Rumsfeld at his best......

[rpm]

Yeah, Ripsnort's right. The SecDef can not be held responsable for bad tactics, poor planning, poor equiptment and lack of "give a ****" about troops on the ground.

Why is the Defense Department only using 1 contractor to make armour upgrade kits? Who makes those decisions?

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Toad
And that pretty well nails it down. This thread should just dry up and end now.

 Or focus what really is a grave injustice- the double standard of "rules" as they're applied to National Guard units vs. Full Time military.

Because a National Guardsman isn't full time military they aren't eligible for a VA disability pension should they become gravely wounded. They also aren't eligible for Workman's Comp should they not be able to return to their civilian job cause it wasn't an on-the-job injury.

The best America can do for a National Guardsman who, say, loses his legs in Iraq combat is get him Social Security disability...and that takes 24 months of a disability before you can collect benefits.

Now THAT is jacked up.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Toad
And that pretty well nails it down. This thread should just dry up and end now.

 Or focus what really is a grave injustice- the double standard of "rules" as they're applied to National Guard units vs. Full Time military.

Because a National Guardsman isn't full time military they aren't eligible for a VA disability pension should they become gravely wounded. They also aren't eligible for Workman's Comp should they not be able to return to their civilian job cause it wasn't an on-the-job injury.

The best America can do for a National Guardsman who, say, loses his legs in Iraq combat is get him Social Security disability...and that takes 24 months of a disability before you can collect benefits.

Now THAT is jacked up.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Toad
And that pretty well nails it down. This thread should just dry up and end now.

 Or focus what really is a grave injustice- the double standard of "rules" as they're applied to National Guard units vs. Full Time military.

Because a National Guardsman isn't full time military they aren't eligible for a VA disability pension should they become gravely wounded. They also aren't eligible for Workman's Comp should they not be able to return to their civilian job cause it wasn't an on-the-job injury.

The best America can do for a National Guardsman who, say, loses his legs in Iraq combat is get him Social Security disability...and that takes 24 months of a disability before you can collect benefits.

Now THAT is jacked up.

[Airhead]

Hmmm... my computer musta thought that bears repeating.

[Pongo]

What is nailed down?
That billions are spent on weapons that are never used instead of on weapons that will imediatly save US soldiers lives?
That Ruhmsfeld says you go to war with the army you have not the army you need when he had every choice to go to war or not and heavily endorsed going into this war with the army he had or less?
And at every point were he was asked if they had enough he said they had enough. Now that some trooper raises the obvios question its time to circle the wagons arround old ruhumy and say its not his fault..
lol

I think this nuts stratagy of prememption should take into account what his army is equiped to do. It should take into account how his enemy is likly to resond.
Maybe take into account that tones of guys like Ripsnort will cheer on the troops but not sign up to actually fight the battles. And will not like to have less mony spent at Boeing so that the girls and boys driving arround in Iraq have vehicles with a half decent chance of keeping them alive.

Instead they will buy new toys for themselves while the men that do volenteer will be denied the chance to stop serving after they have done thier time. They will be denied the wage they can earn on Civi street with thier real lives while they climb back into the scap pit to dig out more iron to weld on their humvees making them top heavy and dangerous just to drive much less take a mine hit in.

want to know why the troops dont have these vehicles. I dont know but look at who owns stock in the hummer company and who owns stock in the real mine proof truck company.

[jamusta]

Pongo thats the way things are in the military. Do more with less. I have accounts of jerry rigged equipment that you wouldnt think was possible. But the stuff worked. Combat humvees were the first to add kevlar to them unfortunately that wont stop a rocket propelled grenade. A bradley is too bulky for that kind of mission. Marines have the LAV which would probably work best.

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So you admit that the point of your thread was just to find something...ANYTHING to bash Rummy?

That says alot about the blind bias that does not allow you to intellectually analyze the situation in Iraq in a fair manner, thus mitigating your opinion to that of a gnats.

Rip,  you have a bad habit of trying to twist bullshiat into words.


My thread is about how Rummy handled the question in his typical heavy handed and arrogant manner.  In this case, it was to a man that he has sent to put his life on the line.  That man, as the country deserves better and less flippant responses than your man dishes out on a regular basis.

In this thread I got off track of the main point of the thread.  I admited that I really can't, i good conscious say that I absolutely know that he is responsible for an armor supply problem.  I did it freely and you took it like a louse.

