Rummy gets reamed...

[abooja]

At issue is that a reporter (a supposedly objective observer) planted a question---at an event reporters were told they were not allowed to cover. By doing this he is not reporting the story---he IS the story. Journalistic integrity He should be fired.

Well said. I completely agree.

 

[PostCode]

Now that the election is over the media is working double duty to come up with stories to bash Bush; why does the media have this ongoing agenda?


Why is President Bush being attacked for a problem the previous president sat on for 8 years ?




Well, there was no armor in Bosnia, no tanks in Somalia.... but if troops under BUSH are lacking something, suddenly its on every front page for three days and all the libs light up and start to care about something they didn't care about the day before.

Just imagine the WHINING if the Pentagon had tried to appropriate more money for newer high tech armor BEFORE the war. Rumsfeld is right-- when war becomes necessary, you have to make due with what is at your disposal.


Remember that guy who complained about spending too much money in Iraq:

"....while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That's the wrong choice; that's the wrong direction; and that's the wrong leadership for America."

At issue is that a reporter (a supposedly objective observer) planted a question---at an event reporters were told they were not allowed to cover. By doing this he is not reporting the story---he IS the story. Journalistic integrity He should be fired.

The problem with Rummy is that he wants to decrease the size of the Army, not increase it. Considering the global nature of deployment this is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

 

[rrfield]

I think he replied with a quip about going to war with the army you have. Sadly, he's right. Defense spending cuts from previous administrations have gutted our soldiers' equipment to shameful levels. Yet we expect nothing less than 100% success from them.

You know, we didn't have to go to war when we did. Turns out there wasn't really a reason to go to war, but that's a different topic.

My question is why didn't the USandA wait until "the Army we have" and "the Army we want" were the same thing?

I truly feel for our military personnel. With civilian expectations being what they are, coupled with the aforementioned budget cuts, they are in a no-win situation on the domestic/civilian front. We seem to be telling them, "Here. Take this stuff. We're not gonna give you more. Oh, and you better win. But play nice now, we'll sue you if you don't. Also, we'll be protesting and picketing and stuff the whole time you're there. Most likely, you'll return to no job, no benefits, and an unsympathetic populace who don't really care about you. But we still expect you to win. Oh, and win on our timetable, wouldya? Now go do what I ain't willing to do, do it my way, and be quiet about it. No, you can't have another cookie. Just go on now and do your little duty, while I stay here and nail your wife if I can and steal your job. You'll get your medal...someday."

Shameful.

This isn't Vietnam. The public knows the difference between the troops on the gound and the leaders in the Pentagon who are making the decisions.

 

[Gato_Solo]

You know, we didn't have to go to war when we did. Turns out there wasn't really a reason to go to war, but that's a different topic.

My question is why didn't the USandA wait until "the Army we have" and "the Army we want" were the same thing?

Because the army you have will never have the equipment of the army you want. There's always something better out there that we are trying to get our hands on...better armor, better weapons systems, better communication gear. What you suggest is logistically impossible.

This isn't Vietnam. The public knows the difference between the troops on the gound and the leaders in the Pentagon who are making the decisions.

The pentagon get's it's orders from the SecDef, who gets his orders from the President, who get's the okay from Congress. The problem arises when the folks in Washington (civilians and politicians) try to run the war instead of letting the troops in the field run the war. That's what happened in Vietnam. LBJ once bragged that the USAF couldn't bomb an outhouse without his okay, and people wonder why that whole war was a fiasco?

 

[A.B.Normal]

My question is why didn't the USandA wait until "the Army we have" and "the Army we want" were the same thing?

They weren't expecting any resistance,so the unarmoured vehicles were sufficient.Now the question of why they were way overly optimistic in believing Chalabi and those others Iraqis living outside Iraq is a better question IMO.

 

[Professur]

Actually, if you wanna pay attention, the lack of armour during the invasion wasn't a problem. In fact, it helped. Under armoured vehicles moved faster. The problem is that now their in a police action, which noone foresaw. Everyone expected the Iraqis to be doing a much better job policing themselves by now.

 

[chcr]

which noone foresaw.

Oh, I wouldn't say that.

 

[Professur]

Oh, I wouldn't say that.

Not to this degree. By now, they expected to by pulling troops out, not sending more in.

 

[PostCode]

Under armoured vehicles moved faster.

Obviously you've never found and disabled the governs on the M1 tank.





As a driver I got to know a few of them and could get an easy 15-20 more miles and hour out of it simply by disabling a few.

Even so, the M1 will move at 45MPH, the problem is fuel. It gets about 2 gallons to the mile and with a total capacity of about 500 gallons. That doesn't get ya far.

 

[Gonz]

Now that really sounds stupid Gonz. Comparing Normandy to this. Normandy had a country that was on a wartime economy! The way you make it sound is a soldier is expect to purchase the very equipment that to help protect his lie that should be issued to him! No force should ever go into combat without proper supplies in place for any circumstance. We fucked up on the logistic front big time and we are still fucking up. If a soldier doesn't even has the proper equipment for himself before entering combat then he shouldn't be entering combat. Period.

Normandy...send 100,000 men & expect 20% to survive. Give them too much equipment so 15-20% drown. Not one man had armored anything nor was it available. The military counted on sheer numbers to get them through.

High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle....it's a jeep. It's not built for nor intended to be used in combat. It is a support vehicle. The M1044 is built for war.

Rummy was right. We go to war with the army we have, not the army we want.

That is historically accurate. As we progress, we get better equipment. Until then, the troops, using good ole American know how & ingenuity, have to improvise, adapt & overcome.

I don't like it. I just know that's how the system works. Wanna change it? Contact your Congressman.

 

[Gonz]

Doesn't make it any less true. I've been hearing about this for months.

Doesn't matter. Journalists are not supposed to be activists. That's how he acted. He convinced the Guardsman to ask a question that wasn't his to ask. The question is fair. The way it was asked was wrong.

 

[Winky]

Help me out there Posty
can a HMMWV ever be made a survivable vehicle
against properly devised IED's?


Wow unless this is a total lie then the up-armoring has been well handled.

"When commanders did the initial Pre-Deployment Site Survey Iraq assessment in early 2004, it was thought that operations in Iraq needed 1,000 up-armored humvees. That would go ahead and beyond on the routes on the streets to go ahead and carry our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen, as they did their daily patrols. As the enemy changed tactics and techniques, CENTCOM upped that number so that as of late April 2004 there were about 2,500 up-armored humvees in theater. When the enemy changed tactics, the commanders did their assessment and came forward with an additional requirement, that requirement was immediately put on contracts. The contractor was able to surge the production rate by a factor of three. There are approximately another 2,000 additional up-armored humvees on contract that were to flow in between April and in December 2004. At that point CENTCOM was to have approximately 4,500 up-armored humvees. There are also 8,000 up-armored kits installed, that protect windshields and doors of an additional 8,000 vehicles. Those are in addition to the up-armored humvees."
link