Rumsfeld set up.

[MoralLibertarian]

By a mainstream media reporter? Who'duthunk?

Here's the story.

Granted, this is DRudge, so it's not always accurate, but several papers have picked it up already.

The Rumsfeld story seemed a little dumb anyway. No AMerican soldier would bitch that way on his own. George Washington's army didn't even have shoes in winter, and yet these soldiers are complaining about how every portion of their vehicle isn't armored? Give me a break.

[Memorize]

Hey they signed up for the military, there are others using unarmed vehicles yet they dont complain. You wanted to join, so you're going to have to take commands wheather you like it or not.

[Maus]

At 12/9/04 09:26 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: Hey they signed up for the military, there are others using unarmed vehicles yet they dont complain. You wanted to join, so you're going to have to take commands wheather you like it or not.

Some of those troops are past when they should have been released from duty. They've served their obligation.

I'm not so much worried about the armor situation as the families at home having a hard time collecting pay to keep the soldier's home in order. They are over there fighting, and the wife and kids at home can barely pay the bills because of administrative SNAFUs.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/9/04 09:25 PM, -Michael- wrote:

The Rumsfeld story seemed a little dumb anyway. No AMerican soldier would bitch that way on his own. George Washington's army didn't even have shoes in winter, and yet these soldiers are complaining about how every portion of their vehicle isn't armored? Give me a break.

Would you like to take a drive in Fallujah with only light armor on your Humvee.

No, but army members make with what they have, and they don't whine like cry-baby liberals (like yourself) that they don't have armoured vehicles.

I'm guessing you're also in support of the officer who told his troops to go on a ridiculous mission mentioned in the news a few weeks ago with dangerous and flammable helicopter fuel (wasn't it?).

I didn't hear about that. Was it on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh?

You've also insulted George Washingtons army. They didn't have the money but still fighted for their cause, however, we have so much cash but we "just" forgot to armor the humvees.

No, on the contrary, I think they had more balls than this soldier has. And we probably have less money now than we did during the Revolutionary War. Ahh the joys of deficit dodging.

Only a liberal could complain about how the troops aren't well-supplied, and then support a candidate who voted against funding for the troops in Iraq.

[Hermannator]

At 12/9/04 09:25 PM, -Michael- wrote: They didn't have the money but still fighted for their cause, however, we have so much cash but we "just" forgot to armor the humvees.

If we have so much cash, why are we 7 trillion dollars in debt?

I'm not going to say some bullshit about complaining about the armor. First of all, putting better armor on a vehicle will not make it invincible. It can help, but it can only do so much. Second, the ones, other than the soldiers, who are complaining about this are liberals, who usually are against raising the military budget. If you guys want armor on their vehicles, that also means that you want more money spent on the war on Iraq, right?

Basically, the ones complaining tend to be hypocritical because they criticize how ill-equipped the soldiers are, yet we are against raising military budget. My position is simply that we should have not gone to war. It makes no difference of how it's being fought fiancially, because in my mind it's always going to be a waste of lives and money.

[Maus]

At 12/9/04 09:43 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 12/9/04 09:25 PM, -Michael- wrote: I'm guessing you're also in support of the officer who told his troops to go on a ridiculous mission mentioned in the news a few weeks ago with dangerous and flammable helicopter fuel (wasn't it?).

I didn't hear about that. Was it on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh?

Why yes, yes it was.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140593,00.html

They received a rank demotion for not going through the proper channels, but no court martial.

[MoralLibertarian]

You're a good man, Maus. Thank you.

[fli]

At 12/9/04 09:21 PM, Rooster349 wrote:
The Rumsfeld story seemed a little dumb anyway. No AMerican soldier would bitch that way on his own. George Washington's army didn't even have shoes in winter, and yet these soldiers are complaining about how every portion of their vehicle isn't armored? Give me a break.

So you don't support your troops then...

What do you think they were going to be pelted with? Roses and confetti?

Even if it was set up, why aren't we giving them the necessary money needed to do the job?

[Cleric]

At 12/9/04 09:21 PM, Rooster349 wrote: By a mainstream media reporter? Who'duthunk?

Here's the story.

Granted, this is DRudge, so it's not always accurate, but several papers have picked it up already.

The Rumsfeld story seemed a little dumb anyway. No AMerican soldier would bitch that way on his own. George Washington's army didn't even have shoes in winter, and yet these soldiers are complaining about how every portion of their vehicle isn't armored? Give me a break.

George Washington's army nearly mutinied, for the record. And they didn't have nearly unlimited funding. Its ridiculous to say that soldeirs should complain because things could be worse. For instance, I thought it was absoloutely ridiculous that Rumsfled's response was " We go to war with the army that we have." Its his JOB to prepare the army for battle, and admitting that he sent them with shit equipment just ain't cutting it. You don't go to war AT ALL if you can't find a way to keep your soldiers safe.

[bcdemon]

Yeah, poor US soldiers, always gettin shit on.

On a side note, Canadian troops in Afghanistan, (where the war on terror is) got some new Mercedez Benz G-Wagons, which apparently are cracking, but getting fixed, warranty and shit. And they got 1000 Chevy Silverados.

w00t w00t

Like A Rock

Maybe when were done with the Chevys we can sell your guys in Iraq some parts, cuz you'll be there longer than the war on terror is going to last. LOL

[ursamajour]

At 12/9/04 09:21 PM, Rooster349 wrote: By a mainstream media reporter? Who'duthunk?

I suppose the reporter also orchestrated the raucous applause the question received from the rest of the soldiers, eh?

[ReiperX]

I love your posts Rooster, because you talk like you know a lot and seem to have so little actual experience.

At 12/9/04 09:21 PM, Rooster349 wrote: By a mainstream media reporter? Who'duthunk?

Here's the story.

Granted, this is DRudge, so it's not always accurate, but several papers have picked it up already.

Sure why not.

The Rumsfeld story seemed a little dumb anyway. No AMerican soldier would bitch that way on his own.

You obviously have never served in the military and had to put up with the Bullshit that goes on in the military. There is a lot of bitching, and even more when they blow money on useless shit, and not get the soldiers what they need. I know this why? Because I've seen it happen so many times when I was in the military, CO gets new desk, get 10 new computers for the SNCOs, our soldering irons are barely working, the tips are so bad that it just causes the solder to ball up on it, the computers we have to use barely run windows 98, our barracks are comdemmed, we have very few test sets, most of our M-16s are inopperable, was still using the old flak jackets, we just started getting the intercepters about a year before I got out, and most of us didn't even get the balistic plates so they did well, nothing and the list goes on. But hell the CO and the SNCOs need new dells.

George Washington's army didn't even have shoes in winter, and yet these soldiers are complaining about how every portion of their vehicle isn't armored? Give me a break.

Have you been inside a Hummer, not the Civillian version, but the military version? They are pieces of shit for protection. They can sure climb a hill, but they are shit when it comes to protection. We have lost over 1200 soldiers in Iraq, 1000+ due to combat. I'm almost positive between 50 and 100 of those soldiers would still be alive now if they had those armor plates on their hummers instead of the ones outside the Pentagon having them.

You go thru the conditions they are in, put your life on the line daily, get fucked with when a SNCO decides they are board, be ordered to do some fucked up shit, and be told "oh by the way, I know your EAS is comming up but don't make any plans because you aren't going anywhere."

And you say that these people have no reason to bitch because they joined the military. These guys are the ones putting their lives on the line, they are the ones with the balls to go out and get shot at, if they want a little protection they should get it. I don't see you getting up to risk your life over there in Iraq.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 12/9/04 10:40 PM, Rooster349 wrote: You're a good man, Maus. Thank you.

*Chuckles* *sees Rooster's sig and what he said to Maus* *Chuckles s'more...*

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 12/9/04 10:21 PM, Hermannator wrote: If we have so much cash, why are we 7 trillion dollars in debt?

Statistical data from a reliable source plz?

[Kisuke]

For now they have come to the settlement of that the lightly armord Humvees will patroll the base, where they have backup and more firepower, and the Heavly armord Humvees will patroll the cities and go out on missions. But still, it's pretty sad when your troops have to scrounge for materials.

[MoralLibertarian]

I own you.

At 12/10/04 05:03 AM, ReiperX wrote: I love your posts Rooster, because you talk like you know a lot and seem to have so little actual experience.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah poor supplies blah blah blah I was in the military,

Yeah, except the soldier was speaking for the reporter, who seemed to intentionally want to create news rather than objectively find it. The question wouldn't have been asked without his scheming. It seemed a little off that a soldier would ask that to the defense secretary.

