Fucking Rumsfeld (nsr)

News Hour ran a fairly lengthy video exceprt from the meeting, including the all of the question everyone here is so nutty about, and several others. The soldiers were respectful, polite and genuine. This was not a bitch session, or angry insubordination. The video is probably available on the web somewhere.

In fact, the armor question was actually a "plant" from a reporter, though the indication is that the soldier who asked it very much wanted to do so. Several of the men in his unit, including an embedded reporter, had been discussing their nervousness about the upcoming move north, and the reporter wrote out the very nicely worded question. He then sought out the officer who was picking questioners, and made sure his guy got picked.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ter/index.html

I'm not sure what the critics of Rumsfeld expected him to say. He's SecDef, someone asks him why they don't have more armor, he says they are working as hard as they can to get it to them, which by all accounts is the truth. What would you have said?

The U.S. army in Iraq must be the best equipped, safest, best trained large military force in the history of mankind. Does anyone have any idea about the immense logistical feat it is to maintain a >100,000 troop force in hostile territory for years? It can't be done without shortcomings. And nobody, not Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush again expected to have to pull something like this off. Our military strategy was to fight two wars at the same time - fight them, not occupy countries. We have billions invested in our navy and air force that have kept us safe for generations, but we can't use to good effect in this conflict.

Sure, one can be critical of the decision to fight the war in the first place. And to go into it in the fashion that we did. But that's done. Most of the critical posts on this thread are substantively criticisms of the decision to go to war, not actually criticisms of current DoD actions, or even of what Rumsfeld is doing to fight that war. We are, by all account, putting armor into the field as fast as possible. It isn't fast enough to put every soldier on every patrol into an armored vehicle. But if that's the standard, we'd never go into combat anywhere. If you believe that to be the case, that is your right, but argue that point, don't hide behind unrealistic and innacurate criticism of a U.S. Army that is every day demonstrating it is the best in the world.

Or do, I'm not reading political threads anymore. Honest.

right on the money.

Love to see the look on some of you flag waver's faces as you open your draft notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Love to see the look on some of you flag waver's faces as you open your draft notice.

---

no draft needed when the army can use its "stop loss" option (and they have used it already in many instances, a soldier who didn't wanted to be forced to serve beyond his enlistment contract time agreement just lost his court case about this issue yesterday) which keeps any soldier they want in the army for as long as they want to keep them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by up an down

no draft needed when the army can use its "stop loss" option (and they have used it already in many instances, a soldier who didn't wanted to be forced to serve beyond his enlistment contract time agreement just lost his court case about this issue yesterday) which keeps any soldier they want in the army for as long as they want to keep them.

---

Oh jeez, love to see the look on your face especially. "stop loss", hahaha.....harhar....ahem.......people will beleive any old shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Oh jeez, love to see the look on your face especially.

---

was up and down waving the flag in your face? i don't get your position here benny.

Fucking Rumsfeld

http://img85.exs.cx/img85/6044/ash_likes.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basom

was up and down waving the flag in your face? i don't get your position here benny.

---

Nobody in peticular, although we seem to have some people here who like to bang the drum before they head off to a nice little pow day or go sit in their cubicles and get fatter while the white trash and minorities get their legs shot off over in some stinking desert. I'm just saying that Bush-wha America will change their voting patterns when it's the sons and daughters of Lexus owners who are sent off to useless occupations. Like Nam.

"stop loss"... how pathetic. It's amazing that (1) some evil dude in the pentagon thinks that stuff up, and (2) most people suck it up to feel better about this mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnold Pants

News Hour ran a fairly lengthy video exceprt from the meeting, including the all of the question everyone here is so nutty about, and several others. The soldiers were respectful, polite and genuine. This was not a bitch session, or angry insubordination. The video is probably available on the web somewhere.

In fact, the armor question was actually a "plant" from a reporter, though the indication is that the soldier who asked it very much wanted to do so. Several of the men in his unit, including an embedded reporter, had been discussing their nervousness about the upcoming move north, and the reporter wrote out the very nicely worded question. He then sought out the officer who was picking questioners, and made sure his guy got picked.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ter/index.html

I'm not sure what the critics of Rumsfeld expected him to say. He's SecDef, someone asks him why they don't have more armor, he says they are working as hard as they can to get it to them, which by all accounts is the truth. What would you have said?

