Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
  1. #31  
    Administrator SaintLouieWoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sarasota Florida
    Posts
    40,306
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    If they want to cut costs...they need to start at places like Kandahar and Kabul where you have 6-7 DFACS in addition to fast food vendors...before they start cutting services at the forward areas.
    Another cost cutting idea---cut back on that lobster for Michelle O and perhaps lower the costs at the WH for the food for the O's and their pals. They could probably feed all the military in Afghanistan with those savngs. (and yes, Nova, I haven't done the math, just trying to make a point).
    http://http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/SarasotaRepub/83069bcc.png

    " To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."

    "
    A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Except that the FOBs are the first to shut down in this kind of drawdown and it costs more to run food service out there. The economy of scale for having multiple DFACs in one location is significant, especially when you factor in the way that drawn down units will go through those big bases when they redeploy. This isn't about saving money. Democrats don't care about that. It's about demonstrating that we are subordinate to them and punishing the troops.
    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    BINGO! And in reality...somewhere there's an MKT going unused that could be put to use.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The decision to withdraw precipitously was Obama's, therefore the effects are his.
    So the objection is actually to the withdrawal? Or to anything Obama does?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    So the objection is actually to the withdrawal? Or to anything Obama does?
    Strawman
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    So the objection is actually to the withdrawal? Or to anything Obama does?

    I think you know the answer without even asking it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36 Re: Obama Eliminates Breakfast for US Troops in Afghanistan 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    So the objection is actually to the withdrawal? Or to anything Obama does?
    The withdrawal is gutless and guarantees that we will be back there again, but taking meals from the troops is just despicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I think you know the answer without even asking it.
    You certainly seem to think that you know what's in my head. Why don't you explain why you favor this before attacking those of us who've been there? Your kneejerk defense of Obama is becoming tedious.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    This is true. The elimination of cooks at all levels saved money in peacetime, but became expensive during wartime. It was a classic case of saving pennies and then shelling out dollars.
    It also adds security concerns. Whenever you have a third party civilian contractor you take a greater risk of hiring a saboteur. You also take a greater risk of the contractor acting in its own interests and not in that of the troops. Add Congress to the mix, wanting their districts to benefit from Federal pork, and you have a recipe for risky inefficiency on the front lines. The military is made for war and national security. They should be allowed to operate as such, even if it costs a few extra dollars in peacetime.


    (I remember when Rumsfeld put food and water privatization (read: Halliburton) on the table. The real defense people I knew were flabbergasted that a Secretary of Defense would increase the risk of supply line sabotage on troops in the battlefield.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38 Re: Obama Eliminates Breakfast for US Troops in Afghanistan 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    It also adds security concerns. Whenever you have a third party civilian contractor you take a greater risk of hiring a saboteur. You also take a greater risk of the contractor acting in its own interests and not in that of the troops. Add Congress to the mix, wanting their districts to benefit from Federal pork, and you have a recipe for risky inefficiency on the front lines. The military is made for war and national security. They should be allowed to operate as such, even if it costs a few extra dollars in peacetime.


    (I remember when Rumsfeld put food and water privatization (read: Halliburton) on the table. The real defense people I knew were flabbergasted that a Secretary of Defense would increase the risk of supply line sabotage on troops in the battlefield.)
    It wasn't Rumsfeld, it was Les Aspen. Halliburton has had the LOGCAP contract since the mid -90s and this kind of contracting was in place when the US went into the Balkans.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    It wasn't Rumsfeld, it was Les Aspen. Halliburton has had the LOGCAP contract since the mid -90s and this kind of contracting was in place when the US went into the Balkans.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    I clearly remember Brown and Root operating in Somalia in 1993...in the pre KBR days.

    Billy Jeff was doing no bid contracts with them as well...back before those kind of deals became evil.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    What do you think the troops would eat for breakfast if they were at home?
    Do you really not get that being deployed in Afghanistan is absolutely nothing like being at home, going in to work at the base for eight hours a day and then going home again? Seriously? The dietary needs between the two are MILES apart.


    One of you Army guys: whats the "correct" caloric intake for someone who is deployed to an active zone these days? 3300 calories or something like that?
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •