F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Feb 20, 2004 Posts: 48 Status: Offline

Not exactly sure if this is the correct forum, or if you guys even care...did anyone see this?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/d20080709cmpolicy.htm

another nod to political correctness.

• As soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this memorandum, the Military Departments and Combatant Commands will initiate removal from the active inventory of all cluster munition stocks that exceed operational planning requirements or for which there are no operational planning requirements. The excess cluster munitions will be demilitarized as soon as practicable within available funding and industrial capacity.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Enthusiast Joined: May 31, 2005 Posts: 69 Status: Offline

another nod to political correctness
So...you're in favor of children being injured by dud submunitions?

Enthusiast Joined: Feb 20, 2004 Posts: 48 Status: Offline

Loomis wrote:

another nod to political correctness
So...you're in favor of children being injured by dud submunitions?

Absolutely.

Of course not, what an idiotic thing to imply.

Quote:

... that exceed operational planning requirements or for which there are no operational planning requirements. The excess cluster munitions will be demilitarized as soon as practicable within available funding and industrial capacity.

Key words: "exceed" - "no operational requirements" - "as soon as practicable" - "within available funding"

In other words...

We're only going to get rid of the ones we don't need or want, but we're keeping the rest; and we're not going to spend any extra money on the program, 'cause we're broke already...

Rolling Eyes

Keep 'em flyin' (within operational requirements, within available funding) Thumb

TEG

Political Correctness will continue to inhibit the military.

Our country is the #1 worrier about collateral damage.

That is why we will never win anything decisively.

Examples:

BVR weapons can not be used without visual verification(sound familiar?).

I remember that one from a LONG time ago... it hurt a LOT!

Targets in civilian populations must be investigated personally.

Sure, up close and personal CQB activity is no big deal, right?

Sorry, but frankly they shouldn't have gone to fight with the practice mitts on. Better that they stayed here in the first place, for all of the good it has done so far.

I apologize, but a local lad in the Marines had just been shipped home for another funeral. It is very dismaying to see this continue on.

AJAX wrote:

Not exactly sure if this is the correct forum, or if you guys even care...did anyone see this?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/d20080709cmpolicy.htm

another nod to political correctness.

• As soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this memorandum, the Military Departments and Combatant Commands will initiate removal from the active inventory of all cluster munition stocks that exceed operational planning requirements or for which there are no operational planning requirements. The excess cluster munitions will be demilitarized as soon as practicable within available funding and industrial capacity.

Political correctness? Recognizing that old cluster bombs with a high dud rate are simply unacceptable in the battlefield these days I don't think constitutes political correctness. It's called being moral and ethical, especially when said cluster bombs have no practicable combat application left, except as war reserve. So, guess we can expect never to see a Rockeye ever used in combat again.

That being said- if a particular weapon is obsolete or deemed to be malfunctional, of course it should be removed from service. However, weaponry has been continually not used due to their potential before- and with drastic results.

Quote:

Political Correctness will continue to inhibit the military.

Our country is the #1 worrier about collateral damage.

That is why we will never win anything decisively.

Examples:

BVR weapons can not be used without visual verification(sound familiar?).

I remember that one from a LONG time ago... it hurt a LOT!

That has less to do with political correctness than with fratricide, that is, not wanting to shoot down your own buddy. Such restrictions were in place when there was no such thing as AWACS, NCTR and AIFF (BVR shots occurred all the time in Dessert Storm and in Bosnia/Kosovo - in fact, in the latter conflict, I believe every single fighter the coalition shot down was BVR). If you don't have the technology to make sure you're not shooting down a friendly BVR, you shouldn't shoot anything BVR. Period, end of story.

Quote:

Targets in civilian populations must be investigated personally.

Sure, up close and personal CQB activity is no big deal, right?

Yes, because the alternative is not giving a sh!t whether civilians get hurt, which would put us on moral equivalency with the terrorists who target civilians or don't care whether civilians are hurt and/or killed.

Quote:

Sorry, but frankly they shouldn't have gone to fight with the practice mitts on. Better that they stayed here in the first place, for all of the good it has done so far.

The fiasco in Iraq has very little to do with restrictive ROE and everything to do with going to war under false pretences and without any clue whatsoever of the long-term consequences.

Quote:

I apologize, but a local lad in the Marines had just been shipped home for another funeral. It is very dismaying to see this continue on.

