Posted on 12/09/2004 9:22:17 AM PST by Nascardude
Edited on 12/09/2004 10:05:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I forgot to ping you to my reply #758. It backs up what you have been saying re what drives innovations and changes in the field.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1297858/posts?page=758#758
You are naive if you think the enemy didn't already know this. More men will die because they are not equipped with what they need to engage in this war, not because of a question asked by a soldier.
No it certainly doesn't excuse the whiners. We know that field upgrades and homegrown ingenuity to fix probmels that can't wait for shipping and supply trains is as old as war, but we have to keep hammering it into the morons who want to turn a normal logistical problem, which the DoD was fixing even before the loaded question, into a disaster movie of epic proportions. That's what they're working on here.
By Friday, this will have been turned into a nice rhetoric-byte or three, to be used in antiwar protests. Our troll friends are here specifically to come up with material.
Quote: I used to walk 20 mile through snow in the dead of winter to get to school wheh I was in 1st grade. We didn't need no stinking shoes back then. Kids now days are a bunch of wimp's
Your a wimp too. I milked 60 cows before sunup and then I walked 20 miles to school uphill both ways and then came home and milked the 60 cows again and then went out and shot dinner!!! :)
Amen, brother: " I'm not saying the war is taking too long, we have to be realistic, but I am looking forward to the day when we are doing less and Iraq is minding its own security."
How long were we in S Korea, Germany and other war torn areas after a war? It takes time and some times like with S Korea and Germany, we may have spent too much time there.
We agree that the 'armor crisis' is bogus. OTOH, the soldiers themselves involved may have not been out of line in that their three principle traditional duties have always been to kill people, break things, and belly ache about the CO.
If we have to subsidize making these armor plates then do it. It should'nt depend on a steel company making a profit or not...Hmmm...Let's see...Steel company profits v.s. American lives fighting terrorism. The bureaucracy in action.... at dead stop!
exactly!
War ain't glorious and it ain't fun! You play with the toys you brought till the sarge hands you better ones...
This entire episode was a setup. The question addressed a problem which is mostly solved. Yet that does not stop the ABB brigade here and elsewhere from acting as though Rummy doesn't give a damn about the lowly soldier. That entire line of thought is based upon LIES.
Almost all the criticism of Rumsfeld comes from those who HATE Bush and who HATE all who work with him and who were opposed to the war. It is the same crew of nitwits and Know Nothings.
Your assessment of the reason for the cheers was right on. In addition, I believe that many of the young soldiers were simply too low down on the chain to have any idea the problem was already being addressed. You know, all it takes is a well placed operative, like Pitts for instance, to add grist to the usual rumor mill, thus beginning the demoralization of our troops from within.
"This attempt at devisiveness between the Secretary and the men he supports has the potential to demoralize troops while aiding the enemy in intel they no doubt already suspected but now feel more assured of...THIS is the UNJUSTICE done by the MSM imho."
That's it, right on the money. It needs to be repeated. WE have to keep hammering on the facts of this end of the year propaganda blitz. It'll quiet down in about two weeks and then we'll get another blitz in about mid January.
I thought so
Apparently you mean "our leaders aren't perfect" and so what?
That does not mean they aren't doing ALL that they can to provide ALL that they can to ALL that they can.
But don't let that stop you from joining the RATmedia in its attacks on our leaders and our soldiers by undermining their confidence in their leaders and their mission.
I didn't post it. Just commented to it.
The "Journalist" should have gone to a press conference, rather than talking a halfwit into bucking chain of command. It proves Pitt hates our soldiers and could care less how his antics can harm them.
"It deserved, and got, a reasonable answer."
And the mass media is faithfully reporting this reasonable answer, accentuating the fact that the problem was already being addressed BEFORE the question was asked featuring retired military guest speakers to explain to operating procedure to the public, right? Right??
Prove it, newbie.
The armor issue is one of logistics. First the armor has to be produced, and then sent to the Middle East. Then the vehicles have to pulled out of service to be upgraded.
It would work better if we could just build and send over armored vehicles to replace those in use, but we can't build enough of them like that, which is why we're relying on upgrade kits, and the engineering teams in the field to fabricate the armor.
Availability and time are the two factors. What Rumsfeld said about having to work with the Army we have today, rather than the Army we would like to have or will have in the future is the truth. Every mission in Iraq is time critical because we're working on a series of strategic deadlines set at the beginning of the war.
If there was no time element involved we'd be waiting and ramping up the availability of the armor and deploying them to troops, while keeping the less armored vehicles in low risk zones. We don't have the luxury of time.
That said, remember Clinton vetoed attempts by the Republicans to start armoring the vehicles back in the 1990s. If they had succeeded, the logistical issue would not have been a problem since the army would've stockpiled the armor kits, and had more teams available to do the up-armor upgrades. Not to mention, fewer vehicles would've been unarmored to begin with at the start of the war.
OH...this is one of this week's new crop of rhetoric bytes. I'm sure it'll go over big in metroland, where the armchair warriors fantasise about how much better they could do it. Pat yourself on the back.
Then why did his fellow soldiers react that way? Set up as well?
I don't understand how anyone can translate a straightforward answer as cavalier. Can we go to war with an Army we don't have? He was reminding everyone that they're aware of the situation and are and have been doing everything possible to improve it, but in the meantime we have a war to fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.