I didn't know you were in the military though. I asked my friend who is serving in the Navy right now and he paints a different picture. He says that you make do with what you have and you don't bitch. He agrees that they don't always have the best stuff, but him and his friends would never complain to an officer about it. To him, that's against the spirit of the Navy.

Have you been inside a Hummer, not the Civillian version, but the military version? They are pieces of shit for protection. They can sure climb a hill, but they are shit when it comes to protection. We have lost over 1200 soldiers in Iraq, 1000+ due to combat. I'm almost positive between 50 and 100 of those soldiers would still be alive now if they had those armor plates on their hummers instead of the ones outside the Pentagon having them.

No, I've never been in a humvee. Well now between 50 and 100 soldiers will be saved when the 8 armored humvees come from Washington, you can rest in peace. You're missing the point. This story was created by left-wing journalists. Granted, the pawn soldier was probably a willing participant, but even the original story had holes. One of the commander's in in the soldier's group said that he didn't even know that was happening. It could be total fabrication for all we know.

I have thought about joining the navy, I even did the pre-application to the Naval Academy. Now I'm here at UMD, I'm fat and unathletic. If I could be guaranteed a doable transition between College to military to college again, I would take you up on your offer. Because you're right, I don't know it is like.

I'll do some research on it.

[Maus]

At 12/10/04 06:15 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: *Chuckles* *sees Rooster's sig and what he said to Maus* *Chuckles s'more...*

I'm not a liberal, sweets. :)

But I'm not a man, either. :\

Win some, lose some.

[ursamajour]

The news reported that representatives of the companies that make the armoured Humvees said they could greatly increase production, by more than a hundred a month, but had simply not been asked to do it yet.

[BeFell]

Hmm... no money to fight the war. That would probably be the fault of senators who voted to go to war but voted against the spending to support the war. Hmm... can anyone think of somebody like that?

[MustaphaMond]

At 12/10/04 12:04 PM, BeFell wrote: Hmm... no money to fight the war. That would probably be the fault of senators who voted to go to war but voted against the spending to support the war. Hmm... can anyone think of somebody like that?

Or the people who are busily cutting taxes while claiming that our soldiers are well supplied. Hmm... can anyone think of somebody like that?

[Hermannator]

At 12/10/04 06:16 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 12/9/04 10:21 PM, Hermannator wrote: If we have so much cash, why are we 7 trillion dollars in debt?

Statistical data from a reliable source plz?

Have you been living under a rock?

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[Hermannator]

At 12/10/04 12:34 PM, MustaphaMond wrote:

At 12/10/04 12:04 PM, BeFell wrote: Hmm... no money to fight the war. That would probably be the fault of senators who voted to go to war but voted against the spending to support the war. Hmm... can anyone think of somebody like that?

Or the people who are busily cutting taxes while claiming that our soldiers are well supplied. Hmm... can anyone think of somebody like that?

Seriously, in a time of war, taxes should be raised. It is really dumb to spend so much while not generating enough revenue to pay for the spending. I can't believe people are saying that Bush is a good businessman while his handling of national fiances is so damn shitty.

[JoS]

At 12/10/04 01:07 PM, Hermannator wrote:

At 12/10/04 06:16 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 12/9/04 10:21 PM, Hermannator wrote: If we have so much cash, why are we 7 trillion dollars in debt?

Statistical data from a reliable source plz?

Have you been living under a rock?

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The US government currently has just over $2 trillion in foriegn debt (debt which is owed to forieng governments and institutions) and approx $4.5 trillion in debt to US citizens in the form of Treasurey Bonds. So whether you count the bonds or not makes a big difference in their debt, although I must point out the entire debt of the developing world is just over $1 trillion.

[Memorize]

At 12/10/04 02:44 PM, -Michael- wrote:

Words coming from a citizen who hasn't served in the military....

Even tho he got his information from someone in the Navy.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/10/04 03:45 PM, BarferPro wrote: It wasn't bitching, you stupid fuck. I saw the video; the soldier wanted to know what our secretary of defence was gonna' do about the low armor supply.
Jesus buttfucking Christ, their lives are on the line 24/7 over there. They should get armor. And you call it bitching when they question why they don't get it?

