ChasingBlueSky 0 #1 December 9, 2004 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/nm/20041208/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc Quotes from the article: QuoteHundreds of troops applauded a comrade who complained to Rumsfeld that U.S. forces were being forced to dig up scrap metal to protect their vehicles in Iraq because of a shortage of armored ones. "Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" the soldier asked. Rumsfeld asked the soldier to repeat the question. The soldier said, "A lot of us are getting ready to move north (into Iraq) relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted -- picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat." "We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north." Rumsfeld conceded that "not every vehicle has the degree of armor that it would be desirable for it to have," and said the Army was hurrying to provide more armored vehicles, adding 400 per month. But Rumsfeld added, "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Quote Another soldier asked Rumsfeld what the Pentagon was doing "to address shortages and antiquated equipment that National Guard soldiers ... are going to roll into Iraq with?" The soldier was referring to allegations that regular Army units have been given better equipment than reservists. "No way I can prove it, but I'm told that the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not a differentiation" in the quality of equipment, Rumsfeld said. Another soldier asked Rumsfeld about the Army's "stop-loss" policy that has prevented thousands of troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the military when their volunteer service commitment ends. Rumsfeld said it was a fact of life for troops during war because it helped maintain "cohesion" for units needed on the battlefield. "It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used." In Washington, Republican Senator John McCain criticized that approach. "We've got to expand the size of the military in order to handle a situation we're going to be in for many years, and stop-loss is a terrible thing for morale," he told CNN. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #2 December 9, 2004 Since when has military service been a democracy? Shut the fuck up and soldier!---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #3 December 9, 2004 Yeah this is really sad. IF he were taking questions from marines...... "Sir, when do we get to shoot someone?" "When do we get to blow someone up sir?" "Sir, why are we sitting here talking to you when we should be looking for somoene to shoot?"www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #4 December 9, 2004 QuoteSince when has military service been a democracy? Shut the fuck up and soldier! couldn't have said it better myself, thanx bro!!!History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #5 December 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteSince when has military service been a democracy? Shut the fuck up and soldier! couldn't have said it better myself, thanx bro!!! Negative Rumsfeld asked for questions from the troops at a Town meeting forum and he got exactly what he asked for. There was another question about when the stop loss program was going to end. As you were Carry on.This isn't about politic's its about poor planing from the begining of the war to the present. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #6 December 9, 2004 Quote But Rumsfeld added, "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." or you could listen to your military leadership and make sure you have the numbers, equipment and coalition support you need BEFORE you invade... asshat.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #7 December 9, 2004 QuoteSince when has military service been a democracy? Shut the fuck up and soldier! Right. Rumsfeld & Co fuck up the planning and the troops get to shut the fuck up and deal with it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattsplat 0 #8 December 9, 2004 I bet his mother use to rap him up in foam before he played neighborhood football. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #9 December 9, 2004 Quotepoor planing from the begining of the war to the present. Yes there was some poor planning, or more accurately not sticking to the good planning that was in place... We may not have needed all the up-armored vehicles if we had started off with more forces... but the whole body armor and up-armored vehicles thing has been an issue for years... the need for individual body armor, and more protection in vehicles was identified in Somalia... The Clinton Administration did not make it a priority... So we went to Iraq with the army we had... and now they are playing catch-up, an d so are the production lines. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #10 December 9, 2004 To be honest what has always surprised me is the way the US army insists on using the Humvee as an armoured vehicle. It's not - it's a flaming car that can drive over big bumps. If you want to a vehicle intended to take AK rounds put your guys in an APC or IFV. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #11 December 9, 2004 Quoteor you could listen to your military leadership and make sure you have the numbers, equipment and coalition support you need BEFORE you invade... Show me one war that the US was in were the troops had everthing they needed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #12 December 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteor you could listen to your military leadership and make sure you have the numbers, equipment and coalition support you need BEFORE you invade... Show me one war that the US was in were the troops had everthing they needed. But we didn't start those wars or plan the start date of them either. Bush and Co. knew this war was coming and they knew the date._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #13 December 9, 2004 Yeah,pretty sad isnt it.There's a corpsman I know in a Marine infantry unit that requested I send him 4" ace wraps (they were issued the 6" ones and were cutting them in half to make them work better)and 3/4" hardwood dowels for tourniquet windlasses because the military issue velcro tourniquets weren't that effectiveThey were also reluctant to issue corpsmen M16's preferring to give them M9 Berettas and they would only give corpsmen M16A2's if they qualified and not even all who qualified with the 16's got themThey also had to fabricate "armor" in the field for their humvees and employ sandbags in there vehicles in new and interesting ways.But,he is taking all of it in stride......and says "Semper Gumby"...."Always Flexible"Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #14 December 9, 2004 I actually agree with Rummy on this one. Many in the US have become too risk averse and just don't want to admit responsibility for their choices, this is just another example. The point I'm making here is that when you "go to war" people will die. Good people, bad people and people just sitting in their houses trying to stay out of the way. The biggest problem I have is the overall lack of balls to come out and say this up front. War is messy. It really does suck that our people have to die fighting against a bunch of religious fanatics that will likely take over the country again shortly after we get tired of dieing over there and go home. But, when you go to war, you go with what you've got.