previous post next post  

H&I* Fires: 22 FEB 2008

By Denizens on February 22, 2008 | | Comments (9)

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

***************************************

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has been out polling the Right Side of the 'Sphere:

"If the results of this latest blogger poll on John McCain are to be believed, he still has quite a bit of work to do to bring conservatives to his side. Currently, 25% of conservative bloggers say that they don't intend to vote for McCain and only 34% say that they consider him to be a conservative. Most of the rest of the results are similarly gloomy. Read them all here..." Color me mainstream on this poll... which hasn't always been the case.

Speaking of Senator McCain:

The nation’s top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.

The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create is the latest in a series of bitter challenges for the presumed GOP nominee, who still faces a fractured conservative coalition as he assumes the mantle of party leadership.

I'm afraid I must channel Say Uncle here:

"Pardon me, while I laugh hysterically at you."

Oh, sweet irony. -the Armorer

*********************************

Oooo! Oooo! More fodder for my "Pretty Guns" fetish I've been developing (gotta lurve the innernuts!).

Glock has just come out with a Pretty M1911A1! It *must* be true, CNN sez so! See?

Despite CNN's expert opinion, this is *not* a Glock. It's some form of M1911A1 clone

You should tootle over to The Smallest Minority for the rest of the story.

I was briefly in the rolodexes of two CNN producers who would ask me to confirm weapons and ordnance id's - I guess being accurate was a problem. Neither of them work for CNN anymore. -the Armorer

**********************************

Blackfive demands an apology. Me too! -the Armorer

**********************************

I agree with Rob over at Sharp As A Marble - this weapon was discharged negligently. Not accidentally. And the shooter's bosses seem to agree, since they are giving him a written reprimand. But they shouldn't pull their verbal punches. There is some precision involved in accountability here, not like calling a spade a shovel. -the Armorer

********************************

Armchair Generalist, with an *excellent* discussion of military transformation:

from cockpit to boxoffice
. Exquisite. -the Armorer

********************************

There has been much bloviating about "Obama's Captain" - for a sampling, run through todays posts at National Review's "The Corner." Jake Tapper took the time to call the Obama campaign, and was put in touch with Obama's Captain. As usual, the story isn't quite what either side makes it out to be.

[updated thoughts on the subject - one should also know the story is 4 years or so old... and most sane observers of the war recognize two things in that regard: One, we didn't go into Iraq with the best long-range planning we've ever done; and Two, things are better in the context of this story, even if they aren't where we'd like them to be. Of course, one reason they aren't where we'd like them to be is because the anti side wants to criticize the war using a standard (total mobilization of the population and economy, ala WWII) that no one, not even them, have suggested we do for this kind of war... -the Armorer]

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone."

Share This Article:

Categories:

9 Comments

By Boquisucio on February 22, 2008 10:51 AM
Look at the sheen on that Glossy "Glock". Chartruse Body with Candy Apple Red Slide, and Salt Taffy Grips. I bet it shoots real Hersheys' Kisses.
 
By kat-missouri on February 22, 2008 11:45 AM
Dude, I was just about to ask if we could eat that gun, too! I mean, wouldn't that be cool as both a spy gun and a survival tool? Fire and then eat it. Of course, it would have to shoot those chocolate kisses or some skittles, cause I ain't eating any gunpowder taffy
 
By Trias on February 22, 2008 8:25 PM
I don't like it actually, I keep thinking how kids might react to it. It's in a similar vein as the lighter story from AFSis. While I appreciate responsible gun owners would try to keep them out of kids hands the idea of making guns appear as toys is irresponsible in my view. And that, to me is the core of the US gun debate. Responsibility.
 
By The Sanity Inspector on February 22, 2008 10:03 PM
Fans of gun pr0n may enjoy this article, about the fate of old Nazi tanks in former battlefields in Bulgaria.
 
By J. on February 23, 2008 12:11 PM
"...because the anti side wants to criticize the war using a standard (total mobilization of the population and economy, ala WWII) that no one, not even them, have suggested we do for this kind of war..." I'm looking at this quote trying to understand exactly what you mean by it. Are you saying that both the Repugs and Dems wanted to fight Iraq on the cheap? Funny, I only remember Prez Bush saying "don't worry about the war, go shopping." Unfortunately, every military expert, from Clausewitz through Gen (ret) Powell, suggests that you go in hard, full bore, with the total effort of the country's assets behind you. A short war is a cheap war. This very expensive war, upwards of $10 billion a month - a MONTH - that has not allowed the successful end of post-conflict operations, clearly shows the failure of such a philosophy.
 
By kat-missouri on February 23, 2008 12:49 PM
Tria...I think the point of the that gun post was that 1) It's not a glock and 2) it's fake. But John can clear that up I'm sure. J...Based on the multiple "plans" presented under Democrat senators and pretenders to the presidency, John's statement would be correct. These plans have almost all insisted that the "war on terror" should have been, would have been a "police action" involving very few men and weapons, largely "covert" and would not have involved any overt economic sacrifice from the public. thus, any idea that either a Republican or Democrat president would have engendered the American publics energies any more than it has is highly misleading. Also, interesting that the "cost" of long, slow small wars in dollars is preferable to short, high intensity, many casualty, big wars except, as Clausewitz notes, in the waning of energies and support of the people for the war at all. The problem, of course, stemming from the probable global impact of a very large war wherein every sort of treaty and national self interest of multiple nations becomes paramount and could, indeed, become a "global war" the likes of which we would not prefer to see. Thus, money v. time, money v. casualties, money v. international instability. I'm for spending the money. For now, anyway. Thus, either way, both the Dems and the Republicans would have been on or near the mark. The only issue is that I supported less than WWIV and more than spec ops and Interpol.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 23, 2008 2:44 PM
Heh. J, you wear your heart on your sleeve... But, pretty much what Kat said. I have seen nothing from the left that suggests we should have fought, or should fight, or that they would fight, this war on a level of intensity approaching that of WWII. I have seen that from the right, but not from the people in power. But the Left will happily criticize any weaknesses in the prosecution of the war from a perspective of the effort put into Total War, ala WWII. That is somewhat disingenous, given that they would not prosecute the war in that fashion. That was simply my point. I am not required to have a Right-bashing point to balance every Left-bashing point. I don't pretend to be balanced. I do try to be fair. Trias - yes, my point was that CNN had the details wrong. It wasn't a comment on the trend. If you've been tracking my "Pretty Gun" posts, you can see I'm not a fan. Your point is certainly valid. But I don't have to make all points in all posts, do I? Gad, they'll get even longer! BTW, J, I was *never* been a fan of invading Iraq, and was *not* happy with the initial planning. Just to keep that straight - and have not been shy about saying so, and I do so here simply because you've chosen to lecture On War (I assume for the broader audience and I hope not because you think I am uninformed on the subject), and no, I'm not going to take the time on a blog to address every possible nuance of the subject. People will quit reading if I do. Besides, it gives you an excuse to show off your reading skillz.
 
By Justthisguy on February 23, 2008 8:09 PM
I have decided that, if I ever have to call 911 to report a bloody hole I have just loudly made in myself, I will call the cause an "Un-intentional Discharge", or UD. This avoids the negligence question. Besides, an accidental discharge is possible, as anyone knows who's handled a Charter Arms revolver. I had the hammer fall on one of those without my finger being on the trigger. A neighbor had the same thing happen with hers. The Four Rules were observed in each case, the pieces actually were not loaded, but I am prejudiced against that brand of revolver.
 
By Trias on February 23, 2008 9:16 PM
Yes I saw from the link it seemed to say it was not a glock but was a functional gun. Media making a factual error? It's kinda sad we accept that as normal. News sells emotion not truth, any view of CNN or FOXnews shows that in seconds.