Talk:Obama on rifles

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Moved discussion from Talk:Main Page: Obama on rifles on February 25, 2008. --Crocoite 10:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

  • "They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped "

He might have been thinking about the Vietnam War. I spent five years in the army, and I always had trouble keeping my M16 rifle from jamming. I heard several stories directly from combat veterans who (they claimed) preferred to use captured AK-47 rifles because they didn't jam as often.

It seems that the M16 required more frequent maintenance (i.e., cleaning).

This is not a dig against policy - I think the US was right to be in there helping to defend South Vietnam. But many of the ideas used to prosecute the war were faulty, and equipment worries were really the least of them.

A book that I bought at the PX at Fort Benning in 1986 describes a lot of these mistakes. I should write an article about it, if I could remember the name of the book.

  • calling all Vietnamese "gooks" didn't help.
  • rotating out experienced troops after one year - or less for officers - led to a "ticket punching" mentality
  • inadequate training - it takes 6 to 12 months to turn a civilian into a jungle fighter; many of the old-timers wouldn't even bother to help the F***ing New Guys (FNGs).
  • tolerance of drug abuse; should have been shipped back to the states for treatment, you can't fight stoned, it requires alertness
  • using European theatre tactics in a guerilla war; should have secretly armed two pro-South men in each village, not require them to wear uniforms, etc.

I was this close to becoming an officer, had talks with a colonel and a general, but ultimately I decided that while the military is essential to preserving freedom it cannot bring about world peace. --Ed Poor Talk 20:23, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Ed, do you think Afghanistan is anything like Vietnam? One problem in Afghanistan is friendly fire, and that wouldn't be due to a lack of ammunition. Moreover, shifting soldiers from Afghanistan to Iraq (where there is a greater need) would not result in a shortage of ammunition and humvees for the soldiers remaining in Afghanistan.--Aschlafly 20:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Of course not. I'm suggesting that Obama is thinking that. --Ed Poor Talk 09:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)
He may be, which simply highlights how he doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, his liberal supporters don't care whether he knows anything or not, or is even logical.--Aschlafly 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Unless they took the humvees and the ammunition with them? TheGuy 07:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Um, perhaps Obama thinks the soldiers drove the humvees to Iraq!!!--Aschlafly 07:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
After reading the transcipt, I think Obama just stumbled over his words a bit. I don't think he meant that the transfer of soldiers caused a shortage of ammo and vehicles; he meant that the supposed shortage of soldiers, ammo, and vehicles was all part of the same problem (being "distracted" by Iraq).--RossC 07:20, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Obama didn't correct his statement, as sincere candidates do after a debate if they "stumbled". Instead, Obama stood by his statement, in which he concluded that he "was right" as supposedly proven by his absurd analysis. I realize that many liberal Obama supporters don't care what he says, but rest assured that many voters do want a logical president.--Aschlafly 07:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper confirmed Obama's claim. [1] Any chance this could be added to the news item?--Jimmy 14:25, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Did ABC News also confirm that 2+2=5? It was Obama's conclusion that was idiotic, as well as his placing the self-interested view of a soldier above that of our experienced commanders. It's frightening to imagine a Commander-in-Chief Obama who would "reason" that way.--Aschlafly 14:42, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Obviously ABC News did not make such a dumb claim, they confirmed Obama's story, they actually interviewed the Army officer that was involved. Even Rumsfeld admitted equipment shortages (As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want). Maybe you don't care about the lack of equipment our soldiers are doing without, but I don't want any of my military buddies to go through what Obama's soldier went through.--Jimmy 14:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)
No, I don't think ABC News confirmed Obama's reasoning or his conclusion. Quote something to support your claim if you disagree.--Aschlafly 15:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Here you are. it looks like Jimmy didn't construct the link properly. ABC News' fact-check desk. --AlfredK 19:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Obama's conclusion was that the usage of troops, equipment, and ammunition means that those resources are not available for use in Afghanistan, and that if they were redirected to Afghanistan we would not be in a situation were shortages may exist. This conclusion doesn't strike me as all that unusual. The Army captain in question confirms that his squad was unable to train with certain weapons and did indeed have to train with some Taliban weapons due to the lack of the US equivalent.
Incidentally, the use of enemy weapons is far from unprecedented and probably goes back to the cavemen picking up the clubs of the enemy tribe after a victory. Even in WW2, Allied forces used German weapons, some of which (the MG42 particularly) were far superior to their American equivalents. SSchultz 15:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)
In other words, no quote from ABC News backing up Obama's absurd reasoning and conclusion. Of course not: Obama was speaking nonsense, so much so that one defender said he must have misspoken!--Aschlafly 15:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)
I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or are just naturally so. I'm not a "defender" of Obama (I'm a Huckabee man, myself), but if you read the transcript, it's clear that Obama isn't claiming the lack of soldiers in Afghanistan caused the lack of ammo/equipment, but that the lack of planning and poor judgement (by current civilian leadership) casued said lack.
Not sure what you are trying to say. This article by ABC News confirmed a soldier talked to Obama's campaign and Obama accurately quoted the soldiers claims. --Jimmy 16:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)
You are clueless, Jimmy. It's Obama's reasoning and conclusion that were absurd, not whether he spoke to a soldier.--Aschlafly 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)--Aschlafly 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton during the National Anthem. (from

