Printable View
I also noticed that the DOD gave them something like a two week heads-up on the recent offensive, giving them time to bail out and move their operations elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
This begs the question: Who were those soldiers? Were they screened in advance? Were they instructed to be nice the Mr. Secretary or else? I really have to wonder whether or not they were randomly selected. I know what kind of shit I'd be asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
how many secretarys of defense have had the gall to lie so consistantly to the public and have tolerated and or encouraged torture of captives and also encouraged indefinate periods of imprisonment with no trial of said captives??Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
JUST ASKING
Ha, ha. Liberal propaganda--you'd like to dismiss everything that's reported from Iraq as liberal propaganda, but there are no credible sources reporting anything aside from the chaotic shitstorm that exists there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripzalot
You have yet to even call into question anything that was reported as being said.
When the Sec. of Def., the man second on Iraq only to W, is directly challenged by enlisted men, you better believe it signals problems. Iraq is a fucking mess, and it's time some of these assholes (Rummy, W, Cheney) are held accountable.
From the CIA website: "Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs..."Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
It IS a better place than before October 2001. A better place for US interests.
Want to know why we went to war with Afghanistan. I mean why we "really" went to war with them:
http://citypaper.net/pipeline/
Since Iraqis are far more likely to be murdered today than before the war, and since basic services are still lagging, it seems pretty clear that Iraq is worse off today than it was. Keep in mind the staggering number of Iraqi civilians we've killed when you consider Iraqi attitudes toward us.
I heard a report the other day that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for president, he would probably do pretty well simply because people prefer the stability he offered. That's not a sign of success.
yeah, but that would be democratic, so we'd still "win" :rolleyes: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
Ha, good point.
I wonder if the terrorists ran a candidate and he won if we'd allow that exercise in democracy to stand.
Doubtfull. My guess is that Pres. Bush would declare fraud by terrorists and hold a new election this time with ballot stuffers, oops I mean poll watchers on call.
Interesting that war is about propaganda. The one who wins is the one we believe.
Blogging is guerrilla marketing. Could that dude just be a cog in the milltary machine?.
Read the guy's bio- he worked on Bush's 2000 election campaign.
2 feet in the last 24 hours. I'm going to wax my stick. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/emoticons/thumb.gif
classic Rumy (this guy was the model for 1984 doublespeak)
Meeting with troops in Kuwait on Wednesday, Rumsfeld heard several complaints, including one from Spc. Thomas Wilson that U.S. forces were forced to dig up scrap metal to protect their vehicles in Iraq because of a shortage of armored ones.
"CONSTRUCTIVE EXCHANGE"
"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know, and that's a good thing. I think it's a very constructive exchange," Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him on Thursday in India, another stop on a regional tour.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sa_rumsfeld_dc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva
soldiers like this.
http://missick.blogs.com/warblog/
I know it's illegal for me to cut and paste or link but in support of my
assertions...
up and down. I'd say atleast every single war time Sec Def since the advent of our country. I'm sure you've seen Fog of War. I figured it'd be on Moveon's must see list. :rolleyes:
snowslider, you fuck. quoting Ted Rall? nice, maybe you could link his comedic take on reporters being beheaded.
It cracks me up reading crap from people who have absolutey no idea what they are talking about.
I am going to be in Iraq this spring. I haven't had much time to read what has been going on here because I have busy training. But this shit I have been reading here has pissed me off big time. Guess what, do I feel that we are going to have the best gear we could possibly have hell no. The only units that get everything they want belong to Joint Special Operations Command. Which is Navy Seals, Special Forces, and more. Does it suck, it sure does. Is Rumsfield to blame yes! Could he do more about it, that is why he had that meeting. The problem with the military is the chain of command. Rumsfield probably has absolutely no idea what goes on at the squad size level. Especially in the Army they have a tendancy to not tell there bosses what they need. It is also takes a long time to get everything built and ordered and delivered to units. It is not just go to the local store and see something cool and buy it.
You really want to blame someone for the lack of equipment talk to President Clinton and Former Sec of Defense Cohen. They spent so little on the military that is why we have all of these problems with equipment. I can't even tell you the difference between now and 5 yrs ago. Gear doesn't magically appear in a time of war it has to be bought awhile ago. I have had to spend a lot of my own money to get the gear that I think I need.
You pussies who keep on bitching about shit why don't you get off your ass and do something about it. YOU want to make a difference! Contact your US congressmen both senators and representatives and get them to fund us with more money!
there was a surplus that could've paid for more, but your president thought it would be better in the hands of taxpayers.
Die for oil, suckers.
More money? How about changing Pentagon spending priorities! $8-10 Billion a year on Missile Defense programs that don't work has nothing to do with it? $1.5 billion for another Attack Sub? C'monQuote:
Originally Posted by AKPogue
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKPogue
I did try, I voted.....
Dex, I think you're reading way way too much into this. You have an opinion, which is known and duly noted, but you've gone way overboard. Which is typical of late.
"Town Hall" meetings are fairly common in DoD/military. Usually since you're identifying yourself and your unit right at the beginning of your question, generally the onus is on you on what you want to ask and how you want to word it. Stupid questions usually result in stupid treatment, either at the hands of the general answering the question right away, or your supervision taking care of you for embarrassing them. I'm not so sure I'd want to be Spc. Wilson right now. Love it or leave it, there's something to be said for unit good order and discipline.