YOu rarely complain in front of the boss, no matter who your boss is. The fact that neither the soldier or the reporter was planning on telling anyone that the news was created by the reporter is intentional dishonesty. Also, Rumsfeld's answer: "Okay, thank you for bringing up the problem, we know of some armored Humvees and we'll get them to you soon."

Listen to Limbaugh's show for some extra insight into the story. Not that I'd expect you to do that.

You're joking, right?
Not having shoes while in a boat crossing the deleware is completely different from not having armor while driving through an insurgent camp, you stupid asshole.

Ummm...that's not all they didn't have. They had tattered clothing, torn up feet, low supplies of guns, etc. They survived an entire winter without basic needs, and they probably complained, but certainly not the head honcho.

Why don't you go on over to Iraq? Join the army, hop in these practically unarmored vehicles, and drive through an area where your life is only a bullet away from ending. Pretty good, eh fuckhead?

I'm considering it. I should walk the way I'm talking.

Please, find Jesus.

[BAWLS]

At 12/10/04 04:38 PM, Rooster349 wrote: Ummm...that's not all they didn't have. They had tattered clothing, torn up feet, low supplies of guns, etc. They survived an entire winter without basic needs, and they probably complained, but certainly not the head honcho.

You basically, they just need to suck it up? We don't need to compare ourselves to an army from over 200 years ago.

Please, find Jesus.

Why don't you?

[ReiperX]

At 12/10/04 10:41 AM, Rooster349 wrote: I love you.

I love you too.

At 12/10/04 05:03 AM, ReiperX wrote: I love your posts Rooster, because you talk like you know a lot and seem to have so little actual experience.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah poor supplies blah blah blah I was in the military,

Yeah, except the soldier was speaking for the reporter, who seemed to intentionally want to create news rather than objectively find it. The question wouldn't have been asked without his scheming. It seemed a little off that a soldier would ask that to the defense secretary.

It doesn't matter whether or not a soldier would have thought about that question or not. That question is a very legitimate question, one that should have been fairly high on the priorities list of the military and secretary Rumsfield. Now that question might have also been asked by another soldier too if it wasn't asked the first time, and judging by the response from the other soldiers there, I think that question was a big concern of the soldiers over there. It makes it extremely difficult to do your job without the proper equipment, trust me I know. The job can still be done, but it costs more in money, and in this case lives. Lets put a price tag on this since a lot of republicans only care about money. Lets say that over the next year we get the armor for the Humvees, and it saves 150 lives directly, that is a savings of $37,500,000 in personell, another $67,500 in weapons assuming that they are all carrying M-16 which we all know they wont all be carrying them but not going to factor in the more expensive weapons, lets say 20% <37.5 rounding down> are carrying a PRC-119F fairly popular radio, fairly reliable. another $148,000, your 782 gear is about $315,000, thats an easy savings of 38million, plus there are a lot of other things not factored in, this is just the basic worth of your basic infantry people, and a few com bubbas.

I didn't know you were in the military though. I asked my friend who is serving in the Navy right now and he paints a different picture. He says that you make do with what you have and you don't bitch. He agrees that they don't always have the best stuff, but him and his friends would never complain to an officer about it. To him, that's against the spirit of the Navy.

He is right in the fact that you make do with what you got, but I guarentee there is a lot of bitching going on. I never said complaining to an officer, neither did you before, you said bitching. Secretary Rumsfield is not an officer.

Have you been inside a Hummer, not the Civillian version, but the military version? They are pieces of shit for protection. They can sure climb a hill, but they are shit when it comes to protection. We have lost over 1200 soldiers in Iraq, 1000+ due to combat. I'm almost positive between 50 and 100 of those soldiers would still be alive now if they had those armor plates on their hummers instead of the ones outside the Pentagon having them.

No, I've never been in a humvee. Well now between 50 and 100 soldiers will be saved when the 8 armored humvees come from Washington, you can rest in peace. You're missing the point. This story was created by left-wing journalists. Granted, the pawn soldier was probably a willing participant, but even the original story had holes. One of the commander's in in the soldier's group said that he didn't even know that was happening. It could be total fabrication for all we know.