This is what every military service member saw of Obama. If he's got no respect for the flag, no respect for the anthem, no respect for the Pledge of Allegience, as proven here, then he's got no respect for those who do. Very, very few soldiers will ever vote for this man. Karajou 15:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

How does this image show Obama is disrepectful to the flag, etc, and is somehow disrespectful to 'those who do'? I am one retired military member that may vote for him. So far your non-scientific prediction is falling flat.--Jimmy 15:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)
How does it not? I am one retired military member that will never vote for him. Karajou 15:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Karajou did not claim that no soldier would vote for Obama, so Jimmy's statement about his views as a retiree (not a soldier) doesn't undercut anything Karajou said. The guy whom Obama said he talked to might vote for him! Maybe, that is ....--Aschlafly 15:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Isn't Karajou also a retired soldier? So why are his views as a retiree more valid than those of Jimmy?
I'm a retired sailor. And in my stint in the Navy I've discovered that the entire military is overwhelmingly-conservative. Karajou 15:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Karajou, you made the claim, please back it up with evidence. Mr. Schlafly, military retirees are considered to be military members with reduced service. The number of military members that consider themselves republican is plummeting and is now well below 50%. Looks like The Democratic nominee may carry a sizable percentage of the military vote.--Jimmy 15:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)
So, we must ignore the photo and the story behind it as worthless? You back up your claims now, Jimmy. Karajou 15:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Does a single lapse make one unpatriotic and therefore unfit to be Commander-in-Chief?--RossC 15:48, 24 February 2008 (EST)
It's not a lapse. What evidence do you have that it was a lapse?--Aschlafly 15:51, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Well, I dunno--are there more photos of Obama with hand not-over-heart, or is this the only one? It should be noted, too, that the video of this event shows that Obama is the only one on the stage who is actually singing the Anthem.--RossC 15:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)
RossC, that's known as deliberate ignorance. Do a little research and you'll quickly find that Obama became less patriotic as a way of garnering donations from the far left in his campaign against Hillary.--Aschlafly 16:00, 24 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not being deliberately ignorant--I honestly haven't paid much attention to the Dem side of the race. If you have more evidence of Obama's unpatriotism, post it (or put it in the Obama article). All I see is this one photo over and over again. Are there more?--RossC 16:07, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Jimmy, I don't doubt that many in the military are Democrats. I do doubt that they will vote for Obama in large percentages.--Aschlafly 15:45, 24 February 2008 (EST)
I am asking you to provide evidence that this photo shows Obama disrespecting the flag, pledge, etc and the people 'that do'. I see no evidence to support your claim. I hope you are not saying that someone who refuses to wear a flag pin and stands respectfully for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance is somehow disrespectful. Please provide the evidence. This article in USA Today undercuts your claim that very few military members will vote for Obama. --Jimmy 15:50, 24 February 2008 (EST)
No it does not undercut my claim. USA Today is not a neutral source. Get your evidence either from the Pentagon or the Veterans Administration. As to the rest, you just confirmed my point by proving my case. Karajou 15:53, 24 February 2008 (EST)
The USA Today article only serves to reinforce Karajou's observations anyway. It says the military is 60-40 Republican-Democrat. Obama only gets about 50% of Democratic votes, so that leaves him with only about 20% military support. Pathetic.--Aschlafly 16:01, 24 February 2008 (EST)
The claim that it's easier to capture a Taliban rifle than to get a US-made M16 is absurd. I doubt that ABC "confirmed" this claim. What were the exact words of the officer?
Rifles are supplied to the US Army for around $500 each. Shipping them is not a problem. If anyone has voted against funds for such a minor purchase, I'd like to know what political party he's in. (I would suspect the party of the man who "voted for ... before I voted against", what's his name, Jerry or something?) --Ed Poor Talk 09:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
