Has Iran declared war?

#26
#26
therealUT said:
I gave you CA, did I not. Also, I could care less about the PsyOps soldiers. Also, the hospitals part is of no effect in the argument.

My BCT is completely modular and self supported, as are all other BCTs in the current Modular Division Structure (soon to be UA Structure.) Just because more soldiers fill these units throughout the reserves and NG in the US in no way means that the Active Component relies on them.
Click to expand...


They absoultely rely on them look about half way down the list:

59% of the supply and services capability of the Army..

Your BCT's not getting more than 2 days past your LD with your organic support assets, without reserve soldiers providing you fuel, food and ammo..

It's a fact..
 
#27
#27
vol_in_ar said:
They absoultely rely on them look about half way down the list:

59% of the supply and services capability of the Army..

Your BCT's not getting more than 2 days past your LD with your organic support assets, without reserve soldiers providing you fuel, food and ammo..

It's a fact..
Click to expand...
Really...then exactly how many non Special Operations Command reserve and National Guard units were deployed in OEF 1?

Seems to me that the 101st and 10th MTN did fine with their own internal support structure for well over 13 months.
 
#28
#28
Dependence on reserve forces have ranged between 25 to 43 %


OIF Active Reserve
1 75% 25%
2 61% 39%
3 57-58% 42-43%
4 69% 31%
 
#29
#29
Thanks for answering with OIF numbers when I brought up OEF.

Oh, and the OIF 1 numbers...most of the NG units were Special Ops Command and MP units and the reserve forces propping them up.
 
#30
#30
Back to what started this little side discussion, if you are a firm believer in the rotation policy, then you are not a believer in trying to achieve victory as efficiently as possible.
 
#31
#31
I never said said I was a fan of the deployment policy, but that's the enviornment were operating in.
 
#32
#32
vol_in_ar said:
I never said said I was a fan of the deployment policy, but that's the enviornment were operating in.
Click to expand...
It is a ridiculous policy. If you enlist, you enlist for 8 years that the military can call upon your service. Why then is the military using less than half its capability to get the job done right?

If the policy makers do not feel that the action they are taking is worth completing as well as possible and with utmost force and efficiency, then why send anyone at all?
 
#33
#33
therealUT said:
It is a ridiculous policy. If you enlist, you enlist for 8 years that the military can call upon your service. Why then is the military using less than half its capability to get the job done right?

If the policy makers do not feel that the action they are taking is worth completing as well as possible and with utmost force and efficiency, then why send anyone at all?
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
#34
#34
therealUT said:
It is a ridiculous policy. If you enlist, you enlist for 8 years that the military can call upon your service. Why then is the military using less than half its capability to get the job done right?

If the policy makers do not feel that the action they are taking is worth completing as well as possible and with utmost force and efficiency, then why send anyone at all?
Click to expand...

There's an easy solution.
N
U
C
L
E
A
R

Make it one big glass parking lot, all of 'em Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, and Saudi..
 
#35
#35
vol_in_ar said:
There's an easy solution.
N
U
C
L
E
A
R

Make it one big glass parking lot, all of 'em Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, and Saudi..
Click to expand...

Great idea. While we send the rest of the world (including ourselves) into a major economic recession.
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
It is a ridiculous policy. If you enlist, you enlist for 8 years that the military can call upon your service. Why then is the military using less than half its capability to get the job done right?

If the policy makers do not feel that the action they are taking is worth completing as well as possible and with utmost force and efficiency, then why send anyone at all?
Click to expand...
It's called POLITICS.
 
#40
#40
therealUT said:
The only persons who claim they are disputed are Iranian officials. The Brits, the EU, and the US are firm that the waters are Iraqi (which would make this move an even stronger act of war.)

Also, I do not buy into the confessions that the Iranians say they have taken from the Brits.
Click to expand...


yeah, I concur; these confessions are about as reliable as guilty pleas at GTMO.
 
#42
#42
Good to see how this is playing out so far. Is Tony Blair as gutless as the Iranians are showing him to be?
 
#43
#43
allvol123 said:
Good to see how this is playing out so far. Is Tony Blair as gutless as the Iranians are showing him to be?
Click to expand...
Come on, he's head of state in EUROPE and the most hawkish there (which, in Europe is more pigeon like than hawkish) and having to grapple with a parliament that makes Ted Kennedy look like an actual legislator.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top