Does anyone know what this assclown is talking about?

| June 26, 2009

At about 1:20 in he says that the “115’s in Iraq” don’t have enough armor or some such. Is he talking about the M1115 Tow vehicles, or is he just making up stuff again? The only “115” I could find is a Toshiba Satellite for TV, so maybe he just couldn’t get the oxygen channel in his motor pool hooch where he filled out his phenomenally well done DA Forms.

UPDATE: My appologies to Soltz, I was giving him too much credit, apparently he was talking about the M115 trailer, chasis, 1/4-ton, (G747).  I heard that is where he kept his back issues of Teen Beat magazine and the Bad Guys (that weren’t there until the Bush Family Evil Empire’s illegal and immoral war for oil) were trying to steal them from him.

Category: Politics

Comments (27)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Claymore says:

    “Stealth” Raptor? You mean that loud mutha’fokker they’re constantly flying over I-75 near Dobbins ARB? The one that dwarfs an F-16? The one that’s painted up in the “white” with giant green freakin’ crap all over the leading edges and vertical stabs? Stealth. Reporters should stick to shit they know…like how to blow your way into an anchor slot in primetime, or what color eyeshadow goes with your yellow journalism. I have a deal for these shitstains…they stop discussing shit they don’t understand and I’ll agree to get my coffee from a place that serves Maxwell House, that way we both don’t come off looking like clueless dipshits…well, at least I won’t.

  2. Claymore says:

    And an FYI, the F-35 is NOT being built in the same facility as the F-22. Same company, different plants. Fuck head.

  3. Just A Grunt says:

    First off Rep Gingrey does not directly represent Columbus, GA. He is actually the representative from my area Cobb County, GA (GA-11), which is a suburb of Atlanta, about 100 miles north of Columbus. Land nav never was Soltz’s strong suits to begin with. His district does include Lockheed as one of the biggest employers in the county. He did not correct Soltz on that matter though.
    Second, when does an Army motor pool OIC suddenly become an expert on Air Force weaponry? I doubt he would know the difference between an A-10 and a Blackhawk.
    Soltz certainly had a lot of bluster but no facts. I know the M113, your basic armored personnel carrier, long gone from the army inventory, the ITV Improved TOW Vehicle which was the M901, but the closet I got on the M115 was the 8″ towed howitzer, which also has been retired from service. I have no idea what he is proposing to up armor. Maybe there is something else Mr Soltz ought to look into.
    Retirement that is.

  4. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Soltz: I didn’t fight any Chinese in Iraq.

    He didn’t fight any Iraqis, either. All he fought was the shortage of batteries for his PSP. For three months.

  5. Claymore says:

    He didn’t fight any Iraqis, either. All he fought was the shortage of batteries for his PSP. For three months.

    OH SNAAAAP! I know you di-int!!!

  6. TSO says:

    The M1115 is the up armor tow, the M1113 is the up armor Humvee. I assume he was talking about one of them, but with him, who the hell knows.

  7. Claymore says:

    I think he was referring to the M115, a double-pass, micro-particulate oil filter common on vehicles that see combat…you know, unlike the guy who oversees the motor pool.

  8. USMC Chris says:

    Has anyone made the observation that this is a MotorPool pogue who can’t even get his MotorPool jargon correct?

  9. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Don Rumsfeld; As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want….


  10. BohicaTwentyTwo says:

    If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

  11. Mr Wolf says:

    The only thing this fucktard ‘fought’ was his way into chow line. 3 months in the motor pool, and now he wants to talk about fighter capability?

    If he wants to debate Craftsman vs. Snap-on, go for it. Otherwise, TFSU…


  12. cl says:

    How is this individuals service AO or MOS really relevant? They were not really having a major conversation on the subject. His point is still clear and relevant.

    The fact is this is a budget debate and an organization debate which really does not disqualify anyone. This is not a issue that really requires a subject mater expert.

    The facts are we currently have air superiority. Have better tech than any other country. Will continue to have for the foreseeable future. The F-22 and F-35 grant us that. There is a number, a balance between having enough of the platforms in service to meet the needs of the force. That number needs to be decided based on all data provided by multiple agencies…not just the Air Force.

    Of course the Air Force wants more and of course the people at Lockheed want to sell more…that doesn’t mean we need more.

    What we need is to spend our money wisely. Much more wisely than we have. We should spend it as wisely as we spend the American lives that use the equipment we are buying. And on that point the gentleman in the video, regardless of anything else, is spot on about. How many vest can be bought for one F-35? About 50,000. Its about budget, wise spending, balancing all the needs of a single force.

    I am sorry to say this, but who really cares where this Soldier served. How he served. He did. And he has a point.


  13. Cro says:

    CL you wrote:
    “The facts are we currently have air superiority. Have better tech than any other country. Will continue to have for the foreseeable future.”

    But that is NOT pre-ordained to stay that way forever. Nothing is static, and if we don’t continue to develop and arm our military… then when the fecal matter hits the rotary wind device, American service men and women will die. Period.

