http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/256653.php
Could Muthra be behind it?
We know he likes to take payoffs.
““We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK … it’s more durable,” said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who’s in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.”
There’s no way in hell the m16 is more durable than the AK-47.
[quote]Legionnaire wrote:
““We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK … it’s more durable,” said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who’s in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.”
There’s no way in hell the m16 is more durable than the AK-47. [/quote]
What a joke, huh?
While the M-16 can be considered superior in some areas durability/reliability is not one of them.
The Iraqi’s would probably be better off with the AK. I like th M-16 platform but you have to keep it clean. I don’t know if the Iraqi’s have the discipline to do that yet.
Murtha just had his challenger invalidated by the way. Another smooth election for Abscam Jack.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Legionnaire wrote:
““We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK … it’s more durable,” said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who’s in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.”
There’s no way in hell the m16 is more durable than the AK-47.
What a joke, huh?
While the M-16 can be considered superior in some areas durability/reliability is not one of them. [/quote]
And there’s the fact that the country already has millions of AKs. Murtha or not, the defense contractors roll on.
Anyone surprised at this hasn’t been paying enough attention.
Some good points have been made about keeping the Iraqi army supplied with ammo that is incompatible with the terrorists weapons and other logistical stuff.
Hedo’s point is well taken. Hopefully the Iraqi Army proves to be more competent than the rest of the Arab armies.
Of course I wouldn’t be surprised to find a massive bribe to Murtha behind it all either.
I thought terrorists, blew shit up, I didn’t know they engaged in rifle warfare…when they do that, are they still considered terrorists?
Also, giving the Iraqi army M16s, is just going to trickle down into the terrorists, considering the Iraqi army isn’t “trustworthy” or reliable at all.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
that is incompatible with the terrorists weapons and other logistical stuff.
I thought terrorists, blew shit up, I didn’t know they engaged in rifle warfare…when they do that, are they still considered terrorists?
[/quote]
You have proven yourself stunningly ignorant.
[quote]
Also, giving the Iraqi army M16s, is just going to trickle down into the terrorists, considering the Iraqi army isn’t trustworthy or reliable at all.[/quote]
We shall see about that won’t we? And when we do we will have a much easier time figuring out exactly who is selling them to the bad guys.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
that is incompatible with the terrorists weapons and other logistical stuff.
I thought terrorists, blew shit up, I didn’t know they engaged in rifle warfare…when they do that, are they still considered terrorists?
You have proven yourself stunningly ignorant.
Also, giving the Iraqi army M16s, is just going to trickle down into the terrorists, considering the Iraqi army isn’t trustworthy or reliable at all.
We shall see about that won’t we? And when we do we will have a much easier time figuring out exactly who is selling them to the bad guys.
[/quote]
Not really, they are already awash in U.S. weapons and money, partly via the “Awakening.”
There’s an new Iraqi patrol base being built right up the road from us. We were supprised to see them using m-16s ourselves. I guess the idea is to try to get them into the whole NATO thing. Myself and alot of others really dont think they are going to clean them the way they need to be cleaned so I’m going to predict alot of jams in the future. Oh and they also have the 1151 humvees too!
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
that is incompatible with the terrorists weapons and other logistical stuff.
I thought terrorists, blew shit up, I didn’t know they engaged in rifle warfare…when they do that, are they still considered terrorists?
Also, giving the Iraqi army M16s, is just going to trickle down into the terrorists, considering the Iraqi army isn’t trustworthy or reliable at all.[/quote]
Thats the idea.
US are selling poor quality guns to iraq army, iraq army supply the terrorist.
Result -
US get rid of some old M16 and even get paid.
Terrorist are now armed with stupid guns. 
Cool!
[quote]hedo wrote:
The Iraqi’s would probably be better off with the AK. I like th M-16 platform but you have to keep it clean. I don’t know if the Iraqi’s have the discipline to do that yet.