The U.S. army in Iraq must be the best equipped, safest, best trained large military force in the history of mankind. Does anyone have any idea about the immense logistical feat it is to maintain a >100,000 troop force in hostile territory for years? It can't be done without shortcomings. And nobody, not Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush again expected to have to pull something like this off. Our military strategy was to fight two wars at the same time - fight them, not occupy countries. We have billions invested in our navy and air force that have kept us safe for generations, but we can't use to good effect in this conflict.

Sure, one can be critical of the decision to fight the war in the first place. And to go into it in the fashion that we did. But that's done. Most of the critical posts on this thread are substantively criticisms of the decision to go to war, not actually criticisms of current DoD actions, or even of what Rumsfeld is doing to fight that war. We are, by all account, putting armor into the field as fast as possible. It isn't fast enough to put every soldier on every patrol into an armored vehicle. But if that's the standard, we'd never go into combat anywhere. If you believe that to be the case, that is your right, but argue that point, don't hide behind unrealistic and innacurate criticism of a U.S. Army that is every day demonstrating it is the best in the world.

Or do, I'm not reading political threads anymore. Honest.

---

LMFAO! touche, you beat me to it...i read it on drudge first.

:the_finge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnold Pants

If you believe that to be the case, that is your right, but argue that point, don't hide behind unrealistic and innacurate criticism of a U.S. Army that is every day demonstrating it is the best in the world.

---

It should be. It's budget is $379 billion. That figure exceeds the total military budgets of the world's next 14 biggest defense spenders put together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Oh jeez, love to see the look on your face especially. "stop loss", hahaha.....harhar....ahem.......people will beleive any old shit.

---

i don't know if there will ever be a draft, but the "stop loss" proviso is real and it isn't my term, but it is the armys term.. it allows the army (not sure if other service branches have this in their enlistment contracts) to keep any soldier, willing or unwilling, in service and on assignment for as long as the army so chooses.. and there was a court case about this that the army won, an enlisted man lost, decided by a lower court yesterday,,dunno if it will be appealed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Love to see the look on some of you flag waver's faces as you open your draft notice.

---

too late, they already got me.

and you're a moron if you seriously think a draft is going to, or most specifically, CAN happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by up an down

i don't know if there will ever be a draft, but the "stop loss" proviso is real and it isn't my term, but it is the armys term.. it allows the army (not sure if other service branches have this in their enlistment contracts) to keep any soldier, willing or unwilling, in service and on assignment for as long as the army so chooses.. and there was a court case about this that the army won, an enlisted man lost, decided by a lower court yesterday,,dunno if it will be appealed

---

The best part about the whole thing is it's not spelled out in the contract. What the enlisted man signs simply has the article number of the stop loss provision listed in the fine print. Unless an enlisted man had a lawyer go over the contract and all the documents it referenced they have no idea it's in there until it's too late. That is some shady shit.

Yup. Good idea to do some research on the UCMJ before one joins, there's some wang chung shit in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Oh jeez, love to see the look on your face especially. "stop loss", hahaha.....harhar....ahem.......people will beleive any old shit.

---

Benny, it is a bill with Charlie Rangel's name on it. Which kind of like a bill with John Kerry's name on it has absolutely no chance at becoming legislation.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...stion_reporter

Paper "Regrets" Rumsfeld Deception

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - Readers should have been told promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a serviceman asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the reporter's publisher says.



do i need to say it?

:fmicon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

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).

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?

---

You are so "over the top" one sided in your mind set that you have completely lost credibility. NEWS FLASH..George Bush and his cronies are not responsible for all of your problems. Look in the mirror. I think you will see a victimwannabe!!! I am starting to think your posts are inside jokes that I am not getting. Are you taking barbituates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteepnDeep

You are so "over the top" one sided in your mind set that you have completely lost credibility. NEWS FLASH..George Bush and his cronies are not responsible for all of your problems. Look in the mirror. I think you will see a victimwannabe!!! I am starting to think your posts are inside jokes that I am not getting. Are you taking barbituates?

---

Either learn to read or start thinking, or both. Otherwise, stop posting drivel like the above. You could've posted that in any other thread on the board and it would've made more sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Either learn to read or start thinking, or both. Otherwise, stop posting drivel like the above. You could've posted that in any other thread on the board and it would've made more sense.

---

To everyone except you Dex...muhahahhhaahha!

Was I supposed to hear something? I'm guessing yes.

