3 ms·

You're using temporary stories to stretch to an extrapolation that it was a longer-term context, when it wasn't. The US ramped up its armoring of humvees, built

You're using temporary stories to stretch to an extrapolation that it was a longer-term context, when it wasn't. The US ramped up its armoring of humvees, built and supplied vast numbers of entirely new highly armored vehicles, and ramped up its supply of vests for soldiers. The US could supply its own troops and did. It wasn't lacking capability or funding to do so. It's borderline silly to try to compare the Ukraine situation with the US situation. They're not similar.

romwell 5y ago
It looks like you are missing the point of it comment you're responding to. They know that the US has all the money and capability to supply the troops. And yet, there were many cases of troops on the ground lacking essential supplies and equipment. It's one of those "it takes 6 months to move a box from one shelf to another in IBM" kind of things. Hence the usefulness of direct and local relief efforts. Hence me linking to those first.
zdragnar 5y ago
I recall helping my friend's parents in 2008 because they were running an annual fundraiser to buy equipment for troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. It started when they had to buy bullet proof vests for him for his first deployment (I dont recall the year, probably 2002 or 2004). Now, that isn't to say their situation with Ukraine is the same, but it does demonstrate that even small donations can help in times of need.
dghlsakjg 5y ago
It wasn’t a case of not enough resources it was a case of too much of some and too little of others. Up armored vehicles are great, but if your mission is patrolling goat paths you need good boots. If you need a set of good boots ASAP, having a bunch of up armored trucks won’t help you. Just because you have the budget doesn’t mean that it was spent in the right places every time.
dylan604 5y ago
No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm suggesting that there are times when it is faster to go through side channels vs red tape offical channels type of thing. You're reading too much into my comment in a very disingenious manner.

romwell 5y ago

It looks like you are missing the point of it comment you're responding to. They know that the US has all the money and capability to supply the troops. And yet, there were many cases of troops on the ground lacking essential supplies and equipment. It's one of those "it takes 6 months to move a box from one shelf to another in IBM" kind of things. Hence the usefulness of direct and local relief efforts. Hence me linking to those first.

zdragnar 5y ago

I recall helping my friend's parents in 2008 because they were running an annual fundraiser to buy equipment for troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. It started when they had to buy bullet proof vests for him for his first deployment (I dont recall the year, probably 2002 or 2004). Now, that isn't to say their situation with Ukraine is the same, but it does demonstrate that even small donations can help in times of need.

dghlsakjg 5y ago

It wasn’t a case of not enough resources it was a case of too much of some and too little of others. Up armored vehicles are great, but if your mission is patrolling goat paths you need good boots. If you need a set of good boots ASAP, having a bunch of up armored trucks won’t help you. Just because you have the budget doesn’t mean that it was spent in the right places every time.

dylan604 5y ago

No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm suggesting that there are times when it is faster to go through side channels vs red tape offical channels type of thing. You're reading too much into my comment in a very disingenious manner.