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:42:15 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-66212 John McCain was a Navy pilot in the Vietnam War who was shot down and served eight years as a POW, during which he was tortured extensively.   I have a hard time believing that you have been unable to find this information, as it is widely available from a simple Google search.  Also, if you think he is lying, you are going to have a difficult time explaining that to the many other POWs that he was with during the time who saw him being tortured.  You will also have a tough time explaining away the injuries he received, some of which continue to affect him physically to this day. The distinction between a "war" and a "conflict" is purely academic and it is an insult to dismiss the service of those who served by saying it doesn't count.  I think the only thing that is important is being shot at in the service of your country. John McCain was a Navy pilot in the Vietnam War who was shot down and served eight years as a POW, during which he was tortured extensively.   I have a hard time believing that you have been unable to find this information, as it is widely available from a simple Google search. 

Also, if you think he is lying, you are going to have a difficult time explaining that to the many other POWs that he was with during the time who saw him being tortured.  You will also have a tough time explaining away the injuries he received, some of which continue to affect him physically to this day.

The distinction between a "war" and a "conflict" is purely academic and it is an insult to dismiss the service of those who served by saying it doesn’t count.  I think the only thing that is important is being shot at in the service of your country.

]]> By: John Gardner http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-66210 John Gardner Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:24:45 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-66210 Where am I supposed to look? So far, I've found nothing on the net stating which War John McCain fought in? In fact the farther I dig, the issue about his age keeps throwing doubts in my mind on if he actually served at all during any wartime activity. Here's what bothers me:  World WarI.. he would have been 10 years old.  The Korean War.. 15 years old. As for the Viet Nam conflict, the first combat troops arrived in 1965.  John McCain was a ripe 30 year old man at that time so he must have been a part of this War. (OOPSY) I said War. I'll never understand why but back then and even still now Viet Nam was not considered a War, it was classified as a "Conflict". And that's insain by saying it wasn't a war. Where am I supposed to look? So far, I’ve found nothing on the net stating which War John McCain fought in? In fact the farther I dig, the issue about his age keeps throwing doubts in my mind on if he actually served at all during any wartime activity. Here’s what bothers me:  World WarI.. he would have been 10 years old.
 The Korean War.. 15 years old.
As for the Viet Nam conflict, the first combat troops arrived in 1965.  John McCain was a ripe 30 year old man at that time so he must have been a part of this War. (OOPSY) I said War. I’ll never understand why but back then and even still now Viet Nam was not considered a War, it was classified as a "Conflict". And that’s insain by saying it wasn’t a war.

]]> By: Nick Benjamin http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-27044 Nick Benjamin Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:53:20 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-27044 What really struck me about this post was a single line:"his implication of a crippled U.S. military is misleading"Obama didn't imply the US Military was crippled. He implied that the troops Afghanistan have a much harder job because Iraq gets priority for spares, manpower replacements, etc. That's just true. What really struck me about this post was a single line:"his implication of a crippled U.S. military is misleading"Obama didn’t imply the US Military was crippled. He implied that the troops Afghanistan have a much harder job because Iraq gets priority for spares, manpower replacements, etc. That’s just true.

]]> By: kranky kritter http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26998 kranky kritter Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:32:50 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26998 I agree with the poster above who pointed out how very much of the story Obama had right. Outside of a detail or two, the story has been substantively verified and further, supports the thrust of the point Obama was making when he brought the story up.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                That most milbloggers won't give an inch, or even .62 millimeters, when a non-soldier criticizes the military is predictable. Obama was accused of lying and/or repeating a story that, well, it couldn't be true. THAT was the substance of the milblogger critique. When that was shown to be speculative bluster based on visceral dislike, some folks choked up an honorable mea culpa. And others decided to move the goal line instead of saying "Ok, it appears to be a true story. I wuz wrong." I agree with the poster above who pointed out how very much of the story Obama had right. Outside of a detail or two, the story has been substantively verified and further, supports the thrust of the point Obama was making when he brought the story up.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                That most milbloggers won’t give an inch, or even .62 millimeters, when a non-soldier criticizes the military is predictable. Obama was accused of lying and/or repeating a story that, well, it couldn’t be true. THAT was the substance of the milblogger critique. When that was shown to be speculative bluster based on visceral dislike, some folks choked up an honorable mea culpa. And others decided to move the goal line instead of saying "Ok, it appears to be a true story. I wuz wrong."

