Jeff Danziger for January 08, 2011

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good cartoon, eh?

the vehicle can only run on paved roads flat bottomed and vulnerable to mines very unreliable with frequent break downs And if you want, throw another 50 billions at it and give the engineers bonuses for a job not well done.

Usually like Danziger, but I think this one is off base.

Light artillery would sink this so we replace it with…nothing!

This vehicle is a case of the wrong thing at the right time. We should try again, but this time start by defining what it takes to solve the real problem.

Yeah, beenthere, but that would require money.

This one is a misfire, Jeff. The thought that Marines may have to make costly and bloody amphibious assaults against a fortified beach as depicted in your cartoon is horrifying. I seriously doubt low intensity fighting against irregular terrorists require such sophisticated hardware.

We better get a better strategy than to repeat conflicts with nations requiring the same kind of bloodbaths like Tarawa and Iwo Jima.

They did one this year with some of our Asian allies. It was for practice & training & to show potential opponents that they still can.

DrCanuck,,,,,,, I believe it was at Inchon unless you count the landings such as in Grenada where the photographers were already on the beach waiting for them. Hmm, that was when we invaded a protectorate of the U. K. to up the poll ratings of our president.

Wouldn’t it be great, if they used this as a precedent for really meaningful cuts. For instance they might (at long last) deep six Reagan’s budget busting “Star Wars”. For all the money we’ve spent on that monstrous boondoggle - which still can’t reliably shoot down a rigged demo - we could probably have been to Mars and back several times.

Three billion dollars already wasted and 13 billion more if they don’t kill it. It won’t even go 16 miles without breaking down! For every Marine on it there needs to be 3 to repair it.

In fact, the Marine Corps is altogether a waste of money. Why do we need a second land force? Despite their propaganda, there is nothing that the Marines do that the Army can’t do. The last time an amphibious assault took place for real was nearly 60 years ago. If there were a need to attack a fortified coast, the smart thing to do would be to go around it and land troops behind it by helicopter or air drop. That’s what the Army would do. On the other hand, the Marines probably would do a direct attack from the water, get a lot of guys killed unnecessarily to write another chapter in their glorious history to justify their continued existence.

Where are these guys - the coast of Afghanistan?

I am filled with natty dread when I read about military spending ‘health care cuts.’ If the conservatives and libs want to show some class they need to make sure the handicapped vets get hired without descriminatory hiring laws.

The reports I’ve seen indicate it sinks quite well on its own, without an enemy- typical defense spending, especially for Marine equipment. Likewise- remember the Bradley “fighting vehicle” that originally had “armor” that self ignited if shot at? Israel banned their troops from riding in this armored personnel carrier, until they changed the machine.

The Marine version of the F-35 has failed miserably to meet goals and may be cancelled, but with the new House, maybe not.

I might remind: “Amphibious” vehicle does NOT imply one that sinks btw.

All of you people speaking against this vehicle hate our military. There is no such thing as “wasteful” military spending. Even if the thing is way over-budget and won’t even be able to operate at minimum requirements for another $13 billion dollars that is MILITARY spending!! Aren’t there some education or Medicare or Welfare dollars we could simply cut instead? Y’know, “waste?” Cutting ANY military spending, regardless of how fruitless the project may be, is not a right-wing thing to do. Remember, the people spoke on November 4th. They want only purely ultra-right things done. It’s a Mandate. You can’t cut this!! *

My father was injured on Tinian Island, It wasn’t in combat, he was riding in a Jeep that turned over. But I think everything arrived there by air.

^ Like I try not to watch, but clips get included on websites I visit and on Jon Stewart’s show.

Let’s not forget the last ‘specialized’ vehicle aimed at the Corps….the V-22 Osprey

There have been HOW many Marines killed by that thing so far?

The problem with upgrading the vehicle in question was the cost and the convoluted testing process. Yes, the Marines need an updated vehicle, but the military needs to reform its weapons testing. The Pentagon is another agency captured by big business.

Remember the M-16 flap from the Marines in ‘Nam. It tuned out they were following “Marine training”, and ignoring the Colt manual that said “DO NOT GREASE THE BOLT”, because it will carbon up, foul and seize. Marines died because their weapons jammed. I had lots of trouble with M-14s jamming, but never had a seizure on my M-16– guess what, I never greased the bolt, like Colt said. Also, while I fired the M-60 on automatic- of course- from my bird, never once fired the 16 on automatic,as it seemed all the films I’ve seen of the marines at Hue etc- over the walls- showed the “public”. Ammunition is heavy- you don’t waste it firing blindly on automatic, at an enemy you can’t see. Automatic IS for “suppression fire”- but well, ammunition IS heavy.

Survival reflects a degree of intelligence.

It was a huge waste of money, needs to be redesigned from scratch and we haven’t done an amphibious assault since the Korean war.

We could use that $13 billion for Sharks with laser beam forehead mounts. Yeaaaah.

Gates claimed to cut $98B from the Marine’s problem-ridden amphibious tank program, but in fact, slyly redirected the money to other unneeded weapons systems. Nothing saved! Next he promised $78B in unspecified cuts over 5 years, but even those “maybe” cuts wouldn’t start until 2013. Again, nothing tangible saved. It’s all a shell game, and the taxpayers lose.