Rumsfeld Armor Question Planted by Reporter

[Hogboy]

I KNEW it!  No way that guys hangs his neck like that by confronting the Secretary of Defense publicly and embarassing him.

There just had to be a self-serving, biased journalist looking to cause trouble so he can sell papers behind it all!!!  They should report the news, not try to make it.

Mr. T's character, Clubber Lang, had it right in "Rocky III" when he told the reporters in his dressing room that they were "parasites and leeches."

You can tell I generally don't like journalists, right?

 

[Ripsnort]

Regardless of the source of the question, it was indeed a valid question however a better question would have been why are we using light-skinned vehicles against opposition that has the weapons to easily destroy the vehicles?  

Incidently, a para or two from the CNN article:

"Reporters don't have the same access any longer that they did to ask their own questions," he said. "And planting a legitimate question with somebody who may have the access, I think, is an acceptable practice.

"The question is whether or not the soldier who asked the question really believed in it, and my guess is that he did, or he wouldn't have asked it," said Loory, who also is editor in chief of Global Journalist magazine.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita disagreed.

"Town hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said in a news release.

"... The secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."

[SunTracker]

We all have only 1 life on this planet.  If embarrassing a senile old man whos in charge of our military in order to save some lives works, then I am all for it.

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
"Town hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said in a news release.

"... The secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."

Hmmm....  if that's the case, why was the press allowed there at all?


Was it supposed to be a press event where the world gets to see the secretary of defense "handle" important questions from soldiers that are intimidated by him?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by mosgood
Hmmm....  if that's the case, why was the press allowed there at all?


Was it supposed to be a press event where the world gets to see the secretary of defense "handle" important questions from soldiers that are intimidated by him?

"It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."[/b]

[Nilsen]

Me thinks it has been way to much focus on making equipment light and mobile and not enough on making them tough enough to protect people. When one fights the kinds of wars (and conduct peace keeping operations )that lets troops get very up close and personal with potential threats you need heavy armour on wheels... not light and nimble vehicles that can be transported on c-130's.

I see it within our army too. Light and quick reaction equipment have been favoured over heavly armoured stuff.  Sending our guys to afghanistan in unarmoured 4x4's is asking for trouble I think adn its only a matter of time before one gets blown up.

[rpm]

"Now settle down. Settle down. Hell, I'm an old man and it's early in the morning."

Yes Donald, it's OK. We'll tell the insurgents to wait until you have your coffee and Metamucil before they start killing us.

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
"It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command." [/B]

Sorry Rip,  your gonna have to spell it out better than that.  My"Blind Bias" is getting in the way of reading BOLD print as well......

[TheDudeDVant]

The DS had a nice piece on this last night.. Showed much more of the scene.. There were more questions asked on this subject to Donald than just this one. Questions asked by more than one person. lol  Was a strange scene actually seeing Donald stumped and at a lack of words..

[Ripsnort]

Yankee soldiers complained a lot but on occasion one wrote home saying they could tough out the roughest conditions. H. R. Leonard of Indiana was one.---
"I have layed down in the rain and slep all night and got up in the morning driping wet and cold and hungry. But I see my comrads in the same fix and think it no worse for me than for them. We have all the chestnuts and persimmons we can eat every day... We can live in the woods like hogs."
--- Bell Wiley's The Life Of Billy Yank.

The Sherman had some major improvements on the superstructure and on the armament as well as on the welded or cast hull. The "General Sherman", under which name the new tank was soon to be known, was equipped with a 75mm gun, which was, however, insufficient against the German Tanks.

Frequently the crew was forced to protect the tank sides and the front with sandbags. In some instances the most exposed track sections were covered and sometimes even cement or steel blocks were attached.

how many more examples from history would you guys like where soldiers were ill-equipped?

[TheDudeDVant]

how many more examples from history would you guys like where soldiers were ill-equipped?

I hear you rip.. But still, how many of these conflicts were by choice? WW2 was not a war of choice, Iraqi is a war of choice.

[indy007]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
how many more examples from history would you guys like where soldiers were ill-equipped?

You should read Great Land Weapons of WW2. I believe that is the name, but it's sitting at home on my nightstand. It has a very good analysis of how inferior the Sherman was, and why it wasn't updated. 2 reasons basically, the constant push by a certain general for the US Tank Destroyer doctrine (which failed, only Germans & Russians did it right), and the unwillingness of the US to sacrifice production volume. I'll edit this tonight when I can list the author. The only good version was the british made Sherman Firefly, which had a nasty anti-tank gun that could handle Tigers... armor was still a joke though.

[Steve]

I KNEW it!

Old news, covered in another thread.

[Pongo]

The US ordinance clowns that kept the Sherman in the state it was in well past when it should and could have been effectivly updated have been reviled down through history for calously and narrow mindedly wasting there soldiers lives...Good comparison Ripsnort. Thanks.

As to your other stupid example. Soldiers through history have been hungery and cold inumerable times. Union solders in the Civil war are no exception. If you must dredge an example of poorly equiped Civil war soldiers up certainly the South would be a better example. What being hungery has to do with not being issued the equimpment that would make the soldiers effective in completing thier pridictable mission in a predictable enviorment participating in an optional war is beyond me.

Why dont you use the the US torpedo scew up as an example of how Ruhmsfleld is no more incompetent then the most incompetent US leaders in history?

You ought not to try to debate things based on interent searches Rip. It just shows how little you know about the issue and in no way helps your hero.

[lazs2]

what level of armor should a humvee have?

lazs