]]> By: What the Army Captain Told Obama « Liberty Street http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26982 What the Army Captain Told Obama « Liberty Street Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:03:36 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26982 [...] The right wing bloggers continue to accuse him of being wrong and even moderate bloggers suggest some level of naivete. [...] [...] The right wing bloggers continue to accuse him of being wrong and even moderate bloggers suggest some level of naivete. [...]

]]> By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » That Obama Military Story http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26910 Donklephant » Blog Archive » That Obama Military Story Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:55:43 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26910 [...] The right wing bloggers continue to accuse him of being wrong and even moderate bloggers suggest some level of naivete. [...] [...] The right wing bloggers continue to accuse him of being wrong and even moderate bloggers suggest some level of naivete. [...]

]]> By: Cannoneer No. 4 http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26851 Cannoneer No. 4 Sun, 24 Feb 2008 06:25:29 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26851 So it is <em>not</em> true that Russian weapons and American weapons often use the same ammunition. You merely repeated something you heard from some military sources. That's what Obama did. 7.62mm x 54R will not fit in a 7.62mm x 51 chamber.  Neither will 7.62mm x 39.12.7mm x 108 will not fit in a 12.7mm x 99 chamber.  There is no standardization between  the DShK and the M2HB. But these are just meaningless details and have no bearing on your main point. Actually, that <em>is</em> the point. So it is not true that Russian weapons and American weapons often use the same ammunition.

You merely repeated something you heard from some military sources.

That’s what Obama did.
7.62mm x 54R will not fit in a 7.62mm x 51 chamber.  Neither will 7.62mm x 39.12.7mm x 108 will not fit in a 12.7mm x 99 chamber. 
There is no standardization between  the DShK and the M2HB.

But these are just meaningless details and have no bearing on your main point.

Actually, that is the point.

]]> By: army ranks | Super trend set http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26792 army ranks | Super trend set Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:10:05 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26792 [...] Obama and the Military - PoliGazette [...] [...] Obama and the Military - PoliGazette [...]

]]> By: Jason http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26773 Jason Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:07:26 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26773 I am merely repeating something I heard from some military sources. It is not an argument that is important to my main point and I'm happy to hear any correcting information. Aren't .50-cal machine guns pretty standardized? UPDATE: I found that there appear to be some Soviet weapons that fired 7.62mm NATO-standard ammunition but none that fire the updated 5.56mm NATO standard. There are also some Soviet tank guns in their export market that were designed to fire NATO ammunition. As for the only point pertinent to this article, the troopers reported using a captured (presumably Soviet-made) Taliban .50 machine gun. I'm just guessing that they had ammo for it. I am merely repeating something I heard from some military sources. It is not an argument that is important to my main point and I’m happy to hear any correcting information.

Aren’t .50-cal machine guns pretty standardized?

UPDATE: I found that there appear to be some Soviet weapons that fired 7.62mm NATO-standard ammunition but none that fire the updated 5.56mm NATO standard. There are also some Soviet tank guns in their export market that were designed to fire NATO ammunition.

As for the only point pertinent to this article, the troopers reported using a captured (presumably Soviet-made) Taliban .50 machine gun. I’m just guessing that they had ammo for it.

]]> By: Cannoneer No. 4 http://www.poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26772 Cannoneer No. 4 Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:57:20 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-the-military/#comment-26772 <em>It is, however, true that Russian weapons and American weapons often use the same ammunition.</em> Which weapons would these be?  I can't think of any. It is, however, true that Russian weapons and American weapons often use the same ammunition. Which weapons would these be?  I can’t think of any.

]]>
Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 500