• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Troops not getting needed armor, Rumsfeld needs to go

Rumsfelds whole plan for this war was based on over optimistic estimations, best case scenarios, underestimation of the enemy, and a lack of understanding of the region.

He also fired or silenced anyone with a dissenting viewpoint.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.
Click to expand...

What a fvcking crock of sh*t!!!!!
Click to expand...

Agreed...

That statement made me so angry...Thats why we all need to call our Senators.

Anandtech effect needed
 
Keeping Rumsfeld on, another exemplary decision by President Cheney. :thumbsdown:

I found his replies to the troops more than a little disheartening. He basically told them, 'Sorry about the whole "not giving you guys what you need" thing, but realize that when it comes to IEDs, you can put all the armor in the world on a tank and you're still going to blow up." Nice.

It's obvious the South Africans have a different mindset, as they currently have vehicles that are designed to withstand mines and keep the crew alive. If we can put a man on the moon, acheive mach 10, or salvage Russian subs from the floor of the Pacific, we SHOULD be able to provide our troops with something similar.

I think Rumsfeld and Perle should start doing 'ride alongs' with the troops in Baghdad, Samara, and Najaf. Let's see how quickly this issue gets resolved then.
 
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Call your Senator and let him/her know that you want to know why our troops aren't getting the armor they need.

Troops Question Rumsfeld
Click to expand...

No shocker there,troops were sent into battle in unarmored Humvee's because Bush couldn't wait to start his invasion. In other words he didn't give a s&it if Americans died,he just needed those pesky inspectors out of Iraq so they couldn't keep reporting to the WORLD that there were NO WMD.

That f#$ker needs to be brought up on War crimes....

 
Rumsfeld added... "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

What a dumb motherfarker!!! But alas, it's the attitude of the entire administration.
 
I do not think that he is the one, we should attack the military procurement program that is responsible for obtaining the items and getting them out to the units that need the equipment. This has always been a large problem, it is also the commanders fault for not reporting the loss........

However there never seems to be a problem when a general officer wants an ink pen which cost $130.00, he will have that on his desk in a day.....
 
Originally posted by: Grunt03
I do not think that he is the one, we should attack the military procurement program that is responsible for obtaining the items and getting them out to the units that need the equipment. This has always been a large problem, it is also the commanders fault for not reporting the loss........

However there never seems to be a problem when a general officer wants an ink pen which cost $130.00, he will have that on his desk in a day.....
Click to expand...

I don't know what your traditions are, but here in Canada (and in most Westminster-style parliaments) the Minister in charge is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates. It's important to have civilian accountability of all government agencies, otherwise the legitimacy of the civilian oversight is tainted.
 
I don't know what your traditions are, but here in Canada (and in most Westminster-style parliaments) the Minister in charge is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates. It's important to have civilian accountability of all government agencies, otherwise the legitimacy of the civilian oversight is tainted.
Click to expand...


We're fond of the term "The buck stops here." Sadly though, it's meaning has been lost since the 2000 election it seems.
 
This is nothing new. I'd say the only thing somewhat new is a soldier actually asking Rummy why he/she isn't getting what is needed.

Don't forget about those lovely green vests they have.
 
I just saw parts of the Rumsfeld talk on NBC. What a disgrace :|

The usually sauve Rummy looked confused and even lost for answers at points. I think his credibility with the armed services will be hurt.
 
Originally posted by: Pandaren
I just saw parts of the Rumsfeld talk on NBC. What a disgrace :|

The usually sauve Rummy looked confused and even lost for answers at points. I think his credibility with the armed services will be hurt.
Click to expand...

Any torrents of the talk anywhere?
 
I'll call my senators and tell THEM to resign (I live in California with Boxer and Feinstein 🙁 )!
 
Originally posted by: Grunt03
I do not think that he is the one, we should attack the military procurement program that is responsible for obtaining the items and getting them out to the units that need the equipment. This has always been a large problem, it is also the commanders fault for not reporting the loss........

However there never seems to be a problem when a general officer wants an ink pen which cost $130.00, he will have that on his desk in a day.....
Click to expand...

The big problem is that the troops feel that they should have the proper equipment and the chain of command has let them down.

The US industry can easily gear up to provide what is needed, they have not been authorized to.

 
Rumsfeld said:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Click to expand...
He is wrong. The correct statement is that you go to a war OF NECESSITY with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Assuming one can justify an elective war, you DO NOT go to war with anything less than an army that is fully prepared for the war it is about to fight.

Mr. Rumsfeld should immediately be fired and sent to fight on the front lines in Iraq armed and protected with the same inadequate and lacking equipment he so thoughtlessly failed to provide to those he sent to die in his name.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Rumsfeld said:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Click to expand...
He is wrong. The correct statement is that you go to a war OF NECESSITY with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Assuming one can justify an elective war, you DO NOT go to war with anything less than an army that is fully prepared for the war it is about to fight.

Mr. Rumsfeld should immediately be fired and sent to fight on the front lines in Iraq armed and protected with the same inadequate and lacking equipment he so thoughtlessly failed to provide to those he sent to die in his name.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
This makes no sense. Why would he/anyone withhold needed armor? He either honestly doesn't think they need it, or he doesn't care. Either way makes him a jerk. Gong him!
 
Originally posted by: Gaard
This makes no sense. Why would he/anyone withhold needed armor? He either honestly doesn't think they need it, or he doesn't care. Either way makes him a jerk. Gong him!
Click to expand...

Or what he was saying was true, they can't produce it fast enough to get it out in the front lines. The fact of the matter is that our tanks, etc are way better armored than any other nations military.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Or what he was saying was true, they can't produce it fast enough to get it out in the front lines. The fact of the matter is that our tanks, etc are way better armored than any other nations military.
Click to expand...
From CBC News:
When Tennessee National Guard Specialist Thomas Wilson took the microphone, he asked Rumsfeld why many Army vehicles still lacked armour protection.

"Why do us soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-arm our vehicles?" Wilson asked the defence secretary. "And why don't we have those resources available to us?"
Click to expand...
Iraq did NOT attack the U.S. The Bush administration lied to the American public about why they launched a useless, ELECTIVE war that has killed tens of thousands of people, including over 1,200 American troops, and wounded thousands more. In doing so, they spent us into trillions of dollars of debt that will remain a burden on our society for generations to come. They did so while offering continuously shifting alleged reasons for this actions:
  • There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
Now, read my previous post, and understand they ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clark, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clark also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
In addition to STUPIDITY and ARROGANCE, that is called CRIMINAL! :|

 
Here's the deal, from a soldier who sees all of this from the inside.

Simply put, Rumsfeld has failed due to his strong arm tactics and his no bull$hit attitude to everything and everyone around him. I must admit that I supported him at first, however, as time has gone by, his errors, misjudgements and unforgivable mistakes have been far too costly. Rumsfeld would do all military memebers a favor to step down and allow someone like McCain to come in and clean up his mess. Simply put, we need a change of tactics and procedure in Iraq, or we will continue to flounder and fail as we are now. I do truly believe that Iraq can be turned around, however, not with this strong-arm show of force we use all the time. There is absolutely no reason that our soldiers should still be patrolling the streets in tanks or even US Army uniforms for that matter. I think it would go a long way with the Iraqis to simply remove the "appearance" of occupation.

Anyway, back to procurement and supplies. I can say that the units deploying from my location are being sent much better equipped than their first rotation to Iraq. My brother was part of the initial assault into Iraq and his equipment was in poor condition to say the least. Their handguards for their weapons and various other pieces of equipment were held together with duct tape and 550 cord, literally. Either way you look at it, that's a failure that should fall directly on the shoulders of the highest ranking person in the system and that's Rumsfeld and/or Bush. It's unacceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top