There's also something to be said about morality. Anyway, this dude exposed himself so it will be interesting to see what results.
The Nat'l Guard is pretty much at the bottom of the barrell for funding. And since the Clinton Post-Cold-War era cuts of DoD, which greatly reduced the manning of the active duty components, DoD has had to rely on their reserve and guard components even more. In Party Line this is called the "Total Force" concept.
Under Clinton, the total force mobilized a lot more than it had in the past, however (to my understanding) units frequently 'borrowed' equipment from other units that had already been in-theater, instead of always bringing all their stuff with them when they rotated through Kosovo or Kuwait or whatver.
However, due to the scale of the Iraq operations, units now mobilize with all of their stuff...stuff that isn't always up to active-duty standards, and it's hard for the suppliers, whom are used to the flow of goods needed by active units (weekend warriors usually don't use their stuff as much), to keep up.
So, my question is, what happened to the great US industrial capacity? You know, Ford making bombers within a 24-hour period, Liberty ships being made within a week...
meh.
This has been a well-known problem for over a year. Lack of armor for humvees, soldiers sharing body armor because there's not enough to go around, stories like these have received a fair amount of press, so there's no way Rumsfeld can claim ignorance about this (not that that would excuse it).Quote:
Originally Posted by AKPogue
Am I overreacting? I don't think so. When a guy who was too chickenshit to go to a war he and his family supported later sends others into harm's way, and those people get maimed and killed by the thousands, I think a little outrage is in order. When he's lied about why we're there and sacrifices American security for his war, I think more outrage is called for.
You'd think a guy like that couldn't get re-elected, wouldn't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
A year?!? Hell, it's been known about since Somalia in '91. 13 years and the military STILL isn't prepared with the kind of armor/protection out troops need?!? That just plain out sucks.
as stated earlier in the thread. the problem in Somalia which happened in 1993. Bill Clinton's Sec Def Tony Lake's imminent wisdom withheld the armor General Garrison requested for the operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by snow_slider
but again, armor is a nice sound bite for the MSM to latch on to. but no amount of armor will make a vehicle impregnable. Is that so hard to understand?
dude, come on, fess up, you work for the GOP don't you? They pay you to be a deep mole on the TGR board, that place full of liberal, commie, pinko, enviro hippies :the_fingeQuote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
but seriously, i think the real problem as someone else pointed out here is not that there isn't enough $ (there is more than enough) to properly equip the troops, its where and how that $ is spent. missle defense, attack subs, crazy-ass expensive fighter jets, multiple "studies" worth billions awarded to defense industry cos to "explore" new weapon systems, etc....
(and, i won't even go into the veterans funds being cut by this administration....)
as usual, the ruling elite hand out $ to their defense industry cronies to fund massive projects that are geared towards a cold war posture vs funding the basics for the grunts on the ground...been going on forever (repubs and dems - but more so in this admin...)
In Rumsfeld's head: "And just where in your enlistment papers did it say you were guaranteed an armored HMMV? Whiners. I wonder what $400 bottle of whine will be served at tonights fundraiser filet mingon dinner."
In NG soldiers head: "What a Dick! Oh wait, thats the VP. I wonder what slop they are serving in the mess tent before I get to sleep in my tent on the sand and hope a mortar doesn't take me out in my sleep."
On a darker note: you kill insurgents by going door to door on foot and routing them out, not holed up in armored vehicles driving aroud waiting for people to shoot at you (which is why you needed the armored HMMV."
Side laugh: I guess the M2/M3 "boondogle" wasn't such a boondogle! Good thing we didn't cancel those.
Now... why don't we send over all the M113 APCs that are just sitting around being sold to your local Jack Booted Thug SWAT team?
[/armchair general]
So, who was talking about whom voting against what spending bill with what results again?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Had Kerry said the EXACT words used in this instance by Rummy during the campaign he would have been SHOT. Probably by you.
I hate this shit. It's like banging your head against an Iron Spike.
Clinton's fault? Who ordered the cuts to the US military and how they would be enacted, i.e. smaller/lighter/quicker?
Donald Rumsfeld.
Whose budget proposals to change that when our military was seeing more and more overseas active deployment were shot down time and time again by Newt Gingrich and the "New Republicans?"
William Jefferson Clinton.
Hey Dex, give it up.
http://whitehouse.org/initiatives/po...ragheaddie.jpg
No, but what's hard to understand is how fucking rumsfeld would imply that because it is impossible to build an impregnible vehicle, soldiers shouldn't be whining about lack of armor. Regardless of whether it is possible to build a vehicle that can withstand ALL IEDs, the troops should have the best stuff available--which they DO NOT HAVE. Are you denying that SOME soldiers have been maimed as a direct result of the lack of armor? This is inexcusable. More republican apologist bs mr g, but we have come to expect this from you...Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
A soldier makes a comment, and our president/government is working hard to fix the problem. It's called progress, leave your left wing agenda out of it. Better luck in 2008......... :FIREdevil
Nice post considering your boy Kerry voted against bulletproof vests for the troops somewhere around a million times.... However he did write a book with Tuffys avatar on the front disrespecting the famous imo jima picture.
You should be ashamed of yourself.