    We’re not buying them for todays fight. We’re buying them for tomorrows.

  14. Mojo says:

    No offense CL but the F-22 and F-35 are for the future war. Our current air superiority fighter, the F-15C, is 30+ years old. The F-16 fleet is getting on in years as well. Tech costs money (unfortunately sometimes quite a bit) and our “technical edge” is slowly being eroded by future potential adversaries.

    The Chinese and Russians are aggressively pursuing their own “stealthy” 4th generation combat aircraft. Their inventory of combat aircraft (2nd through 4th gen) is as large or bigger than ours in some cases. Our only edge is to produce newer 5th gen combat aircraft because their 4th gen aircraft are barely 10 years old in some cases.

    Without air superiority you can’t win the fight on the ground…it just doesn’t happen. That’s what I teach to the aircrews that I’ve been fortunate enough to work with. I’ve also worked closely in theater in joint ops with all other services and numerous coalition partners and all agree that without newer systems for the future war we are well and truely screwed.

  15. robertM says:

    We have fought air-to-air since Desert Storm- F15C v Mig29 over Bosnia.

  16. Mojo says:

    No we haven’t fought air-to-air since ALLIED FORCE (I remember reporting on that incident.) But that’s just like saying we don’t need better PATRIOT systems because they shot down SCUDs during DESERT STORM. Times change, technology gets better and our adversaries get smarter.

    But it’s not rocket science either. The military takes great pains to plan for the future. We look 5 – 10 sometimes 20 years down the line for future potential conflicts. That’s what drives aquisitions and R&D for weapons systems…to counter the threat now and in the FUTURE.

    Maybe I’m just not understanding your side of the arguement. But since I work with and train aircrew types for the war now and in the future I would beg to differ. It’s not a matter of “IF” is is a matter of “WHEN”. Me personally, I want every one of my brothers and sisters in arms to make it home. I want every single edge I can get for them. Wether that is through my ability as an instructor, as a AF professional or through supporting my chain-of-command’s decision to push for the purchase of future cutting edge weapons systems.

  17. Dave Thul says:

    Soltz:there was no need for advanced fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan, therefore there will be no need for advanced fighters in any war ever again.

    He’s actually not alone in this mindset. My unit doesn’t train on conventional set piece battles anymore, it’s all counter insurgency and peace keeping. Even a dumb grunt like me knows that you rarely ever fight the same war twice.

  18. UpNorth says:

    “That number needs to be decided based on all data provided by multiple agencies, not just the air force”.
    Would those other agencies be ACORN and the Congressional Black Caucus? Both wanted the F-22 killed long ago, so that the money could be spent by them, on their constituencies.
    Some may find it shocking that there are those, in congress and out, who could give a s**t about service people, and their equipment. Sarc/off.

  19. Uber Pig says:


    I’m sympathetic to the argument that budget priorites have to place the ground war, and equipment for the infantry soldier, ahead of the f-22 or the f-35. But for Soltz to ridicule those planes as unnecessary because he wasn’t fighting the Chinese in Iraq implies that he was, well, fighting someone who wasn’t Chinese. TSO and the other commenters are simply pointing out what they see as Soltz’ unwarranted chest-puffery. Which is too bad. There are very real criticisms of the F-22 and F-35 (Read what Everest Riccione, instrumental to the development of the f16, wrote on this topic).

    — Uber Pig

  20. Sam Elliot says:

    Had a Chinese guy in my unit who pissed me off a few times, but we worked things out, never really came to brawlin’…

    Seriously, is he talking about the effing trailers??? “Not holding up?” They’re effing trailers


    And why is no one talking about the dihydrogen monoxide threat? Anyone have any idea how many soldiers that kills in a year? And more armor will only make it worse…

  21. Sam Elliot says:

    On the other hand, there are a hell of a lot of good reasons for not getting more F22s on THIS YEAR’S budget. Too bad Soltz isn’t familiar with any of them.

  22. mel says:

    The question shouldn’t be F-22 vs. vests. It should be military spending vs. funding ACORN or attempts at social engineering.

  23. douglas says:

    Last time I checked, the Constitution was explicit that the federal government was responsible for defense. That means F-22’s and 35’s are mandatory spending for them, ACORN, and social engineering projects are optional. You’re on target, Mel.

  24. NHSparky says:

    Shit, I can’t wait for him to tell us we only need 20 submarines or some such crap like that.

  25. pmm says:


    20 submarines are COMPLETE overkill. I’m able to win Axis and Allies with a strict emphasis on tanks and bombers. I’m pretty sure that’s how Soltz gets his procurement expertise.

  26. Is there a key sticking out of stolz’s back that someone winds up to make him babble like the GOD-DAMN, GUTLESS, HATE-FILLED, ANTI-MILITARY, TRAITOR COWARD that he is???????????????????????????????????

  27. Richard says:

    peace through superior fire power you can never have enough and in the end air power secures ground power