Today, 08:07 PM
Remove user from ignore listBlurredElevens
This message is hidden because BlurredElevens is on your ignore list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

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.

---

So when is Saddam's "Trial' ? That ought to be interesting....Iraq will be quiet then, I am sure.. :cool:

The mounting body count in Iraq is scaring off military recruits- posing an enormous marketing challenge for the US Army as it closes in on an agency to handle its estimated $200 million advertising and marketing account.

Nearly a quarter of recruits- 23.9%- who signed up to join the Army during the year ended Sept. 30 didn't make it to basic training, according to figures from the Army. That rate is 25% higher than during the 2003 period and 90% higher than during the 2002 period.

Losing recruits-reasons can range from cold feet, to somehow disqualifying for service, to a family emergency, or instead choosing college- has been a fact of life during the 31 year history of the volunteer Army. Recruits can delay entry for up to a year.

Even so "delayed enlistment program" loss rates ("DEP" in Army lingo) have historically been relatively low, at about 10% to 15%, said David Segal, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland at College Park who studies military and recruiting issues. Then came the war.

"The Iraq situation is taking its toll" said Thomas W. Evans, who was U.S Army recruiting command deputy director- advertising and public affairs from 1973 to 1993.

The Army wouldn't comment on the impact the war has on DEP, noting that many factors play into a recruit's decision to join up and show up. But as the stretched Army struggles to meet its 2005 target of 80,000 new soldiers, hanging on to recruits is increasingly important. In marketing terms, it's more profitable to keep an existing customer than go out and acquire a new one.

The Army is attacking the problem on a number of fronts. As it tries to reach its 2005 recruiting target, nearly 4% higher than last year's , it's taking action to attract and retain recruits. It's boosting the number of recruiters by 11% to 6029. It's adding a range of incentives, including bonuses for recruits who agree to be shipped off within 30 to 60 days. And it is reaches out to influencers- parents, grandparents and coaches- who play a big role in recruits signing up and showing up.


-From this week's Ad Age

I just thought the normal political flame war that seems to start up around here needed something other than the normal sources.

I also think PM Gear should ask the government for a little of the $200 million so they can advertise more. ;)

I would also like to add that people better hope this ad campaign works because if it doesn't a draft starts becoming a lot less far fetched. This is really going to be a test for the concept of an all volunteer Armybecause the war in Iraq is the first time that the US will be in an long term war where they will need to continue getting new soldiers while a war is going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumper Bones

too late, they already got me.

and you're a moron if you seriously think a draft is going to, or most specifically, CAN happen.

---

So, therefore, I have to assume that you are older than me. Right? Sorry, moron thinking here...if they "got" you, you were drafted sometime in the early seventies when there was a draft before it was abolished. I was just a tad young for it, and, I guess, too stupid. Or were you smart enough to enlist? That means you "got" them? I'm confused.

And, (this kinda hurts my little brain, so be patient), I've counted on my fingers and come to the conclusion that if we have to invade or fight another country when the next big shit flies, we need more manpower. Right? So...(ouch)...if all our military is occupied with the Iraq occupation and police actions in Afghanistan, where do we get them? Well, the rest of the world, at least the western world, aint gonna help us, so the only solution is to force our young and healthy to fight. I read this in a h-i-s-t-o-r-y book in da libaree. It happened a couple times in our history. Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Nam. What's next, Iran? N Korea? Israel against the World? Russia again? hmmmmm....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Or were you smart enough to enlist?

---

Ding ding ding ding ding!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

And, (this kinda hurts my little brain, so be patient), I've counted on my fingers and come to the conclusion that if we have to invade or fight another country when the next big shit flies, we need more manpower. Right? So...(ouch)...if all our military is occupied with the Iraq occupation and police actions in Afghanistan, where do we get them? Well, the rest of the world, at least the western world, aint gonna help us, so the only solution is to force our young and healthy to fight. I read this in a h-i-s-t-o-r-y book in da libaree. It happened a couple times in our history. Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Nam. What's next, Iran? N Korea? Israel against the World? Russia again? hmmmmm....

---

First off, don't patronize me.

The idea of drafting people is really cool and all, but then there lies the problem of WHAT TO DO WITH THEM. I mean, after all, you get them to basic training...assuming you have the facilities to handle the influx of people. Then, you have to feed them, clothe them, and train them. Oh and you gotta pay them too. That all costs MONEY.