Those 8 aren't going to do much. They have a tendancy to break down in the sandy weather, so those won't all be used, and if it does save a life more than likely the armor won't be replaced once it has been used. Your missing the point, it doesn't matter if the reporter even asked the question, the question doesn't matter, Secretary Rumsfield looking stupid doesn't matter, what matters is that dispite what the President says, our soldiers over there in Iraq are being killed because they do not have what they need to get the job done, and this is costing something greater than money, human lives.

I have thought about joining the navy, I even did the pre-application to the Naval Academy. Now I'm here at UMD, I'm fat and unathletic. If I could be guaranteed a doable transition between College to military to college again, I would take you up on your offer. Because you're right, I don't know it is like.

Fat and unatheltic, I see Naval Officer written all over you <sorry just poking fun, no offense to the naval guys out there>. See thats the problem with the military, you aren't guarenteed jack shit. I was guarenteed $4,500 when I finished my MOS school, but that just seems to not have happened.

I'll do some research on it.

You do that.

[MoralLibertarian]

Here's another article that explains the situation quite well.

I am fully aware that the fact that the whole incident was staged by an activist journalist means nothing to you. I know that it is in your agenda, and his agenda, to make Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration look like people who don't care for the soldiers. In the 1940's, our soldiers did the same thing with second-rate tanks during WWII, and at that time the media used the opportunity to praise their resourcefulness. Now the media uses a similar situation to attack Bush and Rumsfeld. Nevermind that it was staged, and probably won't make front page news from any publication.

Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

[ReiperX]

At 12/10/04 05:59 PM, Rooster349 wrote: Here's another article that explains the situation quite well.

It just said the same thing as the first one, whats your point?

I am fully aware that the fact that the whole incident was staged by an activist journalist means nothing to you.

It doesn't mean anything to me for one reason, it could have been a conservatist journalist, it could have been one of the Haggis with the soldier's question, it could have been a soldiers actual question, none of that matters, what matters is the question was asked, and was shown that the armor was made, yet it was not being widely used in Iraq, the place that it needs to be used in. And the reaction of the other soldiers seems to show that that question is important to them as well. It was a legitimate question.

I know that it is in your agenda, and his agenda, to make Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration look like people who don't care for the soldiers.

Yes, I am against the Iraqi invasion for many reasons. No, I do not like this current administration, and I think Secretary Rumsfield is a disgrace. But it is not my agenda to make them look bad, personally I really don't care if they look real great. My agenda, is making sure that people know that people in Iraq, many of them I know, are inadiquatly equipped, and still doing to the best of their abilities, but with better equipment, more lives can be saved. That is my agenda. If Secretary Rumsfield, or President Bush did something good, then I would praise them on it. If someone badmouths one of them for something that isn't really their fault, or something thats not really that bad I do defend them. I'm more of a centrilist than a liberal anyways. When I was growing up my views were fairly right wing, but over time as I have matured I have realized that a lot of my view points as a child just simply are not the same because of things I have witnessed and experienced in my life.

In the 1940's, our soldiers did the same thing with second-rate tanks during WWII, and at that time the media used the opportunity to praise their resourcefulness.

This isn't WWII. In the 1940's did we have the means to give the soldiers better tanks in the quantities that they need? Now that our country has the technology, has the rescources, why isn't it being done? I do praise the troops for doing what they are doing with what they have, but that doesnt' mean that they do not deserve better than they have now, the most powerful nation in the world's military has to dig thru scrap to find metal to armor their vehicles. That is ridculous.

Now the media uses a similar situation to attack Bush and Rumsfeld. Nevermind that it was staged, and probably won't make front page news from any publication.

So if it wasn't staged, and the question was asked, what would you be bitching about? The whiney american troops over there being shot at daily? And like I said before, while this may be an attack on Secretary Rumsfield and President Bush, it is a legitimate one, and it is not an attack on the troops. If you dig thru the newspaper articles from teh 40's you may find some attacks on the President then about the soldiers having second rate tanks. The soldiers are not Secretary Rumsfield and President Bush.

Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

If you didn't care you wouldn't make such a big deal about it.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 12/10/04 10:42 AM, Maus wrote: I'm not a liberal, sweets. :)

Regardless of what you are in terms of politics, you're still a great and intelligent person (as far as I've read).

But I'm not a man, either. :\

Win some, lose some.

Aye. I was half-right, and half-wrong, it balances out... I hope.