U.S. Troops Tell Rumsfeld They Use Scrap as Armor in Iraq

I read in another thread some guy said, 'Oh, soldiers always complain, it's no big deal.' What a slap in the face to the soldiers. Complain about food, money, ok. Body armor? Stop loss? Improper equipment for NG units? I think that's a pretty big deal, and I think those are complants are pretty unique to this occupation.

Originally posted by Samhain

Originally posted by Trent

Originally posted by Samhain

Well i wouldn't blame Bush (or Kerry) for this because i don't think he knows much about running armies and has to rely on his advisors. However from what i have heard Rumsfeld could be the person to blame, from the start of his career he has been disagreeing with top army guys on the direction the army should go. He wants it to be smaller and more mobile while the top army guys want it to be bigger and equiped for fighting large scale wars. When Iraq was on the drawing board the head of the army said they would need 700 000 men for a sustained occupation of a country like Iraq to contain the problems faced in a country with so many domestic problems. Rumsfeld wanted to invade with 50 000 and luckily Frankes who was charged of the job of planning it with him (although the final say was Rumsfelds) was able to talk him into sending 140 000 but this was still probably not enough. I think the US has to start thinking about going back to conventional army thinking if it is going to mount large scale invasions and occupations like this.


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Trent]

Well,as the commander in chief it's HIS JOB to know about running army's.
Bush and Rumsfeld are directly to blame for this.I thought Bush was a war president?this reminds me of the nazi offense into russia,and the german soldiers were starving and freezing to death,in the mean time,leaders are telling their people that victory is near,and that god is on their side.
It's funny how people have such a double standard when it somes to bush and his failures.
If this was a football game,and the players got on the field and didnt have enough helmets,or all their pads and shoes,would you blame the towel boy?
Attention to detail and thoroughness starts at the top,unfortunately this is a sympton of the culture in our leadership right now.

Oh i agree with you but Rumsfeld is much more to blame than Bush is. Now that Rumsfeld has been appointed it would look bad to get rid of him and Bush won on the premise of not changing the driver or however he put it. The main reason Rumsfeld is there is because way back in president Fords admin he breathed life into Cheney's political carrer by getting him appointed into a position in that government and Cheney paid him back when he became VP. Basically all i was saying in that post is the civilian government and their politics should stay out of most army matters and just let those who do have a lot of experience do their job, if they did this i bet things would run a lot smoother.


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Trent]

The cost of an armored Humvee, built from scratch, is $150,000. We have about 12,000-odd Humvees in Iraq right now. So to armour all of them it would cost $1.8 billion to replace every Humvee in Iraq with one that offers armored protection.

That might sound like alot of money but that's less than 2 percent of the $99 billion the Air Force is spending on the F-22. The Airforce gets alot of those military billions why this is I have no clue the squeaky wheel gets the grease perhaps since the Airforce has been quite vocal that they need the Raptor. There were no big companies or heavy lobbies lined up behind �armored Humvees like Fighter jets have.

So if you bring a $1.8 billion armour humvee bill before Congress and a bunch of people vote it down your pretty boned.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


[edit on 8-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]

I want to point out a couple of things. One the Humvee was not designed to be an armored personnel carrier. It basically replaced the jeep and the mitey mite, which provided far less protection than the Humvee. Thus, all the Humvees are having to be retro-fitted and units are improvising armor, in the interim.

The other is that our troops have the opportunity to question and call to task the Secretary of Defense, the second in command of the US armed forces, on international television.

I live in Knoxville, TN which is where the reservist from the 278th is from who questioned Rumsfeld on the quality of armament for the equipment/vehicles in Iraq. I was in the Air Force about 10 years ago and did not face the same perils as these men are. I was watching CNN earlier during a John Stewart interview and the topic of Rumsfeld sticking around for Bush's 2nd cabinet came up. The implication was he stuck around because if he quit or got fired it would show bad face on the continuance of what we've been "accomplishing" in the middle-east. The answer to that would likely be considered so obvious as to be moot; but the answers as usual are right beneath our noses of sight. Think economics, but not oil. Remember the movie "Swordfish"? That's another piece of it with the same plot. Another riddle answered with questions. Someone finish the picture please.....