So, first the problem of where to put them. On-base housing is already at a premium, oftentimes there's a waiting list for housing, as well as a policy that removes soldiers from barracks once they reach the grade of E-4 - there simply isn't enough room to let them stay on base. So they are pushed off-base, to find comparable housing in the outside market. If they can't afford to house all the troops they have now, what makes you think they can afford to house a bunch of draftees? I mean, if they don't want to be there, you wouldn't want to let them live off-post, so they don't go AWOL and all...

Then, there's the training. Supposedly, the US military is the best-equipped and -trained fighting force in the world. Although occasionally that first part slips up. At any rate, I can speak from personal experience and say that even now, the technical training schools (where soldiers learn their jobs) are at capacity. I had to sit around and wait a month and a half before I could enter my school, doing details here and there. Now, ramp up the flow like a draft would, and that month stretches into a year. I'm sorry, but DoD isn't going to pay me to sit around for a year doing details...in the pre-Clinton-cut military, a draft would have been possible because the infrastructure (bases and schools) was there to handle it. But since then we've lost at least half of our bases, and each of the ones I've seen are well and gone - recovering and absorbing them back as bases would be prohibitavely expensive as facilities have either been demolished, or have been handed over to civilians. It'd cost less to build entirely new bases. I'm not bemoaning the cuts, it's just the end of the cold war and the adoption and success of the all-volunteer-force made a lot of changes happen in the training and size of the forces.

Then there's the issue of paying, clothing, equipping, and feeding your new soldiers. As it is now, my service cannot afford to keep 20,000 of its members - they're being separated as soon as possible to free up the funds. The Navy is in a similar situation, cutting 50,000 sailors within the next 2-3 years. The Army complains about not being able to equip its Guard and Reserve units. What makes you think they can afford another 300,000 soldiers from a draft?

My point is, the funds and facilities aren't there to pull a draft off. You'll see massive enlistment and reenlistment bonuses before you'd see a draft (currently SRBs, or Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, are capped at $40,000 - that would go way up if they couldn't find people to enlist/reenlist), as it's far cheaper. Also, all of the facilities, training doctrine, and equipment are geared for people who want to be there - a change since the Vietnam era service.

This isn't to say things aren't fucked up in the Army now. My service has popped on and off of Stop-Loss 3 or 4 times in the past 5-10 years; in each event the restrictions were only in effect for a matter of months, it surely was not an indefinite policy. That should be a temporary resort, allowing you to retain your most experienced and trained personnel in a crisis situation. It should not be everyday business, which is how the Army is handling it. Also, their recall of the Ready Reserve is worrisome. That should NEVER happen. But, for those MOS's, it has.

But I'm sure you knew all of this from your extensive experience and unique insider perspective.

I react strongly to draft declarations as I feel it's like yelling "Shark!" at a crowded beach, or joking about having a bomb in an airport. It causes people to panic and act irrational, and it places me in the position of an asshole since I'm a volunteer, I mean after all I must be out to enslave everybody else through the draft, why else would I volunteer to be in this business. Besides, those who cry the loudest about possible drafts are usually the most ignorant. So eat a fat one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - Readers should have been told promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a serviceman asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the reporter's publisher says. do i need to say it?
:fmicon:

---

First of all, totally inappropriate use of the hallowed FM.

It doesn't matter that the question was framed by a reporter. How often do you think shrub speaks words that were actually written by him? The soldier courageously asked the question and many, if not most, of his comrades applauded him. Rummy then made his foolish, arrogant, "armor can't protect you anyway" comment. Inspiring answer for soldiers about to go into battle. :rolleyes:
It is really amazing to me that the right wingers here are actually defending rumsfeld's indefensible comments. Blinded by the Right--good book actually, you guys should read it.

Joe Biden said it pretty well yesterday:
"This was a war of choice, not necessity, to be waged on our timetable, not Saddam's," Mr. Biden said in a statement. "And why is it that, 20 months after Saddam's statue fell, our troops still don't have the protection they need? Congress has given this administration virtually every dollar it has asked for in Iraq."

As a side note, having brett on ignore is so nice, you all should try it. I'm a little bummed to be missing out on his typically insightful commentary, which I'm sure is all over this thread, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.
Hey brett, you figured out how to hold your liquor well enough so that you actually vomit in the toilet rather than on your host's carpet. :rolleyes: Oops I forgot, I won't be able to see the response to that query, you're on ignore. :D