Murtha just had his challenger invalidated by the way. Another smooth election for Abscam Jack.[/quote]
I agree. The M-16 is more accurate and more user friendly, but the AK is indestructible. You can leave it in the rain for days, have it run over with a jeep and caked with mud and the mutherfucker will still shoot just as well as before.
I know, I saw it on the history channel.
If an insurgent rifleman using guerilla warfare is synonymous with a terrorist, when his acts are no more terrifying than that of any other rifle man.
Then I suppose being stunningly ignorant is synonymous with being an absolute genius.
So Thank you.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
You have proven yourself stunningly ignorant.
If an insurgent rifleman using guerilla warfare is synonymous with a terrorist, when his acts are no more terrifying than that of any other rifle man.
[/quote]
Murdering innocents?
Nope.
[quote]
So Thank you.[/quote]
You really need to stop polluting the politics forum. We are trying to pull up the level of discourse. There are intelligent people with opposing viewpoints actually starting to post again. You have no place here.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
You have proven yourself stunningly ignorant.
If an insurgent rifleman using guerilla warfare is synonymous with a terrorist, when his acts are no more terrifying than that of any other rifle man.
Then I suppose being stunningly ignorant is synonymous with being an absolute genius.
So Thank you.[/quote]
It wasn’t so much the use of rifles that makes insurgents terrorists, it’s their torture chambers and beheadings - you know, things that instill terror.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Legionnaire wrote:
““We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK … it’s more durable,” said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who’s in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.”
There’s no way in hell the m16 is more durable than the AK-47.
What a joke, huh?
While the M-16 can be considered superior in some areas durability/reliability is not one of them. [/quote]
I hope the Iraqis like cleaning caked-on carbon out of upper receivers. The AK, for its inaccuracies, at least has a piston.
This reminds me of a story of when I was in the Phillipines. I’m trying to fill my truck up with as many guns as possible so I grab a Filipino soldier to stick in the back seat. I figure he’d be a pretty good tool for discerning Abu Sayef from civilians.
So he’s sitting back there and his M16 is atrocious. I asked him, “You ever clean that thing?” “Sure,” he replied as he pulled a rag from the hollow of the pistol grip and wiped down the outside.
When I’m done picking my jaw up off the floor I take his rifle and break it down shotgun style. The soldier protested because he thought I was breaking it. I pulled his bolt carrier out and disassembled it. The bolt was so badly rusted that one of the teeth was actually broken off.
I pulled out a Mk19 bore brush and gave the whole thing a one over before putting some CLP on it and doing a function check after putting it back together. The guy looked shocked at how smooth the action was, “Ahhh, no stoppages!”
I pray the Iraqis do better, but I won’t hold my breath.
mike
[quote]jawara wrote:
There’s an new Iraqi patrol base being built right up the road from us. We were supprised to see them using m-16s ourselves. I guess the idea is to try to get them into the whole NATO thing. Myself and alot of others really dont think they are going to clean them the way they need to be cleaned so I’m going to predict alot of jams in the future. Oh and they also have the 1151 humvees too![/quote]
Damn, I haven’t heard of any of this. What area of Iraq are you in?
I’m in the south. I haven’t seen any Iraqis with M-16s. What markings do they have on their 1151s? Do they look just like ours, or are they painted differently?
Dustin
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Legionnaire wrote:
““We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK … it’s more durable,” said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who’s in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.”
There’s no way in hell the m16 is more durable than the AK-47.
What a joke, huh?
While the M-16 can be considered superior in some areas durability/reliability is not one of them. [/quote]
LOL! I couldn’t believe he said that.
As others have stated, the M-16 is easy to take a part and assemble but they have to be maintained, even in decent conditions, much less the desert.
What is the purpose of doing this anyway? Is it really so the IA can go the NATO route?
Am I being cynical to think that it is merely a way for weapons makers to make some extra bones?
Dustin