Reptile & Amphibian Forums

For those who saw Rumsfeld answering questions for the troops.

When faced with a question from a solider about the need for improved armor on vehicles in IRAQ...Rumsfeld Told them (after having to have the question repeated) "You go to war with what you've got."

Perhaps he made the mistake of telling the truth.

Aid to the troops was a big campaign issue. Now that they are back in power, Bush and his gang COULD CARE LESS.....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Well, I'm not real pleased with a lot of things the guvmint is doing. The WHOLE lot of 'em though, not just Bush. He's just one person. A whole lotta empty suits with so little sense between 'em, it does amaze me. I think the problems stem from the nature of bureaucrats and bureaucracies in general. Political party means little to zero now, democrats and republicans will serve us the same steaming maggot-ridden pile of tripe. I think we need to expect less, and depend less on the guvmint for services (police, firemen etc.) and health care and retirement and learn to manage our own lives and surroundings better ourselves. Depending on a "nanny" type governing body of fat, lazy pig headed bureaucrats will not get us the results we want . All just my opinion.
Thanes Place

-----
Thane

What? Kerry voted against funding for the armor for the vehicles, Bush was always for it. And now you are blaming the Bush administration because we went to war with the best equipment we had at the time, and exonerating Kerry when he voted "for the armor, before voting against it"?

(improvised explosive devices, used by our enemies in Iraq, were the cause for the needed extra armor)

Very confusing criticism/position Frank, considering you supported Kerry. I find it very odd when people criticize Bush on an issue, when Kerry's position was far worse (based on their criticism) on that issue, and they supported him!

Today, I heard on the radio, a motor sergeant who said that they were getting so many armor kits delivered to them in Iraq, that they couldn't install them as fast as they were coming in!--so getting them even faster wouldn't have helped anyway.

On top of that, there are about 6,000 hummers in Iraq, and only 120 have been destroyed. Not a very significant figure when you consider how long this war has been going on, and how very low that number is compared to other wars. A lot of the troops don't even want the added armor, because it makes getting out of the hummers a lot slower! Many troops feel that the added safety of the armor does not offset the added risk of not being able to exit the vehicles as quickly as they could without it. (better to exit the vehicle and engage your enemy quickly, than to take longer to exit while being shot at!)

Also, hummer production (all upgraded to armored versions) has been increased by over 1000% since the war started!!

Then, add to that, the fact that the person who posed this question to Rumsfeld hadn't even been in combat yet (nor been exposed to having to use armored vehicles), and that this question was fed to him by a "reporter" (and I use the term "reporter" very loosely) and you get to see even more liberal media bias at play.

The media's motto seems to be "Downplay anything good that happens, and exaggerate the bad--and if you can't do that, make the good look bad. Maybe by slanting the news, we can make Bush look bad in the eyes of the public!"---or maybe that wasn't the media's motto, but Dan Rathers' motto?

Rodney

Everyone in their right mind knows that Kerry voted against that bill knowing full well that it would pass with a huge majority. Its called politics. Perhaps not the best move on his part, but you can't take what he did and condense it down to saying he doesn't support the troops.

Now, the fact that it's been this long and 100% of our hummers aren't fully armored just highlights the Bush Administration's mismanagement of the war. 10.9 billion in contracts awarded to Haliburton in a no-bid system. 3 Gov't Agencies have published reports stating that Haliburton has been overcharging, using bribery, etc. And this is just the most glaring case! My point is its very clear that the money could be more wisely spent.

Actually Rodney...Bush does a very good job of discrediting himself out of his own mouth. I heard his lame advocacy for the soldier's right to ask the question and then the backwater on whether there was a real need for it.

Interesting that the contractors who were hired to make armor for the trucks said they were not working at full capacity and no one had asked them to.

Like I said, he just played the concern for the election audience. And while the soldier was coached, it was obvious from the other soldier's reactions that this was a very important issue to them.

As to your question about my stance....You lost me there.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

One other thing Rodney...Since when do you use Kerry for justification for Bush failing on the job? Since you say he pushed for this armor...Why isn't he jumping up and down and screaming at congress to fund it? Like I said....LAME.

Interesting that I just heard a woman who's son died (in Iraq)after writing her about his trucks inferior armor.

Also there was some fascinating news stories about how the troops are making "Hill Billy" armor for their vehicles from metal scavenged from road crews.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I'm not.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bush haters.

For example, when I was in school, if I got an 80% on a test, I wouldn't criticize someone else for their performance if they scored a 90%! But this is exactly what the far left is doing today!

So why nit-pick about small things, that the media blows all out of proportion, when you know the person you supported had a far worse position on this issue. Kerry voted against funding for the armor, under Bush, a little over 3/4 of the Hummers have been retrofitted while in a combat zone! So why criticize Bush, as though this is a failure, when your candidate didn't want any to be armored after the war had already started, and after he stated "no one in congress is going to vote against funding for our troops", yet he did!

Rodney

I think it's an important issue for everyone.

And, like politics, there are different views. I completely understand why some soldiers don't want the armor.

For instance, some people like large vehicles because they are safer when they have a collision with a small vehicle. Some people like sports cars because they are much better at avoiding accidents and much harder to roll over. Some people like motorcycles because they can get out of the way really, really fast, and they can fit though much smaller places! (I've avoided accidents on my bike that I couldn't have in a car) All have their positives and negatives. If you are responsible and wide awake, and aware of what is around you, the sports car/motorcycle is probably a lot safer. If you aren't totally aware of the traffic/awake/sober/etc., the larger vehicle is probably a lot safer for you (though much more dangerous for those around you). (I prefer the sports car/motorcycle view, but I totally understand the large truck view)

The point is, I don't think Bush was back-peddaling at all, just poorly stating that their are different views about the necessity of the armor. And military personnel have stated this as well.

I have to correct myself though, the numbers I stated in the previous post were wrong. It is actually a lot better than what I stated.

When the war started, only about 200 hummers had armor.

Today, out of about 19,000 hummers in Iraq, 15,000 have armor. ---not bad considering all these modifications had to be made while we were also trying to fight a war! That's about 33 vehicles every day being fitted with armor, and now there are only 4,000 left to go. And when you then consider only 120 have been destroyed in a year and a half, that's a remarkably low number with or without armor!

I think the reason so many hummers have been retrofitted is purely for political reasons. I don't think that many soldiers are demanding/wanting the armor from what I have heard. Especially when you consider the mind set of young males. (I think a lot of them would go for fast entry/exit rather than the armor--I know I would!)

No one can accurately predict what is needed in any war, to the point that there aren't errors made. But clearly this error (if it is one) was being corrected long before this story broke, as is the production misunderstanding between the armor/hummer manufacturer and the military, now that it is known that they can produce more.

Rodney

See my problem is that they have known the armor was inadequate for several months, yet no one has done anything to speed up the process till the news blows the whistle.

As far as smaller faster vs bigger more armored. Deserts are dusty by nature. This reduces the visability of mines as they quickly gain a patenia of dust from all of the traffic. This makes mines harder to see. A faster more manuverable truck is no good if you cannot see what you are supposed to avoid. It is also usesless against rocket attacks and ramming vehicles.

The smart soldier wants armor.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Actually Frank, it wasn't the driving speed of the armored trucks they were complaining about, it was the speed at which they could exit/enter the trucks that they were complaining about.

When driving between cities, they don't even use the roads any more--in order to avoid mines and ied's. It is in the cities that they have the major problems, because of all the innocent civilians and the fact that they have to use the roads there.

When driving through cities, hostiles would popup and shoot at them, and they want to exit the vehicles and engage the enemy as quickly as possible. I personally don't know how much longer it takes them to get out of the hummers with the armor, but that was their complaint.

If someone was shooting at me, I'd sure like to get out of the way a.s.a.p.!! --and when you compare 120 destroyed hummers out of 19,000 in field in a year and a half, to the chance of being shot at and being delayed by just a second or two, it seems like the larger threat to your survival would be the delay.

Rodney

Doesn't make much sense Rodney. Those vehicles are supposed to be (if properly armored) like tanks. Frankly if a sniper was shooting at me I would stay in the vehicle where there is more cover. The truck frankly functions better (armored) too as a weapon as my nephew found out. He rammed another truck with gunmen and also a camel (with shooting rider). Of course all bets are off for a missle.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Very Simple Actually:

"Bush" CHOOSE to wage war against IRAQ. He DID NOT have to, and in fact if Bin Laden masterminded the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings, waging war in Iraq put us not one step closer to capturing him, but GUARANTEED us a nice big young ripe crop of future terrorists to deal with. So.....Bush wages an uneccessary war, and send the troops out ill equipped to deal with it....What the hell, they are just troops. well get it right and fine tune it after a few thousand more have died.......right?

Surprised?

Hardly........

And you are right, there is LITTLE diffrence between Bush wageing this war and Clinton lobbing bombs at IRAQ to cover up his own infidelities. Wrong is wrong, and a LOT of our presidents, be they Dems or Repubs have been plain wrong.

And we have voted them in..again and again..because as a populace we are a) generally stupid and b) EASILY led and mainpulated by the govt conrolled MEDIA..which shows us images and words from one perspective and one only...that of the oppressor.

I saw a shirt the other day for sale..a t-shirt....it said:
"
"Original Office Of Homeland Security"

Underneath that caption was a picture of
GERONIMO & his fellow warriors

Do you get the message it as trying to convey?

"People wake up,sleppytime is over"

Sincerely,

Fred Albury

P.S.
Stay the heck away from your *&%# T.V. or stay dumb