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #15 December 9, 2004 QuoteTo be honest what has always surprised me is the way the US army insists on using the Humvee as an armoured vehicle. It's not - it's a flaming car that can drive over big bumps. If you want to a vehicle intended to take AK rounds put your guys in an APC or IFV. I agree... but the reality is that you have to have soft skin vehicles... its hard to haul supplies in an IFV... the problem are not enough resources to provide security for every convoy, and the media has convinced the REMFs that they have to have armor... it would be nice if everyone could go to war in a tank, but that's not reality. J JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #16 December 9, 2004 sure I accept that in many instances a truck or humvee is the appropriate vehicle. My only beef is where they're employed in roles that really ought to be filled by an armoured vehicle. To all intents it looks like someone has got the idea into their head that humvees are the same as apc's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #17 December 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteor you could listen to your military leadership and make sure you have the numbers, equipment and coalition support you need BEFORE you invade... Show me one war that the US was in were the troops had everthing they needed. show me one war were we invaded BEFORE it was absolutely nessesary... this entire operation was poorly planned...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #18 December 9, 2004 Quoteand the media has convinced the REMFs that they have to have armor... there are no REMFs in an insurgent conflict... there are no lines...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #19 December 9, 2004 QuoteBut we didn't start those wars or plan the start date of them either. Bush and Co. knew this war was coming and they knew the date. If you don't know the answer, just say "I don't know"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #20 December 9, 2004 Quotethere are no REMFs in an insurgent conflict... there are no lines... I'm well aware of that, and so is the army... but supply units are supply units, their vehicles have soft skins, and there is not much that can be done about it... I agree that they are using HMMWVs in ways that they were not designed, and that ought to be looked at... Maybe they ought to be pulling APCs out of PrePo stocks, instead of waiting on armor kits... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #21 December 9, 2004 Quoteshow me one war were we invaded BEFORE it was absolutely nessesary... I could show you plenty....We could start with the Civil War, or even better the Revolutionary War. But you didn't answer the question asked. Quotethis entire operation was poorly planned... Do you see me disagreeing? But my point is NO time is a good time for a war. And I doubt that anyone ever fought a war with everything they needed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #22 December 9, 2004 In this day and age the Pentagon could have been better prepared. They were anxious to get in there. DAMN PREPARATION, FULL SPEED AHEAD I am sure that all here who believe that soldiers should shut their mouth and take a bullet for GW and his band merciless morons would change their tune if their child got his or her body shattered due to ill preparations on part of an over zealouse whitehouse. GW and his group of scum should volunteer their childern and hurry to send them. Why is not Jenna and Barb Bush the twins in Iraq? Betcha GW would pull all the strings to keep them here. Better YOUR kids die than his. I am sure he feels that way."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 December 9, 2004 This thread just proves that to many people, supporting the troops is just a bunch of lip service. I think they'd probably rather have the proper equipment rather than a "shut the fuck up and do what you're told...oh by the way...thanks". You missed my favorite quote in that article "If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up," Rumsfeld said. Then he rode off in his armored vehicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #24 December 9, 2004 QuoteIn this day and age the Pentagon could have been better prepared Ya know that the same thing that was said in the Revolution, Civil, WW1, WW2, Korea, Nam...ect. That song NEVER changes. Quoteill preparations on part of an over zealouse whitehouse. Got proof? Let me guess, you never served? You see Id love the troops to never have to fight (Having been one I didn't WANT to fight). I would love the troops to have the best stuff out there, and by most standards they do. I would love that no one has to die, I would love that evil men don't wish us harm... Now reality sets in. The US can not afford to equip every man with a Tank. To think otherwise is foolhardy. People want to do bad things. These brave troops signed up KNOWING what they were signing up for. No country is EVER prepared for war. The people we are fighting adapt so fast that even in the best weapon/armor a weakness will be found. You know about Somolia? About 5 bucks made it so a person could use a RPG to take down a multi million dollar helicopter.....We never thought they would be able to, but they found a way. They use cell phones to set off explosives in the road. No matter what level of protection you have...People will still die. I want the troops to be as safe as they can. But they do need to "Charlie Mike" if they don't have it...It has been that way for thousands of years. I applaud the troops for finding/making the armour they need...Just like when the founding fathers used their own personla weapons to defeat the British. But fo you to think that ANY country at ANY time could be ready for war is silly at best."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #25 December 9, 2004 most Armies are prepared to invade... its not like you have to do it on THEIR time table.....but then if you dont you might not get to make your carrier landing photo op in time to affect elections....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
