Yet Another Defence Cut – The Entire USMC.

April 30, 2009

Yeah, that’ll clear up a lot of budget issues, won’t it?

===

TOP US MARINE DEFENDS $13 BILLION DOLLAR AMPHIBIOUS TANK

Let’s start with the headline…

Yo Rooters, the EFV is not a “tank” by any definition of the term. It’s an Amphibious Armored Personnel Carrier, otherwise known as an APC. It cannot do the jobs that a tank can do, and vice versa. The EFV does not cost $13 billion each, $13 billion buys us almost 600 of them. Overpriced to be sure (and not enough of them either), but certainly not the thirteen billion dollar per vehicle lie that Rooters is pushing with that headline.

Ah but, we already know that the Rooters headline writers are a bunch of uneducated idiots, so let’s dig right in to the rest of the feces from Rooters…

“U.S. Marines must be able to storm enemy shores in amphibious vehicles such as those being built by General Dynamics Corp, the top Marine said, defending a $13.2 billion program called into question by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.”

General Conway should not have to explain the obvious to you idiots at Rooters. The US Marines are an AMPHIBIOUS force. That means they sail to their objective on ships and they land at their objective, preferably through docking facilities, but on some occasions, when the enemy will not permit normal docking operations or such facilities are not available, the Marines must have the ability to land over beaches and their landing craft must have the ability to defend themselves from enemy fire. This isn’t too difficult a concept for you, is it Rooters? Because it is clearly far too difficult a concept for Robert Gates to understand and that is far more worrying then the babblings of a bunch of poorly educated legacy media whores and terrorist supporters like Rooters.

“As conceived by the Marine Corps, the EFV is to be able to transport up to 18 combat-ready Marines at high speeds on both land and sea. It would have advanced communications capabilities, provide increased armored protection against rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices, and deliver lethal firepower up to 2,000 meters (2,200 yards).”

With the exception of the speed part, this was planned as a straight forward replacement of a class of vehicles that the USMC already has. The AA7V/LVTP7 series was first developed in 1967 and the last one was delivered in 1974. The LVTP7 last received a major upgrade in the early 1980’s. After almost forty years in hard USMC service (is there any other kind of USMC service?) and several wars, they are worn out and beyond further repair or upgrades. The AA7V/LVTP7’s were due for replacement a decade ago. Without these vehicles the US Marines no longer have the ability to land any where any time by sea, which after all, is the very definition of the military term “Marine.”

“But Gates, in an April 17 speech to the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, said he had directed Pentagon planners to take a “realistic” view of the need for landing large numbers of troops “so we can better gauge our requirements.”

“But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious action again,” Gates had said on the last stop of a weeklong tour of the armed services’ war colleges to promote revamped budget priorities. “In the 21st century, how much amphibious capability do we need?”

So what Gates is saying is that we no longer need the USMC or any of the US Navy’s big amphibious landing ships.

I think we’d be a lot better off keeping the USMC and its amphibious capabilities, and firing the historically challenged Robert Gates.

Is this what you voted for?

TOLD
YOU
SO,
R


Samael – Rain (live HQ)

April 29, 2009

My theme. I’m sure this is a repost but I just found the HQ version, so suffer.


Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

April 29, 2009

An Introduction to the Animal Rights Agenda

HSUS and PETA masquerade as organizations concerned with the welfare of animals, but in fact their agendas are to eliminate all relationships between humans and animals. They use the terms “animal rights” and “animal welfare” interchangeably to promote their radical objectives.

PETA, in 2007, euthanized 97% of the animals they claimed they were “rescuing” from legitimate animal shelters. They did so in order to “liberate” them from “enslavement” they would be subjected to if they were taken in by humans who value the companionship of animals as pets.

HSUS does not operate a single animal shelter. None. Local humane societies are not funded by HSUS. Very little of the money given to this group has been used for the welfare of animals. Millions of dollars donated to HSUS for the care of animals that could not be taken to safety with their families following Hurricane Katrina were diverted to its lobbying activities, and this is the subject of current investigations.

HSUS spends tens of millions of dollars annually promoting the notion that there is a huge population of companion animals roaming unchecked in virtually every city and township and rural county in the nation, and uses this myth as justification for seeking the passage of laws to restrict animal ownership. They state that some three million dogs and cats are euthanized each year by animal shelters because “home can’t be found for them” due to the fact that many people who want a pet choose to buy a dog or cat of a particular breed (or age or size or temperament). They fail to mention that euthanization statistics include feral cats, ill and/or aged animals brought to shelter by owners who have decided a humane death is the last kindness they can give a beloved pet, and dogs surrendered to shelters specifically because of temperament issues that make them unsuitable as family pets. If it were true that all of these three million animals could have been appropriately re-homed if people did not buy puppies and kittens from people who breed them, there would be no need for animal shelters to import puppies from other countries to satisfy the demand for “adoptable” puppies.

