Forum Home | Login

US Troops Ask Rumsfield Million Dollar Question, Get Answer

Solnac

Join Date 12/2004

US Troops Ask Rumsfield Million Dollar Question, Get Answer

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up."

The question, of course, being 'why do we have to scrounge around for armor for our trucks?' Rumsfeld to his question, did in fact answer the question, although he did have to ask to have it repeated to him.

Rumsfeld's Answer: From CNN

What bothers me about Rumsfeld's reply is not the fact it's not true, it doesn't answer the question in it's complete pretext. The soldier is also asking if it will get better; or why isn't it better. Now, it's true you go to war with what you've got, but why haven't things picked up considerably? Why didn't we plan for worse case scenario, us being there for years and made production to suit the times? Why should soldiers in the country with the largest economy in the world be worried about keeping defense up for their trucks? The Secretary of Defense's comment about tanks was cute in the way that it solved nothing and alleviated absolutely no fears. (It didn't even answer the question.) Why isn't he showing and strutting his stuff to all these military contractors we have? I'd be on the phone shouting at people saying, "Hey, you made me look like a jackass! Pick it up down there!" And have we, as a country, exhausted all opportunity to make this situtation better?

Killing Two Birds With One Stone: Solution #1

The unemployment rate is still pretty high, and while I've not looked at underemployment, it's probably high too. We've spending lots of money in Iraq already, and while I groan to mention this because I can hear the replies of, 'that'll create more decifit spending! What a horrible idea!', bear with me here for a second. Theoretically, under the Army's supervision, the government could start factories to produce things like armor for vechiles and hire people off the streets and train them. Granted, it'd be a temporary job, but with the skills they learn, they could write their own check to other companies that will hire. More people hired, more jobs. More jobs means more people spending money. More people spending money will make the US dollar more valuble and the economy boom again. We discuss welfare to work all the time in the privatization sector: if we paid them enough, they wouldn't necessarly need it. "You teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime..."

Recycling: Solution #2

Scrap metal, while probably nowhere near the same grade as armor could possibly be used in layers to serve. We could always borrow a book from World War 2's page, ration metal and use it for the fitting of vechiles and other weaponry the military uses, but I'm almost convinced we could recycle some that's sitting around our landfill or from the people. While I think it's eerie I'm proposing we're recycling metals for things that will be used to kill people, I'm also reasonably sure that Iraq isn't going to be resolved overnight, and if we can find a peace and plan it adqueately, it will take some time to progress. "One man's junk is another man's treasure..."

Transparency in the Military Budget, Or Watching Exactly Where Our Money Goes: Solution #3

Then again, it could be the simple fact that we're not using what we've got monetarily well. I don't think we've been ready for this kind of ground conflict since the 60's, when Vietnam happened. We may still be spending it on cluster bombs when our primary fighting these days seems to be on the ground. While I'm sure cluster bombs are important in their own way, do we really need them for an enemy that seems more enamored with guerilla tactics than anything else? Plus, was our military budget geared toward invasion or more towards containment, like during the Clinton years? Those are very two different kinds of ways of fighting. "After the government takes enough to balance the budget, the taxpayer has the job of budgeting the balance."

Getting Our Fix From As Many Sources As Possible: Solution #4

Not too sure about this, but if the military is only using one company for all their armored needs, why not more? Are there countries not at war we can trade with for some military hardware we might be missing? Is there anything else or anywhere else we can get and service our need ready made? It's something to look into. "You often find soda money between the couch cushions."

There's a few suggestions I have. The things I'm slightly angry about: did no one realize this would take almost two years? Holding a country is a pain in the ass, that's why most people gave it up during the Imperalist Age when all the countries they had predictably revolted. I cite India protesting against British rule as an example of this. Did they not think they would not be Iraqis that would fight back? Did we forget what holding and securing a country temporarly would be like? And this quote makes me angry for perhaps another reason that won't make sense to you right away:

"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win," Rumsfeld said.

Is this really about Iraqi liberation or our pride? Because, seeing that quote, it almost seems like our need to win is more important than maybe addressing the issues that exist and making sure Iraq has a future. I never favored this war, it seemed started on a unreasonable premise, but now we're in it...I want to make sure we're out to secure what should be our goal if we're truly serious about this: the freedom and care of the Iraqi people to determine their destiny.

Trying to understand the unfathomable, the AWM/wolf dragon,

Sol

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just wish those who are throwing stones just because they happen to be on the other side of the of the spectrum would stop. I have to grumble every time these same peolple who publicly campaigned for a person who voted against the armor protection of our troops and complained about the contracting process so much, that changing the contract would caused just as big of a complaint from them.

Easy excuse, what Kerry voted against was the fact that the Bush administration refused to pay for it, like everything just adding it to the deficit. He voted for an earlier version that the administration said they would veto, but you never say that Bush was against it even though he said he would veto.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #26 By: whoman69 - 12/10/2004 3:23:25 PM
I just don't get you at all. First you complain that the administration is making the deficit bigger, yet they come up with a plan to reduce it by half in 4 years and you say it's a joke. Are you an economist that you know these things to be true?

That was no problem during the campaign for George Bush to say that about his opponent when he actually made a proposal. I have seen nothing from Bush besides him saying that the deficit will be reduced. Based on his current record, I have 445 billion reasons from just last fiscal year to believe that wont happen. You can't create the largest deficits in history and then say you have the problem under control with absolutely no indication how that will be done.

Wrong answer! He did NOT create the deficit, but on the otherhand he has added to it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #27 By: whoman69 - 12/10/2004 3:26:34 PM
I just wish those who are throwing stones just because they happen to be on the other side of the of the spectrum would stop. I have to grumble every time these same peolple who publicly campaigned for a person who voted against the armor protection of our troops and complained about the contracting process so much, that changing the contract would caused just as big of a complaint from them.

Easy excuse, what Kerry voted against was the fact that the Bush administration refused to pay for it, like everything just adding it to the deficit. He voted for an earlier version that the administration said they would veto

Do you even remember "why" the administration said they would veto the earlier one?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lee1776, you posted fascinatingly, so I'll cover this one issue at a time:

It is just interesting that some people are suddenly so worried about vehicle armor, when they just got done wanting a man in the Presidency that had a track record of Anti-Defense and even voted against funding this armor in the first place

There were other issues besides this at the time: I didn't vote for Bush because I didn't support the war, I don't support his stand on domestic issues, and I don't support his ideology. But now we're in this, our soldiers (which includes you) need to be protected now while you're under fire, and we have trusted this adminstration to do that. If you're not talking about Kerry, then you need to be more specific, I guess.

I, as a soldier, am steaming mad that an armor production increase that had been offered by the manufacturing company was turned down by some bean counter in the five sided building. These bean counters are just trying to keep their jobs. (though personnely I think it was worth thier job and they just lost thier job anyway) This reply post is about thoses who are now screaming bloody murder when it was they themselve that helped problem along.

Welcome to the world of the political arena. Everyone makes decisions in which they try to avoid unpouplar decisions, instead of common sense ones. I find it odd you complain about Kerry's track record when it's Bush's administration in charge. But I agree with this statement/paragraph: we need to get rid of the losers that screw our soldiers when they're under fire. How many deaths does it take before they realize they're doing something wrong? Does it take Rumsfeld coming under fire for the adminstration to address the issue, from one of the soldiers he's supposed to protect as a resource as his job?

When Halliberton (and the company making this armor) got the no bid contracts to supply the military with the rush support, these where the same poeple complaining about the issuing of the contract to people who already had infrustucture and producetion capablity. They screamed so hard that any changes to the contract would have required the a total rebiding process to occure (even if they are the only company set to produce it). This rebid 3-6 month process would have stopped production all together (legal termination of contract by a court when legal suit be present contrator would want their contracted money).

Think about what you just said for a second. There are bid contracts on everything else, almost. They probably have bid contracts to deal with the johns! So, why should Halliburtion and the company making the armor be any different? And if you say Cheney has absolutely no connections to the company he once headed, then I'll call you nuts. However, you're right that water under the bridge is water under the bridge, and we need that armor now. I don't see why the government won't sign muitiple contracts with anyone who can make it. And before you all cry 'cost', this war is already expensive.

The US military got burned for millions by GM when the contract for Hummers M998 - M1043 (softsides) was linked to the Heavy Hummer M1044 (Armored). This caused a 4 month delay in the production of the Armored Hummers due to a legal hold by the court until the Defense Department finaly had to pay 35% of the existing contract, before production could be restarted.

Yuck! Why would you link the two together?? That makes no sense! And it sounds like GM was fleecing our government.

I don't think the contracting process should of been changed, but at the same time, some consistency would be nice, either bid or no bid. I don't support this war, but I think loss of life should be reduced whenever possible, and as long as we're in this mess, we're in this together, liberal or conservative. I hope this isn't a 'two faced reply' for you. I understand that you're disillusioned with the whole process.

Dr. Miler:

Wrong answer! He did NOT create the deficit, but on the otherhand he has added to it.

Support that. No, I mean it. Find a source, cite it, or at least cite where you had heard this from. This is an unsupported statement. The post you cited at least had the deficit numbers when they made their statement with their opinion.

Do you even remember "why" the administration said they would veto the earlier one

You going to tell us? Or do we get to guess? *sarcastically* I like guessing games.

On a personal level. I think COL Gene has a "God" complex.

I think you've got a complex to bash and bully anyone who happens to disagree with you and make statements you seem unable or unwilling to support. I think you're a trolling bully. Now that we've both got our personal attack in that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, can we get back to it, please?

Successfully updated karma reason!

While they are led around by the Bush administration....Not every pentagon decision goes through Bush.

And if your manager at work told you that you were doing a crummy job and you need to move your butt, you wouldn't? I don't see why the DOD wasn't all over this at the get go.

Support what? Do you think this deficit magically appeared since 2000? Guess again. Their is absolutely no way Bush or his policies could have made the deficit what it is all by themselves.

Support that we had a deficit in 2000, since our last president. Support your statement. While this a little better, this argument is more dependant on what I think then acutal reality. Is it possible with two major military operations for that deficit to appear?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why should "I" have to tell you? I'm not the one who made the original statement. I was asking the one who did.
Why don't you ask him?

Well, it seemed like you *knew*....that would be the obvious reason you posted that statement, unless you did it just to be ornery, which would make no sense and have really no place in a debate.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #30 By: Solnac - 12/10/2004 5:13:54 PM
Lee1776, you posted fascinatingly, so I'll cover this one issue at a time:

It is just interesting that some people are suddenly so worried about vehicle armor, when they just got done wanting a man in the Presidency that had a track record of Anti-Defense and even voted against funding this armor in the first place

There were other issues besides this at the time: I didn't vote for Bush because I didn't support the war, I don't support his stand on domestic issues, and I don't support his ideology. But now we're in this, our soldiers (which includes you) need to be protected now while you're under fire, and we have trusted this adminstration to do that. If you're not talking about Kerry, then you need to be more specific, I guess.

I, as a soldier, am steaming mad that an armor production increase that had been offered by the manufacturing company was turned down by some bean counter in the five sided building. These bean counters are just trying to keep their jobs. (though personnely I think it was worth thier job and they just lost thier job anyway) This reply post is about thoses who are now screaming bloody murder when it was they themselve that helped problem along.

Welcome to the world of the political arena. Everyone makes decisions in which they try to avoid unpouplar decisions, instead of common sense ones. I find it odd you complain about Kerry's track record when it's Bush's administration in charge. But I agree with this statement/paragraph: we need to get rid of the losers that screw our soldiers when they're under fire. How many deaths does it take before they realize they're doing something wrong? Does it take Rumsfeld coming under fire for the adminstration to address the issue, from one of the soldiers he's supposed to protect as a resource as his job?

Wrong answer bud. While they are led around by the Bush administration....Not every pentagon decision goes through Bush.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Dr. Miler:

Wrong answer! He did NOT create the deficit, but on the otherhand he has added to it.

Support that. No, I mean it. Find a source, cite it, or at least cite where you had heard this from. This is an unsupported statement. The post you cited at least had the deficit numbers when they made their statement with their opinion.

Support what? Do you think this deficit magically appeared since 2000? Guess again. Their is absolutely no way Bush or his policies could have made the deficit what it is all by themselves.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do you even remember "why" the administration said they would veto the earlier one

You going to tell us? Or do we get to guess? *sarcastically* I like guessing games

Why should "I" have to tell you? I'm not the one who made the original statement. I was asking the one who did.
Why don't you ask him?

Reply #29 By: drmiler - 12/10/2004 4:37:20 PM

Reply #27 By: whoman69 - 12/10/2004 3:26:34 PM
I just wish those who are throwing stones just because they happen to be on the other side of the of the spectrum would stop. I have to grumble every time these same peolple who publicly campaigned for a person who voted against the armor protection of our troops and complained about the contracting process so much, that changing the contract would caused just as big of a complaint from them.

Easy excuse, what Kerry voted against was the fact that the Bush administration refused to pay for it, like everything just adding it to the deficit. He voted for an earlier version that the administration said they would veto

Do you even remember "why" the administration said they would veto the earlier one?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: