Obama should be sued!Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009, at 12:16 AM
When the battle in the small village of Wanat, a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. After investigating the battle it was determined that the weapons the American soldiers used kept failing. This left them totally outnumbered. How can we do this? Send those soldiers over there with faulty weapons? I know that Bazooka has commented on this before. We have a President jetting off to help get Olympic games to his hometown while we had soldiers getting killed due to his inaction. Now we see 9 more killed due to faulty-crappy guns. I think that all of those dead soldier's families should file a lawsuit against the government for directly causing their deaths. The wounded should sign on and be witnesses. How would that look to the world? The Nobel Peace Prize winner being sued by his own countrymen for directly causing the deaths of US soldiers would really show the world how worthy he was to receive that award.
King Obama getting the prize? What the hell did he ever do that warranted the Nobel Peace Prize? A lot of talk? A lot of bowing and saying, so sorry so sorry about my horrible country? Come on, you know that I couldn't ignore this Nobel award abomination and not comment. I actually felt ill when I heard it. How did that ever happen and how much value do we give this prize now? The nominations had to be submitted by February. That man hadn't done anything to even be considered! He had built a platform for election with lies, yet is praised and award with the Presidency and now this! And what makes me even more angry is that on the day that it is announced, Iran is telling the world that they will destroy Israel. Obama ignores the enemy, bows and while our allies are left high and dry with no support, he accepts the Nobel Prize. I'm sorry but everyone who got the prize should now feel somewhat unspecial. It's like little kids playing T-Ball. Oh, there are no scores and everyone gets to run the bases no matter if they hit the ball or not. Just what did they learn from that? You don't have to really learn the game and follow any rules because you get a homerun and at the end everyone gets a trophy like they are the MVP. But the reality is that none of them were anything special because they are all the same. The fact that those Nobel people awarded it to Obama just cheapened all of them. His acceptance has made the Nobel Prize as meaningful as an Achievement sticker for effort on a school paper. According to the ones who awarded Obama the price, it was awarded to Obama because "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, a 1983 Nobel Peace laureate. "This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act," Walesa said. "You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase," Jagland said. "And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize." Well, line up folks! If that is the case than I imagine there are millions more qualified than Obama so your award notice must be in the mail. On a brighter note, as I was doing some reading about Obama's many accomplishments, I came across a speech he did in July 2008 while compaigning in Colorado. As I recall, this has been discussed before. Here is a direct quote from that speech: "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." There ya have it from the horse's mouth. Obama wants his own civil force to do his bidding. Now, don't try and say he was talking about the Peace Corps because in the speech he had already talked about that he wanted to increase their numbers to do work overseas. This was exactly how he said it, a civilian national security force. I'm sure that will fall under some of his promising peacekeeping efforts that the Nobel people were awarding him for. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
I've lived in Mtn Home for over 20 years. I love my city and my country. Since I am a writer, my decision to blog here seemed appropriate. I enjoy acting so I've been blessed with the opportunity to work on some independent films and with Prairie Dog Productions and Bogus Creek Ranch. I hope that something I have to write about has some value for others or just amuses someone.
Hot topics Mayfield? Here's my thought.(5 ~ 10:39 AM, Aug 18)
Watch myi48 short film
FINALLY USAMA BIN LADEN DEAD
i48 Film Festival
Pakistan, the Lying Nation
|
Email link
Read comments (24)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
The failed weapons were most likely paid for by the previous administration,which has clearly shown it had no respect for the wellfare of the military or any one else who isn't lining their pockets.
It still stands that the government is responsible and I don't care which President gets hawled to the stand. The point I am making is that it shouldn't have happened. And Obama has ignored the situation for far too long. He finally was shamed into meeting with his military people after the public was enraged by his lack of participation. The fact that he hasn't taken a swift stand on this situation, more soldiers are dying.
The greatest culprit here has ALWAYS been the M-16, designed by non-gun designer Eugene Stoner, lobbied through McNamara and approved by LBJ, the same guy who halted the bombing campaign while we were knee-deep in it over there.
That piece of crap has been "modified, modified and modified some more" over the past 40 years through SEVERAL administrations.
Obama isn't responsible for the bad weapons, but he IS responsible for his continued inability to make decisions as a "Commander-in Chief". He needs to give McChrystal what he needs, or get our troops the hell OUT of there. There's a 3rd and better option, but he ain't Ronnie Reagan.
Healthcare can wait. The Olympics weren't important either. We've got good men DYING over there and a President who hadn't talked to his own commander for over SEVENTY DAYS. He had time to work on his social programs though!
I have a daughter serving in Afghanistan as we speak. If anything happens to HER because of this regime's foolishness, I'm gonna do a lot more than sue.
Obama was NEVER the man for this job, and I've said so on numerous occasions. I've never liked McCain and STILL don't, but as an old war vet himself, HE would have been on top of this war first thing every morning...............and probably IS ANYWAY! I'll give the RINO that much.
And Kim, they have shown that same Colorado Springs speech on videotape.
That "National Security Force" he descibes is not new. The world has seen this once before, run by an ex-chicken farmer named Himmler.
..............and the letters didn't stand for "Super Sport"
Obama getting the Nobel is comical. I would be curious to know if there were no other candidates and so they felt they had to give this token award to a default candidate.
We can play the blame game all day with regard to who purchased the guns that do not work however, the point remains that the CURRENT administration is doing NOTHING to help OUR people fight a war. Obama wanted to give a 1% to the military this year. Why was that? 1%...what does that cover? How much did he and congress get? Why can they not get vests over there to protect them (some can get them but others cannot due to a "shortage"?). They have a "shortage" of people in some areas because Obamanomics/Obama has sent the people to other places. How can you "fight" a war if you do not have the tools to do so? He should be tried for treason and war crimes as just a start. Someone who has never been in the military is hardly fit to be called Commander and Chief, IMHO. Nothing like a "President" that says he is sorry for his people. What a joke. I am happy to say that I voted and not for him.
http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Angry-Ame...
Seems that Kim and Bazooka are not so crazy afterall. This is from today on MSN.
To properly speak on the M-16 modifications over the years: The M-16 has been modified over the years yes, but the actual one that we are using now is the M-4 carbine, which is not a semi-auto rifle, but a "carbine." In all complete honesty, the M-4 is a reliable weapon, except for one problem which has haunted Colt manufacturing(the people who made the gun) which is jamming. It's nothing mechanically wrong, just the chamber for loading the bullet tends to get clogged with dirt. As far as Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, mother Theresa must be pissed in heaven, wondering why should couldn't have just "promised" to help the starving poor. This is such a joke. Obama should get the prize just as much as Adolf Hitler was awarded "man of the year" by Time Magazine. Wow.
Nice title. Attention grabbing at it's finest with no real link to the problem. Not everything can be blamed on Obama, no matter how much you want it to be true.
Forgive me for my opposition. But maybe you should look into who or what agency actually approves the weapons and gear, used by the Armed forces. And what their guide-lines for purchasing these things are. Are there other weapons that work better under the conditions that the military is currently in and if so, why were these weapons ignored?
There is more to the problem then just one person and one question.
(i remember rumsfeld being questioned by soldiers about these issues and rumsfeld blew them off.)
why is it that the criminal element can get good weapons like the ak-47 and such, and they never seem to misfire, but we can,t get these guns into our troops hands. scary thought, going into battle knowing your weapon may not be any better tnan your fist. you might as well have a pocket of rocks
Sorry off subject, but no less relevant:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_o...
Baucus plan to criminalize the poorest among us.
(the 'poorest' doesn't include me)
Chat among yourselves.
(and remember that I am a hypocrite and wanted single payer but single payer was never going to fly here anyway. so what do we get?, a health insurance compromise issued at the hands of the health insurance companies... with the help of the government of course)
hopefully this health reform chit gets thrown out/vetoed before things get out of control.
Concerning Politics
-What is promised, is never, what is given.-
Censored 2009
Yes, it was a great title. And I did state that Obama was NOT solely to blame. It is a bigger issue than that. However, as I also stated, our Commander in Chief is sitting on the laurels of indecision while our soldiers are being killed due to lack of support. He has the power and the manpower at his fingertips to get the upper hand yet he is too worried about popularity and getting re-elected. He wants the whole world to love him and doesn't realize that in order to be a good parent, you can't be your children's best friend. (Time 6:23am)
I was in need of a car to get me around but didn't have a lot of money. I shopped around and found a vehicle that was priced right, looked real nice, but had a bad transmission. The seller was up front about the problem so I knew the condition of the car when I bought it. I was able to drive the car for a couple of months with no problems until one day, on the way home from work, it broke down. Should I blame the previous owner or take responsibility for my own lack of action? I failed to fix the problems I knew existed, no one to blame but myself.
tolkein...........the reason our troops don't have 1st class weapons can be narrowed to one word.
Pride.
Rather than admit the M-16 was wrong from Day One, the Pentagon has spent the last 40+ years trying to make the proverbial "silk purse from a sow's ear." They have been determined to make that piece of crap work, no matter now many modifications, nor how many troops get killed as they fail.
The M-16 was the "solution" to a problem that never existed. The Springfield M-14 was an inproved version of their famous M-1 Garand, and to this day has never been surpassed as a combat rifle.
John Garand and Mikail Kalashnikov were gun designers. Eugene Stoner was not, but through good lobbying, Stoner & Colt sold the package to Robert McNamara and his "Whiz Kids", who would buy ANYTHING back them (The F-111 proved that).
Stoner's selling point was that the M-16 would be lighter and easier to carry, thus, soldiers could carry more ammo along with it, which means NOTHING if the gun itself cannot be depended upon.
The M-14 WAS heavier, but was totally reliable, and could kill reliably out to 800 yards with its 308 Winchester cartridge. The M-16, even when working, is nowhere in the same league.
The M-14 had no bad habits and did NOT need to be replaced.
Cost was another "selling point" $101.00 each, compared to $168.00 for an M-14. But everytime a serviceman got killed in combat, it was another $20,000.00 to the decease's family. Cost effective? I think not.
The AK-47 is a flawless design, invented by a soviet tank mechanic who KNEW that a combat weapon would always be subjected to abuse, mud, snow, sand, dirt, etc, and the weapon was designed with "loose tolerances" so the moving parts wouldn't bind up at critical times.
The M-16 was engineered TOO precisely, and it didn't take much to jam one. Still doesn't. Shoots a hi-speed 22 (223), which in no way matches the power and range of the M-14's 308 Winchester...............nor the 7.62x39, 30-caliber cartridge of the AK-47.
It jams. And when it does, you can't just kick the bolt open to clear it, as you could with an AK or an M-14. When a '16 quits, you TEAR IT DOWN to clear it, while your opponent with his AK keeps on shooting at you.
At Khe Sanh, we captured AK-47's in deplorable condition, surface rust on many of them, but still working just fine. We were NOT allowed to use them though. Partially because there was no steady supply of ammo on OUR side, but MAINLY, because the muzzle report of an AK-47 makes a very distinct sound, and to USE one would draw friendly fire from our own troops.
The Navy SEALS used them, though, behind enemy lines.
There ARE better rifles than the M-16 out there today, but most are made by foreign countries, which might make parts supplies "iffy" if the U.S. had any disagreements with them.
Seeing the light (FINALLY), Department of Defense IS bringing M-14's back out of mothballs, but warehouse inventories are limited, now.
We need new weapons for the troops, but in my opinion, it is SPRINGFIELD who needs to make them, NOT Colt, who was NEVER in the rifle business before Vietnam.
Springfield has been building quality military rifles since the Civil War days. The famous "03-A3" bolt action of World War I, the M-1 garand of World War II and Korea, and of course the best one of all, the M-14 of early Vietnam.
Springfield still has the tooling, and they still make a semi-automatic version of the M-14, called an M1A1. I have one, and except for the lack of a full-auto selector and bayonet lug, it's the same M-14 I carried in the Marine Corps 40 years ago.
I know what I would do.......but I'm not running things.
And now, the "REST" of the story, as the late Paul Harvey would say.
When 9/11 happened, like everyone else, I didn't know what might be coming next. Attacks like that are sometimes followed by invasions, and with the borders wide open........like they STILL are, you think about a lot of different scenarios.
"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst", still makes sense to me today. NOT knowing what might follow the WTC & Pentagon attacks, I knew it was time for an assault rifle to rest in the safe among the hunting guns.
AR-15's (civilian version of the M-16) were popular at the time and still are (God only knows why). People continue to pay upwards of $1600.00 to $2000.00 for them at gunshows. They LOOK mean and bad, Hollywood has certainly promoted them in movies, and here in the States, they do work fairly well, because they just go out to the range, then home for a good cleaning.
I don't really think we're going to get into a "Red Dawn" situation, but if that WAS to happen, the M-16/AR-15 design does not lend itself well to dirty environments, if you had to "head for the hills". It cannot be trusted, and still proves that daily, overseas.
The M-14/M1A's can be had, but were in short supply at the time, and I didn't really want to spend a thousand bucks at the time (although I finally bought a new one last year for 13 and some change}.
The AK-47 WAS in good supply, however and ammo is readily available. The ugly, crude looking little guns were selling in the 250-300 dollar range, and even with the "Obama-panic" today, you can still buy one at around 550-600.
I took a little ribbing from a buddy, after I bought mine, who said something like, "As much as you HATE commies, you went out and BOUGHT that Russian gun?"
"Would you rather depend on an AR-15, and spend $1500.00 for one, to BOOT?"..............my buddy Don, was ALSO a Vietnam vet, and he too remembered the abuse an AK will take.
He went out and bought one for himself that same weekend.
War sucks. And while I hope I never have to shoot either my AK or the M-14.....except at the range.......if it DOES come to it, and we end up "out in the environment", I want to stack as much in my favor as I can.
The "opposition" still uses the little black guns, (and did you know that the stocks are actually made by MATTELL?) Check it out.
Three things still infuriate me about Afghanistan, as compared to Vietnam:
1. We're still fighting for somebody ELSE's country
2. The politicians are running THIS one too
3. Our troops are still saddled with that piece of s--t M-16 (ok.......M4...........but it's still the same gun).
PS...........know why the Pentagon pulled the old 45 automatic pistol out of the inventory, after 72 years of faithful service, and replaced it with the wimpy 9mm Beretta?
Neither do I!
Hey Bazooka, H&K makes a similar version of the M-4 but without all the problems. Fires after being dunked in dirt, sand, water, run over and even upside down. Try that with a 16. They have it in the worthless 223 and other, larger, more lethal rounds. For me and my money I'm buying a Remington R25. looks similar to the 16 in the receiver but in the trusty .308 cal. It's a "hunting" rifle with no bayonet lug. But comes with full up camo coating and all the rails to mount whatever you might need. And it's built by REMINGTON. Think 700 BDL and 870 Wingmaster. Hard to find two more trusted and reliable guns. The m16 was also a POS weapon. Built to wound not kill. Nice idea if your attacked by a large force intent on saving the wounded. The current enemy fights in small groups and beleives that dying is a good thing. So now we need to kill as many as we can as quick as we can. The only way to do that is with the trusted .30 cal round. No matter whether it's in a 30.06 or .308, both are good, quality rounds definately made to punch large holes in soft targets. Check what the spec ops carry. Bethca don't see too many .223 or 9mm in their hands.
You certainly can't go wrong with anything Remington makes. I've got a 700, in '06 that I wouldn't part with for anything.
I don't reload anymore because I don't have the time, so the 308's I use in my M-14 are the Winchester 150-grain power-points. They are faster and group better at distance than anything else I've tried in it.
No two guns are alike, as you know, and each barrel seems to "sing its own tune", but I thought I'd just pass that along, for when you get that R25.
Sounds like a great choice! Let me know when ya get it!
I've heard that our military going with the 9mm is in coordinance with our NATO allies, who also shoot the little 9 (interchangability of ammo). The 9mm pistols can also hold 15 rounds. 45 caliber cartridges are much larger of course, and a pistol will only hold 8.
But with a 45, you only need ONE.
They can keep their Beretta. I'll stay with my big Springfield.
I'll keep the 165 match grade hornandy boat tails we used to shoot through the sniper rifles. Little heavier...better penetration and large wound channels...don't deflect in the wind as much.
Sounds good to me! What barrel length are we talking about?
Believe 22 inch for the larger caliber rifles
My bad...20 inches for .243, 7mm-08 and .308
Bouncer......if you reload your own, watch your powder charges with those boat-tails. I understand that if the loads are TOO warm, they tend to scorch barrels around the convex end of the bullet after a few thousand rounds------------as per the late Elmer Keith.
Don't know that first hand, but I remember Elmer writing about that, while praising the bullet itsrlf. Something about the flame not burning evenly around the boot of the bullet, if the loads were too hot. You got better performance with boat-tails than with flat-based slugs, but it eventually came at a cost...........anyway, Keith's words, not mine, 'cause I don't know.
Few, if ANY cartridges, print their best running full throttle anyway, so I suppose our range ammo at Camp Pendleton wasn't running anywhere near redline, either, because those old M-14's passed through a lot of hands!
Contrary to popular belief, it's not the number of rounds run through a barrel that wears one out, it's the heat from hot loads, combined with lack of cleaning.
I had a Mauser/Douglas 270, that would put 3 rounds inside of a nickel at 100 yards, with 55.0 grains of IMR-4831 behind a 150-gr flat-based Hornady. Came out of the tube around 2840 fps.
You could safely load it to 56......56 & a half, and get it up around the "magic" 3000 fps mark, but the bullets tended to "drive" rather than "place", and quickly spread from that "nickel", to 3" or so.
Figuring a mule deer doesn't know the difference between 2840 and 3000, I returned to 55 grains and proceeded to take, elk, deer and coyotes with it over the next several years. My son always wanted that rifle, and I gave it to him a few years ago after I quit hunting. He took it out a few months ago and put three rounds inside of a DIME at 100 yards.
Smart ass. Some people's kids!