Believe me, I know what it feels like to lose a brother and I'll leave it at that so I understand your frustration. However, you have to appreciate that what we are "fighting" in Iraq is not a war but a political public relations game. Given that fact, whether you like it or not, it has never been about "winning" ever since this thing turned into a quagmire. To go around indiscriminately killing civilians would subvert precisely what we are trying to do there, and that is to get the Iraqis over to our side, not al-Qaeda's or whichever other radical Islamic group is operating there right now. And believe me, during the first days of the war, when the purpose was to take over that hell-hole as quickly as possible with overwhelming force - as per the Powell/Shwarzkopff doctrine - the ROE were very relaxed indeed. The U.S. knows how to win a war very, very well. We just suck at "nation building", which we should have never engaged in, especially when we did so for the "sake" of people who clearly did not want us over there. Now they say we shouldn't leave because it could lead to civil war and genocide. I say, so? That's their problem, not ours. "Have at it, fellows," I would say. "Sayonara, muthaf#cker!"

Elite 1K Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 1090 Status: Offline

Bullcrap....what we are doing is fighting a completely unconventional war in a completely conventional way. Whether you like it or not, we are engaged in nothing short of a media relations conflict, and the battlefield is, despite the very real casualties, being fought on TV and on the internet in little sparring sessions like this. The idea is to get as many useful idiots like yourself riled up enough to use phrases like "quagmire" enough to get some spineless politician to give up.....thus has always been the plan. Its convienient in the extreme that Enduring Freedom....every bit the "quagmire" Iraq is, seems to be largely ignored by spineless politicians. Now, having been fighting a surrogate conflict with Iran and Syria for 4 years, its time to declare victory and head on home because Lord knows those folks are just going to give up and live in complete peace and harmony....like they were before we pissed 'em off with that whole false pretenses war. So, when the 2 or 3 millionth muslim dies and the mdeia has slathered the unmitigated carnage on the TV 5 hours a day for a year the spinless politicians will demand action to end the genocide....hell, maybe even France will play.

Peddle that shi'ite to the tourists......

AfterburnerDecalsScott wrote:

Bullcrap....what we are doing is fighting a completely unconventional war in a completely conventional way. Whether you like it or not, we are engaged in nothing short of a media relations conflict, and the battlefield is, despite the very real casualties, being fought on TV and on the internet in little sparring sessions like this. The idea is to get as many useful idiots like yourself riled up enough to use phrases like "quagmire" enough to get some spineless politician to give up.....thus has always been the plan. Its convienient in the extreme that Enduring Freedom....every bit the "quagmire" Iraq is, seems to be largely ignored by spineless politicians. Now, having been fighting a surrogate conflict with Iran and Syria for 4 years, its time to declare victory and head on home because Lord knows those folks are just going to give up and live in complete peace and harmony....like they were before we pissed 'em off with that whole false pretenses war. So, when the 2 or 3 millionth muslim dies and the mdeia has slathered the unmitigated carnage on the TV 5 hours a day for a year the spinless politicians will demand action to end the genocide....hell, maybe even France will play.

Peddle that shi'ite to the tourists......

Baah, baah, baah... another sheep.

Elite 1K Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 1090 Status: Offline

Yawn...

Gulp, gulp....another Kool-Aid drinker.....

Enthusiast Joined: May 31, 2005 Posts: 69 Status: Offline

Gulp, gulp....another Kool-Aid drinker
Do you even know what this means?

Elite 1K Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 1090 Status: Offline

Yep....I wrote it....do you?

All things aside, it boils down to what I said up above...

Nothing in that statement is "concrete." It is simply a statement in a letter that shows some sort of limited intent; just so someone can say it exists.

No specific dates, no specific numbers, no specific plan, no specific anything. Doh

Which translates into; "Nothing specific to argue about" Rolling Eyes

To save some readers time and/or confusion to some of the terms used in this topic: http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1323

This forum is not a place for heavy political debate, which is where this appears to be going... Big No No

Quote:

Forum etiquette
The F-16.net forums cater to an international audience. In order not to offend anyone and provide an enjoyable experience for everyone visiting F-16.net, we would like to ask you to follow the following guidelines:

* Avoid politics and religion.
* Be courteous: respect other people's opinions, and keep the discussion civilized.

D@mi+! Now play nice... Whistle

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Enthusiast Joined: May 31, 2005 Posts: 69 Status: Offline

Yep....I wrote it....do you?
Yes. It's a good calibration point on the ignorance of the user. The "drink the Kool-Aid" is based on references to the Jonestown massacre. However, it was actually Flavor-Aid that was used there. Anyone who uses the "drink the Kool-Aid" snark is pretty much guilty of what they're quacking about -- blind following of a trend without actually checking the facts.

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

DoD Cluster Munition Policy