I am completely flabbergasted by Donald Rumsfeld. Until now I thought he was but a jerk. Now I think he's an arrogant jerk. You can say "you go to war with what you've got" to a minutemen army fighting to defend its homeland from an outside attack, but not an army of professionals fighting an occupation war that has been planned well ahead. This is a morale killer: soldiers see that their own leaders care next to nothing for them, sending them out with inadequate equipment and blaming them for being spoilt brats that ask for a lifesaver. Runsfeld is renown for being a "genius" in the military field: he wants to cut down the armoured vehicles in the units because they are "outdated" and replace them with softskinned vehicles, like the Stryker (which is built by GMC, if I remember well), when he saw himself that the 1st Marine Division rounded up every single M1 Abrams they could find/borrow from sister units to make up for their deficiency in heavy armour. He killed the Comanche light helicopter because, in his enlighted opinion, flight crews are much safer while flying around in commercial choppers with applique armour. He killed the Crusader SPG because it's a "Cold War survivor", leaving the troops in the field with the rapidly aging Paladin SPGs and the MRLS they can't use in urban fighting becasue of strict rules of engage. In the meanwhile he's spending billions of taxpayers' money to pay for that ridiculous, costly utopia that is the "missile shield" which has already been proven to be of very, very limited value (what's the point in shooting down a missile your enemies don't own?) or to purchase the infamous "tin box" that is the Stryker IFV, while those same troops that should recieve it ask for addistional armour for their own Bradleys or M113s. This is what happens when you let politicians run a war.

The Bush Administration doesnt give an arse about the squaddies. They are just 'cannon fodder' as far as Dubya and his cronies are concerned.

Pisky's message to the troops in Iraq: Feck Bush - come back home and enjoy Christmas with your families. If he wants a war in Iraq, lets see him fight it himself, spineless bastard that he is.

"If any question why we died,
tell them because our fathers lied."
-Rudyard Kipling, Common Form in The Years Between

"We don't even care...that we don't care."
- Morla, The Never Ending Story

The Iraqi insanity is brought to you by the PNAC/New World Order division of the international Illuminati. No lie is too big, no murder too bold. The've been sacrificing men, women, and children on the altar of pride, selfishness, and greed for centuries. and no one does it better. If you're looking for someone to enslave your people and pillage your nation, you've come to the right place.

And, what the old lizard Rumsfeld really wanted to say:

"Shut up, soldier, and die as you're told."

Originally posted by cstyle226
Freedom is on the march.
Your billions are going into billionaires pockets, while your troops create their own armor out of garbage.

Sweet liberty, with a hefty side of corruption! Can you spread some more of it around?

Yes, this is true, but you know what? There are many Arab billionaires in the mid east. Do you see any of them offering up their considerable monies to help their people. No. Neither do I. Yassar Afafat was one rich mother, but he spent nothing to help his fellow Palestinians. Greed and corruption are not American inventions. They occur in all places that men inhabit. In America people speak out loudly against this sort of thing and I pray that God will rid the world of greedy corrupt bastards of all nationalities.

Do you really think that the lives of few killed servicemen does matter? It is just casualties of war and they must do fine with the equipment they have, the US government has far better holes to dump the money than to start providing extra armor for the troops. Few thousands killed servicemen are expendable.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

Apparently, two soldiers were "set up" to ask embarassing questions of Rumsfeld yesterday, by a reporter who was upset that no reporters were going to be allowed to ask questions.

He supposedly admitted using the two soldiers as escorts, and told them which questions to ask.

More details to follow.

www.drudgereport.com...

EDIT to add link


[edit on 9-12-2004 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I want to point out a couple of things. One the Humvee was not designed to be an armored personnel carrier.

And the US infantry was not designed to patrol the streets of extremely hostile cities in a Jeep.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Apparently, two soldiers were "set up" to ask embarassing questions of Rumsfeld yesterday, by a reporter who was upset that no reporters were going to be allowed to ask questions.

He supposedly admitted using the two soldiers as escorts, and told them which questions to ask.
[edit on 9-12-2004 by jsobecky]

Sounds like damage control to me.

People usually attack me, and call me a liberal because I am no huge fan of the Bush regime, but I say this sincerely and honestly with absolutely no sarcasm: I love Don Rumsfeld.

No matter what happens, even though he is probably responsible for some awful stuff, I find it so difficult to not like him. I enjoy his press conferences, and speeches, and just think he seems like an alright guy.

I hope Bush keeps him on for the whole term.

And, to the previous response to the first post of mine in this thread, yes there are many Arab oppressors holding down there people and stealing their money....that's why Osama exists. When Al-Qaeda attacks the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, that is a message to Saudi Arabia, more than it is to the US. And the message is, "get them out." But the Royal Hyenas won't listen, so the attacks will continue.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by cstyle226]

My personal observation is that the people on this thread doing the most hollering about the lack of armor for our troops are exactly the ones who, elsewhere, claim not to give a rat's patootie about the administration, the military or the troops. And Pisky, you can reserve your condemnation for your own heads of state. George Bush has more cajones than you could muster with in two lifetimes.

[edit on 04/12/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
George Bush has more cajones than you could muster with in two lifetimes.
[edit on 04/12/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Oh really? That must be why he volunteered for combat in Vietnam.