If PETA and HSUS were truly concerned with actual animal welfare issues, they would be urging budget increases for the agencies charged with enforcing existing animal cruelty laws. There ARE abused and neglected animals, and those who mistreat animals are in violation of regulatory laws that are already on the books of every state. Rather then encouraging that these laws be effectively enforced, they seek to have laws enacted that severely restrict, and will eventually end, ownership of all animal species. This is NOT an “animal welfare” goal, and only a tiny fragment of the vast amounts donated to PETA and HSUS in the name of “animal welfare” is being used to improve the well-being of domestic animals.

The vast majority of the money given to these groups by well-meaning animal lovers is used for political action, including lobbying for anti-animal ownership laws and campaign contribution to candidates who support their agendas.

“Our goal is to make [the public think of] breeding [dogs and cats] like drunk driving and smoking.”
-Kim Sturla, former director Peninsula Humane Society & Western Director Fund for Animals, stated during Kill the Crisis, Not the Animals campaign and workshops, 1991

===

From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

Do not let the name fool you…the Humane Society of the United States does NOT own, manage, operate, or support ANY local humane societies.

Do you know where and to whom your donations are going?

Do you think you have been helping the millions of homeless pets you care so much about?

The sad truth is if you donate to HSUS you are only fueling a wealthy pro-vegan and politically motivated animal-rights group.

The animals you care about never get the care they desperately need.

Please donate to you LOCAL Humane Society.

The Humane society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group.

===

Animal Rights or Animal Welfare or something else altogether?

Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter.

Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets.

And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

I
ACCUSE,
R


Hey Robert From Long War Journal – Comment Here.

April 29, 2009

Robert – “Well, I can concede that it is set in “bone, fiber etc.”

Render – A concession, that’s a start.

Robert – “The content I meant is set in stone.”

Render – Nothing is permanent, or immutable. Nothing of this earth will last forever. It all returns to the dust, mud, and muck from whence it came. Nothing lasts forever, not even the two Buddha’s of Bamyan.

Robert – “I do not know the expertise of Puin in Arabic, but it is supposed to be read in Arabic and Arabic alone, the god’s language.”

Render – I didn’t ask you if you knew of Puin’s expertise in Arabic, but I did provide you with a link that you probably should have read before you responded.

Robert – “Of course you have to consider its adulteration by foreigners.”

Render – No, not really, I don’t. At least not more or less so then I would consider its adulteration by the very hands that wrote it, the minds that first memorized it.

Robert – “But one billion people sincerely believe in this book.”

Render – 1.2 billion going by most estimates. But I thought you wrote earlier that only the Saudi’s and the Afghan Taliban were practicing it correctly. I would think that would reduce the sincerity level down to about 30 million, give or take a few.

Robert – “The few that want to tamper the content for their own benefit, not because they have some interest in the veracity of its content.”

Render – Do you think the original authors did not write it for their own benefit? Do you not question Uthman’s motivation in codifying it, writing it all down in one place for the first time? Like all holy books, its veracity is highly questionable, after all, it was written by men.

Robert – “Its a miracle that Muhammad was illiterate and still could come up with this divine book. It takes direct will from god for this to happen.”

Render – Except that there is fairly strong evidence that Muhammad was in fact, quite literate.

Robert – “Instead of incessant questioning if you try to understand you will get somewhere, Render.”

Render – Robert, did it occur to you that I might already know the answers to these questions?

Robert – “Anyway, how is my belief in god any different from yours (if you are not an infidel). You are just as helpless in defending against atheists as I am against you.”

Render – No Robert. I was born into a religion far, far older then yours. The religion from whence the term “set in stone” originated. Robert, my religion is not threatened by atheists, I’ve never seen huge crowds of atheists screaming “death to all Jews” at the top of their lungs. I’ve never seen pictures of atheist lynch mobs literally dismembering Jews with their bare hands. You see Robert, if you are one of those true believers, then I’m your worst nightmare. I’m a Zionist and I will never submit.

Render – Now then, if you wish to continue this line of discussion, I suspect the administrators of this blog would be much happier if we took it elsewhere. If so, feel free to post a comment on my little bloglet (linked in my name) and I’ll unmoderate you.

MACCABEE,
R


Hello There

April 27, 2009

acu20infra

Nice to meet you.

HAPPY
HALLOWEEN,
R


Schipperkes Rule

April 27, 2009

flag

LITTLE
CAPTAINS,
R


Allah Can’t Touch This

April 23, 2009

BEATING THE AIR
INTO SUBMISSION,
R


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers