IT WAS PROPER FOR GI TO QUESTION RUMSFELD

Larry434 wrote:

DTOM: Of course combat soldiers are getting shot at and the SOD never does.

but i addressed that in my post. and yes, rumsfeld is a person. but instead of being upfront with the guy, he sort of shuffled and made excuses. does anybody here think that's "supporting the troops"?

Larry434 wrote:

I find the whining going on (and I don't think the GI was whining, just asking a legitimate and respectful question) from the enemies of this administration about lack of a well equipped military to be a bit silly given the conditions that existed in the first two years of WWII and at the beginning of the Korean War by comparison.

really? do you think swartzkopf is an "enemy of this administration"? how about chuck hagel ? it's not just "dems" or "liberals" that are pissed off by this stuff. "well equipped" does not mean only having the most bullets and bombs. what about the body armour? still don't have enough of that stuff. that piece, in particular, was mentioned in every attack on kerry and the 87 billion. got a burger king in baghdad, though. now that's helpful.

and we both know that the iraq mission is nothing like wwII or korea, larry. in light of the fact that this is a completely "elective" procedure, it is absolutely disgraceful that these kids have to do their job without the proper amount of whatever they need. and frankly, it's not being honest for anybody that savaged kerry over his alleged lack of support for the troops and the 87billion to let this pass without outrage. btw, my pop's a combat veteran of the two wars you mentioned, and a lifelong republican (except for a onetime vote for roosevelt). pissed off does not begin to cover his feelings about rumsfelds remarks and the general failure of his department to deliver.

Larry434 wrote:

And bear in mind that tanks are as armored as it gets, yet they too can be blown apart.

<sighhh> i didn't buy that philosophy when rummy said it either. guess we could just send the guys into battle naked, with only a spear, like the picts.

0 Replies

I'm glad that's being done...but it's a long way from anywhere in NC I know about....

0 Replies

Thanks, BPB. I'll keep looking. I do want to say, though, that when I'm feeling the most despair...on those days when the war news is at its gloomiest, when I sometimes even feel guilty for backing what sometimes seems a doomed effort, the first people I turn to is those in the trenches.

I honestly don't think they'd lie to me. Their candid responses to any and all questions, their stories about what they are seeing/hearing/doing on a daily basis is what motivates me in my support.

Their number one request (when asked) for the Christmas care packages was socks! Also making the list was energy bars and baby wipes. None of them included any "luxury" items, though. Truly humbling.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

0 Replies

mornin' jw. all packed for the trip to the left coast ?

this is not meant in a hostile way, just wonderin' ( :wink: ). are the folks that you chat with in the military personal friends from here in the states or are you in on one of the "pen pal" projects ?

0 Replies

"Larry434 wrote:
And bear in mind that tanks are as armored as it gets, yet they too can be blown apart.

<sighhh> i didn't buy that philosophy when rummy said it either. guess we could just send the guys into battle naked, with only a spear, like the picts. "

What is about heavily armored vehicles being blown apart by shoulder fired weapons that you do not understand, DTOM?

The point is, no matter how heavily armored one is, one can still be killed by fairly unsophisiticated weaponry.

And volunteering to serve your country in uniform, while commendable, is volunteeering for very dangerous work.

0 Replies

What is about heavily armored vehicles being blown apart by shoulder fired weapons that you do not understand, DTOM? <-- Larry

Hell, I don't understand this. What's the point of spending several million on a tank that can be blown up with a $300 rocket?

And volunteering to serve your country in uniform, while commendable, is volunteeering for very dangerous work. <--- Larry

Given the amount of money we are spending, we should be making it less dangerous if we can...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hell, I don't understand this. What's the point of spending several million on a tank that can be blown up with a $300 rocket?Cycloptichorn

Here's the point.....the several million spent on the tank comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.....then goes into the pockets of a select few private contractors and manufacturers.......all of whom are connected to the politicians who start the wars....they tithe back to the politicians in many ways both known and unknown and the politicians, just to sweeten the pot, make sure these select few legally avoid paying taxes on the money they earn.....war...big business and big profit for a select few....who cares if a 300.00 missile blows up a million dollar tank? Then the taxpayers are taxed more to pay the select few to profit from building more million dollar tanks.....which they share back with the politicians ordering the death of our taxpayers, their children and the citizens of the countries we are at "war" with....what's so hard to understand? Or was that a rhetorical question.... :wink:

0 Replies

It would have been much easier just to carpet bomb the entire region. The world thinks we are nothing more than brutal invaders anyways. A MOAB here and there would take care of the insurgency.

We wouldn't need any armor then.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It would have been much easier just to carpet bomb the entire region. The world thinks we are nothing more than brutal invaders anyways. A MOAB here and there would take care of the insurgency.

We wouldn't need any armor then.

So why not prove it? Let God sort 'em out....

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

mornin' jw. all packed for the trip to the left coast ?

this is not meant in a hostile way, just wonderin' ( :wink: ). are the folks that you chat with in the military personal friends from here in the states or are you in on one of the "pen pal" projects ?

Afternoon, DTOM: Almost ready Smile

Not leaving for a few days.

The way my first involvement came about is I got an email from a friend (Captain, USMC) informing me and several other friends that there were men in his unit who got no mail from the US. NONE. He asked if he supplied only their rank and last names if each of us would undertake writing/sending cards/packages on a regular basis. Of course, we were all happy to contribute. None of us, at first, even knew the gender of the person we were writing to!

Since then, I've become involved in several other support efforts - the care packages - and my list of "pen pals" has grown substantially. Some have come home, some are deployed in places other than Iraq, but all are appreciative of the efforts. I listed some of my favorite sites here on A2K once, but the thread got deleted (spam). A simple "google" of support our troops will reveal lots of ways to help. My favorite is the one with the name "operation" and "ac" in it LOL. (put a www in front of those two words, then a .com after). We sent air conditioners up until October - now we're sending heaters, since it gets really, really cold there.

You're almost never hostile LOL. Almost.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What is about heavily armored vehicles being blown apart by shoulder fired weapons that you do not understand, DTOM? <-- Larry

Hell, I don't understand this. What's the point of spending several million on a tank that can be blown up with a $300 rocket?

And volunteering to serve your country in uniform, while commendable, is volunteeering for very dangerous work. <--- Larry

Given the amount of money we are spending, we should be making it less dangerous if we can...

Cycloptichorn

I do not disagree. Which is why we now have better helmets to replace the old steel pot, body armor to save lives, and better armor and weaponry. That is why the KIA rate in Iraq is less than any war of equal magnitude in history.

But, no matter what you do, war will still be very dangerous and people will be killed, no matter how much anyone would imagine it possible to be otherwise.

Why don't we "armor up" our cars and prevent the 50,000 innocent citizens killed every year? The answer is....COST!

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

What is about heavily armored vehicles being blown apart by shoulder fired weapons that you do not understand, DTOM?

The point is, no matter how heavily armored one is, one can still be killed by fairly unsophisiticated weaponry.

I don't quite understand the viewpoint that you are advocating here, Larry. Let me lay out my reasoning, and you can tell me where it differs from your own:

1. The military armors its vehicles. (Tanks, APCs, etc.)
2. I assume they do this for a reason.
3. I further assume the reason is to make the vehicle (and the soldiers inside the vehicle) more difficult to kill.
4. The enemy will therefore have to devote energies to carrying more powerful weapons (e.g., shoulder-fired rockets instead of, or in addition to, small arms). This increases the physical strain on the insurgent and the logistical strain on the insurgent's supply line.
5. Therefore, armoring vehicles makes things more difficult for the enemy.
6. Therefore, as many of our vehicles as possible should be armored.

Now, let me explain the logic I follow from your post:

1. Armor is not really useful for protecting vehicles in combat; the enemy can always find something to penetrate it.
2. At best armoring our vehicles has psychological value for the soldiers inside the vehicle; at worst it is a financial boondoggle.
3. The defense department really has no interest (or ability) to protect the troops in the field.

Now, tell us again how we shouldn't worry about whether our vehicles are armored.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
mornin' jw. all packed for the trip to the left coast ?

this is not meant in a hostile way, just wonderin' ( :wink: ). are the folks that you chat with in the military personal friends from here in the states or are you in on one of the "pen pal" projects ?

JustWonders wrote:
Afternoon, DTOM: Almost ready Not leaving for a few days.

remember to practice up on your spanglish.

JustWonders wrote:
...I got an email from a friend (Captain, USMC) informing me and several other friends that there were men in his unit who got no mail from the US....

that's very cool of you. i may look into that. not sure if a crusty old rock 'n roller could offer much of interest though.

JustWonders wrote:
You're almost never hostile LOL. Almost.

ahh, well, we does r best. maybe the anger reduction is working ?

0 Replies

The army used to use armored personel carriers. You can tell by the name what they were used for. They also drove jeeps. Now, I am sure you have seen jeeps. They were not armored, but were used for carryingf people around. Not really useful in a battle.

With the decision to scrap the jeep, they came up with the high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) or humvee.

I don't think the original purpose was to replace the APC, but to enable a faster, more versatile vehicle.

Tanks are supposed to be armored, thus the name.

0 Replies

You care to address any of my points?

Obviously some humvees are armored. In fact, I posted a link recently that stated the humvee armor manufacturer is not running at full capacity.

0 Replies

Now, tell us again how we shouldn't worry about whether our vehicles are armored.

Can't Drew, because I agree they should be armored to the maximum practical extent.

As earlier stated, it reduces the number of KIA, but will never eliminate them. One must accept that without 100% safe vehicles, armored or not, they will not prevent all deaths.

Which is why we tolerate 50,000 deaths of innocent U.S. citizens in our autos in every year....about 140 per day.

A sad fact of cost/benefit analysis.

0 Replies

Yeah, but we (in many cases) aren't even providing minimal levels of armoring for our troops' vehicles....

If Humvee's aren't going to be well enough armored to protect troops from IED's, period, then we need to get new vehicles.

Perhaps someone should have THOUGHT of this before the war? Hmmm? The fact that we are trying to fight on the cheap is leading to deaths...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The army used to use armored personel carriers. You can tell by the name what they were used for. They also drove jeeps. Now, I am sure you have seen jeeps. They were not armored, but were used for carryingf people around. Not really useful in a battle.

With the decision to scrap the jeep, they came up with the high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) or humvee.

I don't think the original purpose was to replace the APC, but to enable a faster, more versatile vehicle.

Tanks are supposed to be armored, thus the name.

No disagreement here.

Then the question becomes, why are HUMVEES being used at all? It appears that, while casualties are low, a high percentage of those casualties are a result of the HUMVEE. At some point, either the stratagy needs to be changed, or the equipment needs to be changed.

Why is Rumsfeld having a hard time figuring that out?

0 Replies

He isn't having a hard time figuring that out.

You're just making the mistake of believing that the lives of the troops are the most important factor in this equation. They aren't. Accomplishing the goal in Iraq is what is important to those running the war. If some people have to die.... well, it's not the ones giving the orders, so who gives a damn?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Now, tell us again how we shouldn't worry about whether our vehicles are armored.

Can't Drew, because I agree they should be armored to the maximum practical extent.

As earlier stated, it reduces the number of KIA, but will never eliminate them. One must accept that without 100% safe vehicles, armored or not, they will not prevent all deaths.

Which is why we tolerate 50,000 deaths of innocent U.S. citizens in our autos in every year....about 140 per day.

A sad fact of cost/benefit analysis.

I'm afraid that doesn't clarify your position for me, Larry.

On the one hand you say vehicles should be armored to the "maximum practical extent." On the other you seem to have supported Rumsfeld's childish (IMO) "well even tanks can be blown up" attitude.

And I agree, the money we're spending on Iraq to "combat terrorism" could be much better spent domestically, if protecting the lives of US citizens were actually the goal of this administration.

0 Replies

IT WAS PROPER FOR GI TO QUESTION RUMSFELD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know