You have tried to twist my remittance into something else entirely and than take that false accusation and use it to try to discredit my opinion.  You insult my intelligence and say that my opinion is worthless.   Why did you even feel the need to do that Rip?  We are adults and I've voiced my difference of opinion.  And in one matter, I have even admitted I was wrong.  Why do you feel the need to personally attack me?

I have read many posts of yours and while I have not agreed with most of your view points, I have at least showed you the common respect that is due to another adult.  Tell you the truth Rip, after that totaly uncalled for post, I've even lost that respect for you.

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So you admit that the point of your thread was just to find something...ANYTHING to bash Rummy?

That says alot about the blind bias that does not allow you to intellectually analyze the situation in Iraq in a fair manner,  

and the fact that you, of all people, can actually say the words "blind bias" and keep a straight face is amazing.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do Toad and I have to re-emphasize our points again?  Please re-read them..

Wow, it almost made me violently ill see you trying to trade in on Toad's legitimacy.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Pongo
What is nailed down?

The whole question of why the Humvees aren't armored vehicles. They were specked, designed, built and bought for an entirely different scenario and now... as seems to happen in most all wars... the equipment designed for one thing is now being modified as a stop-gap to do an entirely different mission.

Don't fool yourself; if we suddenly bought 100,000 Cougars and equipped the whole force with them, they'd probably be "right" for this war but undoubtedly "wrong" for the next one. Because the enemy will adapt and avoid your "strengths" and work on your perceived "weaknesses".

That billions are spent on weapons that are never used instead of on weapons that will imediatly save US soldiers lives?[/b]

Billions are ALWAYS spent on weapons that are never used. The nuke capability of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's, for example. Never used, thank God; but if they weren't there the cost might have been much, much higher.

Back when we bought Humvees for GP transportation, the military planners weren't planning on using them for occupation duties against people whose main weapon would be an IED on a roadside. Otherwise, they'd probably look a whole lot like a Cougar.

They're building uparmored Humvees right now ~ 400 a month. We're buying some Cougars too, and I expect we'll be buying many more. And it will eventually turn out that these new vehicles aren't what we need for the next encounter and so we'll have wasted billions on things we can't use.

That Ruhmsfeld says you go to war with the army you have not the army you need when he had every choice to go to war or not and heavily endorsed going into this war with the army he had or less?[/b]

I'm sure you realize the SecDef is not the guy that makes the decision to go to war. He executes the decision to go to war.

And you go with what you've got. You think Roosevelt's Secretary of War went with what he had or what he needed? You think Truman's Secretary of Defense went with what he had or what he needed? Rumsfeld got his marching orders, just like any Private; he went with what he had.

And at every point were he was asked if they had enough he said they had enough. Now that some trooper raises the obvios question its time to circle the wagons arround old ruhumy and say its not his fault..[/b]

It's clear they didn't plan for two years of IEDs. I'm pretty sure no one in the Pentagon with any real horsepower thought that the Humvees were ever going to be used they way they're being (ab)used now.

If you want to accuse Rumsfeld & Co. of anything, accuse them of being wrong about the probably post-war situation with respect to continued guerilla warfare.

Which is an entirely different topic than what this thread is about.

want to know why the troops dont have these vehicles. I dont know but look at who owns stock in the hummer company and who owns stock in the real mine proof truck company. [/B]

Well, you're the one making the accusations. So show us who owns large amounts of stock in General Motors. I think there's about a half a billion shares of GM common stock outstanding last quarter, in the mid 12 dollar range I think.

How much of it does Rumsfeld own, Pongo? Because you're suggesting Rumsfeld (or who...gasp.. not BUSH?) is directly profiting from deliberately putting our troops in vehicles unsuited to the task they are presently used for but not designed to do, right?

As for the "mine proof" vehicles, don't forget that the Cougar isn't "mine proof". It's just more heavily armored. People will die in Cougars too.

Now there's only ~200 million shares of Force Protection stock out there and it's trading right around twenty cents a share. If I was Rumsfeld, I'd see a lot more opportunity for ill-gotten gains there than at GM.

Anyway, why don't you tell us just exactly who's getting illegally wealthy from uparmoring Hummers and not making the military buy Cougars?

Thanks.

[Pongo]

But your incorrect. The neocoms, led by Ruhmsfeld did decide on a stratagy of procactive military attack any oposition when they saw fit. They formulated the whole strategy with Iraq in mind in the 1990s. Such a stratagy unless you think that all will colapse to your will, requires occupation forces.  It is self evident Toad. Self evident and predicted.

And troops were not only sent into iraq on day one with hummers. They were sent into iraq today with unarmoured hummers.
How does your little fantasy of Roosevelt in WW2  apply. Its like fighting in Late 43 with M3 stuarts and P40bs instead of M4a3s and P47 d5s.
Your very  examples show the weakness of your defense of this man.

What we have in Iraq is not a barely concievable outcome. Its not even an unlikley outcome. It was entirely predictable and predicted.
You and others on this board chose to ignore those predictions and insult those that made them.
Your heros in the white house apperntly treated those who advised them to the realities in the same way.

The level of arms in Iraq was well known. IEDs or not it was predictable that every US soldier in Iraq would be in mortal danger as long as he was there and needing the best protection that the richest nation on earth could provide.

[Gixer]

Rumsfield should be honest, they never expected to be getting shot at and the level of violence to continue and still fighting major battles to this day since Bush's  ill concieved "Mission Accomplished".

Seems they only planned to take Iraq there seems little or no planning for the ocupation itself since day one which was always going to be the toughest part. Eas to get yourself into a war bloody hard to get out. Thought they would of learnt that lesson the hard way already.



...-Gixer

[Toad]

I disagree with your assessment on numerous points.

I don't believe that Rumsfeld led any "neocoms" to decide on the strategy for this war.

I think he set some parameters like troop levels, ROE and such and then let his professional soldiers plan the campaign.

I don't disagree that they probably did not give enough thought to the post-war era and the plan they came up with certainly hasn't worked as expected or very well. Obviously, they didn't plan on this level of post war conflict.

You can fault them for the plan but not for the equipment. As I pointed out, the Humvee is an early 80's design. I'm sure the Pentagon never envisioned it in the role it is now playing, not in the 80's and not in 2002.

And troops were not only sent into iraq on day one with hummers. They were sent into iraq today with unarmoured hummers.

Yeah. The decision to initially assault with unarmored Hummers turned out fine. They were used in the role they were designed to do, which is follow after Abrams and Bradleys. Can you point to huge, unusual losses of Hummers in the war fighting phase?

Where they suck is in an occupation/IED scenario. They weren't designed for that and they fail the test. No one argues that.

As for the NG units coming in with unarmored Hummers, the solution is simple and cheap. They should be leaving the armored equipment in place. Why bother shipping unarmored Hummers over? Just leave them in the States and up armor them here when feasible. I suspect there's some red tape bookkeeping foolishness that prevents the Army from leaving equipment and just rotating men. I think THAT'S probably what needs looking into the most right now.

 

How does your little fantasy of Roosevelt in WW2  apply.

[/b]

Pretty directly and aptly. You howl about Rumsfeld's comment that you go to war with the army you have, yet it's an obvious truth.

The Brits went to war with what they had after the invasion of Poland too.

Give me the example of the Army that thought it had absolutely every single thing it needed when it went to war with no General saying "you know, we might wait just a bit until we have the XXXX in more quantity" or something similar. I'm sure there were even a few of Adoph's generals wanting to wait a bit before invading Poland.

I've found it pointless to try and factually debate with the "Rumsfeld and the Neocoms planned to take over ze worldt in 1957" school of black helicopter politics, so I think I'll take a pass on debating this further.

You and others on this board chose to ignore those predictions and insult those that made them.

[/b]

Yeah, I thought there would be WMD and I didn't think there would be this level of guerilla warfare. I was wrong.

However, I don't believe I insulted anyone. Please clip a quote and show me where I did so. Thanks.

IEDs or not it was predictable that every US soldier in Iraq would be in mortal danger as long as he was there and needing the best protection that the richest nation on earth could provide. [/B]

I think that was arguable rather than predictable. I also think that if the elections go well and we can turn more and more aspects of their government over to the Iraqis things will get better and we can start to reduce troop levels. I also realize things could get worse.

As for "best protection", that's what they're getting. What they're not getting is the benefit of a crystal ball.

You do go to war with what you have and you adapt to your problems as fast as you can.

That's what's happening with the Humvee. We're building new armored ones ~ 400 per month. We're up-armoring the ones over there. We're testing and probably going to buy Cougars and Buffalos.

None of that happens with the wave of a wand. We started WW2 with the F4F and ended it with the F8F. Huge advance, but it didn't happen overnight.

I suppose back then you'd have accused Roosevelt's Secretary of War of deliberately delaying development of the Bearcat.

[Toad]

Oh Pongo, by the way, do you have that info on which person in the Bush administration is making obscene profits by sending our boys to war in Humvees?

You know, who has the most GM stock and who has (or doesn't have) the Force Protection stock?

Or was that just another red herring?