I was unaware that the Pentagon and VA provided statistics concerning the military vote. Could you provide me with a link to these stats please? And just how did I prove your case? I really would like to know. The USA Today article also states Obama receives the most military donations of all the candidates. Where does the 20% figure come from? If Obama is the Democratic Party nominee, won't he receive the vast majority of the democratic vote? In other votes, using your reasoning, he would get 40% of the vote. That comes out to many millions of votes by military members.--Jimmy 16:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Apparently, Jimmy, you refuse to read what you have posted. And from what I've read so far, you're not doing to well as a retired servicemman; in fact, I don't think you're one at all. Karajou 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Actually, I do read what I post, I just don't take your assertions and reasoning at face value, so you are incorrect. I am doing rather well as a retired service member, you are wrong again. I am actually a retired service member, I have an ID card that says US Air Force retired, my current job with a defense contractor was based on my 22 years in the military, etc. Looks like you are wrong again. --Jimmy 16:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Well, as someone with 22 years of service, you should know exactly what duty, honor, and country are all about, which was proudly proclaimed by those with whom you worked with in the Air Force, and who you are denigrating and insulting now by your actions on this site. You can think about it elsewhere. Karajou 16:49, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Obama has received more campaign donations from soldiers than anyone except for Paul[2] - scroll to the bottom. But I'm sure they still aren't going to vote for him. Murray 16:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Mr. Karajou, you just blocked User:Jimmy infinitely for insulting the military, but as far as i can tell, the only person he insulted was you---by disagreeing with you. Could you explain what he did that warranted an infinite ban?SiggyF 16:54, 24 February 2008 (EST)
It's pretty simple actually, and I've seen it myself. Having spent 22 years around people who know what duty, honor, and country mean; having spent 22 years around people who have fought in combat to protect this country; having spent 22 years near people who were highly-decorated...and then come to this site and spout a philosophy that is against everything they have fought for? Nobody spends that much time in any branch of the military and not learn something about whom you work with. In the military such conduct is at the very least against good order and discipline, and I've seen people thrown out of the Navy with similar liberal persuasions after serving a fraction of the time that Jimmy claims he spent in the Air Force. Karajou 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Why did you delete my comment? That was a rather cowardly thing to do. Not really the action of someone who served honorably for 22 years. SiggyF 17:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
If you had read it, it was Jimmy who claimed to have served for 22 years; I served for 20; I removed your edit because it was blatently wrong. Karajou 17:11, 24 February 2008 (EST)
OK, since you "cant handle the truth", let's try again....what you said above basically boils down to you not agreeing with Jimmy's voting behavior, therefore you ban him. Could you perhaps correct my misperception?SiggyF 17:13, 24 February 2008 (EST)
No, he was not banned for a voting disagreement; the explanation is above. Karajou 17:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Explanation? You are practically admitting in your explanation that you banned him because he just didn't agree with you. I don't see any other way to interpret it. HeikkiL 17:27, 24 February 2008 (EST)
You can interpret it any way you like. This discussion is closed. Karajou 17:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Is there an abuse desk where this can be reported. Karajou has clearly blocked Jimmy because of an ideological disagreement in contravention of the Conservapedia Commandments. Where would one formally challenge this sort of action? SSchultz 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Was it Sinclair Lewis who said that when fascism came to the US, it would be carrying a flag and a cross? There's more to being "patriotic" than saying the Magic Words of the Pledge of Allegiance, after all. --AlfredK 19:41, 24 February 2008 (EST)

It would seem about 40% of the military support the Democratic ticket, up from 22% in the 2002 election cycle, according to donations as of Sept. 2007 [1] Just an FYI. Misterlinx 19:43, 24 February 2008 (EST)

That was before it became McCain v. Obama. Moreover, primary donations are not much of an indicator of overall voting patterns in a broad election. Notice how McCain won with so few donations?--Aschlafly 20:57, 24 February 2008 (EST)

My father is a Vietnam vet who's voting for Obama. Maestro 20:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Perfect illustration of point #5 of liberal logic, unless you meant to preface your remark with "Of course this proves nothing, but ..."--Aschlafly 20:57, 24 February 2008 (EST)
I'll preface mine if Karajou will preface his ( "I am one retired military member that will never vote for him." ) My point is that we can debate back and forth, but without a scientific poll, both sides of the debate are making assumptions. But that's also an assumption. Maestro 22:24, 24 February 2008 (EST)
It's known that the military votes at least 60% Republican, and I think the percentage was even higher in the famous absentee ballots in Florida in 2000. With a decorated war hero and POW (McCain) against someone who never served and has raised money from anti-military folks like, you can bet the percentages will be even more lopsided, just as Karajou said.--Aschlafly 22:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Hey, I know I'm probably gonna get shouted at for this BUT (hehe) what is so wrong about not being patriotic? Now that I've asked it, let me qualify: I do not mean hating your country, I do agree that that is a problem. I also do not mean being indifferent to your country, again indifference causes almost as many problems as hate. However what is wrong with liking the country you live in, yet not seeing the need to express it with national anthems and pledges and flags? I love Australia yet the flag does not connect with me and the anthem seems rather lame (by the way I do stand for the national anthem out of respect for those whom it does have meaning for). I am also willing to admit that Australia has problems (although we may disagree on what those problems are) and that we are far from perfect. Clearly I am not patriotic, yet I am not going to violently attack my country or its people. Why is this attitude so badly ridiculed on this site, and particularly in this discussion? Bolly 17:17, 25 February 2008

Your position, Bolly, is unique. Like a Knicks fan who doesn't like any of the players or coaches (understandable) but still roots for them in every game. I think you ARE patriotic, but only in the broadest sense of the word.--Steve 09:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Well what I really meant (before I was sidetracked by myself!) was that: what was so bad about Obama not doing the full hand on heart head down or singing or whatever it is that the others were doing in that picture? Perhaps it is just that he does not feel the need to express his love for America in that way? Maybe I am completely wrong but from what I've read its as good a theory as has been put forward on this thread so far. Bolly 7:44 26 February 2008

Article Title

It strikes me that this is an incredibly poor title for an encyclopedia entry - "Obama on rifles". What?!! The title is just bizarre - it's an article about a pubic figure's position on a particular issue? But not part of that person's own article, and completely divorced from it? If so, what's to stop an article called "Bush on drugs", "Rice in India", or "Cheney on statins"? So I would propose that the entire article be moved into a section on the Barack Obama article, if the topic needs to be discussed, and the section heading being made clearer. This seems like a very odd sort of encyclopedia. OldMan 12:07, 28 February 2008 (EST)

I agree, it does seem a little strange for an article. Bohdan 16:44, 28 February 2008 (EST)

So, what do we do about this then? I don't think I can change an article title - don't know how? OldMan 22:44, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools