I'm sure we all heard that idiot Rumsfeld talk about "we dont choose the army we go to war with". Well, I did. I chose this one. And Dman it, I can choose to call it quits. After 13 years in the Army, I thought I had heard it all. But Rumsfeld actually takes the award for penis of the year. What an *sshole he is. I hope that the rest of the Army and Marines that are actually over there fighting read this. I'm hanging it up after 13 years. I have served proudly next to all sorts of people and it was my honor to serve with them. I do nothing to dishonor the ones that died for the country. But if my own secretary of defense refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem and to tell us to suck it up when WE are the ones out there dying for his pompus egotistical *ss then he can kiss mine. Screw his "suck it up" attitude. I buried 3 soliders last year and I wont stand by while he dishonors the memory of them.
Disenchantment with my job...
- Thread starter genpowell71
- Start date
Hey, lay off. He's old and it was early...
It was 2 pm in the afternoon and he had already had his geritol
I thought Rumsfeld's comment was lame. It would have been appropriate if we hadn't chosen the time and place of this particular shooting match.
He's a tool. It amazes me that the house or senate doesnt want to have him removed more than they do. The "senior" senators dont want to remove him. He's proven time and time again that he doesnt have the balls to do the right thing.
And as to what was posted before. My ass wont get stop lossed, I'm not in a critical MOS.
And as to what was posted before. My ass wont get stop lossed, I'm not in a critical MOS.
As always there are two sides to every argument...
Rumsfeld's Two Wars: The Military and the Media
Written by Vincent Fiore
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
For all those folks demanding the head of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the hood of an unarmored Humvee, you may want to take a step back and look at recent history.
The troubles that beset the U.S. military, though unquestionably the strongest in recorded history when compared to other nations, was the work of President Clinton and a Congress that cared more for a piece of the peace dividend pie of the 1990s than they did in the readiness of the armed services.
Though you do not hear it said specifically from these self-appointed experts among the mainstream media, Rumsfeld inherited this military. He did not create it. What Rumsfeld and President Bush have managed to change is the pride and duty that our service personnel feel when wearing the uniform of the United States.
Rumsfeld has also worked to transform this military into a quick response and multi-tasking operation that can respond to conflicts nearly wherever arise. As he and the president have said, theyve crafted a military to match the dangers and threats of the 21st Century.
But did he deny armor to the troops in the field? Or does he withhold troops from the theatre of battle if they are needed? To believe this, one must be prepared to believe that Rumsfeld, and by extension President Bush, would be willing to sacrifice our soldiers needlessly.
As you think about that for a moment, here are a few reminders about just what was sacrificed during those peace dividend years when Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief:
In 1992, total active military personnel was 1, 913,000. By 2000, that number stood at 1,371,000, a 28% drop-off. Active U.S. Army divisions went from 14 to 10, a 29% drop. U.S. Marine personnel went from 191,000 to 171,000, a drop of 11%.
The U.S. Air Force experienced a 31% drop in its bomber squadrons, and active personnel of 28%--from 499,000 to 331,000.
The budget for the combined services, the only genuine cut enacted by Clinton and Congress, went from 327 billion dollars in 1992, to 274 billion in 2000. That is 16% drop, or 53 billion dollars--or armored Humvees, more troops, Kevlar vests, night-vision goggles, chemical agent monitors, etc.
While blame goes around Washington faster than a bullet through a gun barrel, most of the angst about Rumsfeld stems from his efforts to change a military that, like our intelligence branches, finds itself entrenched in a cold war mentality.
Through the 1990s, as the Clinton White House expanded social engineering and regarded the military budget as the slush fund to do it with, Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, and Chuck Hagel did little to raise a fuss. These principled and courageous Republicans, as the media refers to any Republican who caters to their view, are now all but calling for Rumsfeld to step down.
Such courage from these three moderate senators who all served during the Clinton administrations debauchery is woefully obvious for what it seeks: media approval, and in some cases, support for presidential aspirations.
In the much-reported town hall meeting in Kuwait on December 8, in reply to the question planted with Spc. Thomas Wilson and which has sparked the recent outcry for his removal, Rumsfeld said: You go to war with the Army you have. Theyre not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Plainly, this was a swipe at the previous administrations indifference and inept handling of the nations armed services. Rumsfelds predecessors, Defense Secretaries Les Aspin and William Cohen, did nothing of note during their tenure at DoDunless, of course, one considers undoing what eight years of the leadership of Ronald Reagan had donewhich was to give notice to Americas enemies that its armed forces stand in readiness to deter themsomething of note.
One of the hallmarks of the American military machine is its ability to improvise, overcome, and adapt. The Iraq War is no different in this regard. What worked in previous conflicts may not suffice here, as with the unarmored Humvees that were so successful during the Gulf War in 1991. We now use unmanned aerial vehicles, like Predator and Hunter drones, to save the lives of our soldiers and kill our enemies.
But such adaptation is commonplace in war, and should even be expected. In Tunisia, North Africa, in 1943, American forces for the first time faced the vaunted Panzer tank divisions of General Erwin Rommel, the most capable and feared commander of the Axis. After losing badly to Rommel, American troops nicknamed their own tanks purple heart boxes, because of the inadequacy of armor to protect the vehicles gas tanks. One piece of hot shrapnel would cause the tank to explode.
The same conditions prevailed in regard to the Armys half-track vehicles. General Omar Bradley was said to have asked a soldier if the machine gun bullets pierced the armor. The soldier replied: No sir. The bullets just pierce one side and rattle around a bit.
Such levity in the face of a life-and-death situation in war only affirms the ability of our fighting forces to adapt as the situation warrants. So, too, must Washington and all its bureaucratic machinations learn to adapt.
Donald Rumsfeld has had to fight two wars and an entrenched Washington bureaucracy at the same time. He has been a dedicated public servant for decades, and a true patriot. This political and media outcry is just so much noise over a condition that has greeted every major conflict ever fought by the U.S. Military; and that is in war, there will be the death of our own. To imply that Rumsfeld, and by extension, President Bush, are deaf to the needs of our soldiers in the field is not only dishonorable at its root, but hateful at its core.
The McCains and Hagels of the Senate--and their cheerleaders among the main stream media--may want to consider this the next time they open their mouths to promote only themselves and not what lies in the best interest of our fighting forces abroad.
Rumsfeld's Two Wars: The Military and the Media
Written by Vincent Fiore
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
For all those folks demanding the head of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the hood of an unarmored Humvee, you may want to take a step back and look at recent history.
The troubles that beset the U.S. military, though unquestionably the strongest in recorded history when compared to other nations, was the work of President Clinton and a Congress that cared more for a piece of the peace dividend pie of the 1990s than they did in the readiness of the armed services.
Though you do not hear it said specifically from these self-appointed experts among the mainstream media, Rumsfeld inherited this military. He did not create it. What Rumsfeld and President Bush have managed to change is the pride and duty that our service personnel feel when wearing the uniform of the United States.
Rumsfeld has also worked to transform this military into a quick response and multi-tasking operation that can respond to conflicts nearly wherever arise. As he and the president have said, theyve crafted a military to match the dangers and threats of the 21st Century.
But did he deny armor to the troops in the field? Or does he withhold troops from the theatre of battle if they are needed? To believe this, one must be prepared to believe that Rumsfeld, and by extension President Bush, would be willing to sacrifice our soldiers needlessly.
As you think about that for a moment, here are a few reminders about just what was sacrificed during those peace dividend years when Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief:
In 1992, total active military personnel was 1, 913,000. By 2000, that number stood at 1,371,000, a 28% drop-off. Active U.S. Army divisions went from 14 to 10, a 29% drop. U.S. Marine personnel went from 191,000 to 171,000, a drop of 11%.
The U.S. Air Force experienced a 31% drop in its bomber squadrons, and active personnel of 28%--from 499,000 to 331,000.
The budget for the combined services, the only genuine cut enacted by Clinton and Congress, went from 327 billion dollars in 1992, to 274 billion in 2000. That is 16% drop, or 53 billion dollars--or armored Humvees, more troops, Kevlar vests, night-vision goggles, chemical agent monitors, etc.
While blame goes around Washington faster than a bullet through a gun barrel, most of the angst about Rumsfeld stems from his efforts to change a military that, like our intelligence branches, finds itself entrenched in a cold war mentality.
Through the 1990s, as the Clinton White House expanded social engineering and regarded the military budget as the slush fund to do it with, Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, and Chuck Hagel did little to raise a fuss. These principled and courageous Republicans, as the media refers to any Republican who caters to their view, are now all but calling for Rumsfeld to step down.
Such courage from these three moderate senators who all served during the Clinton administrations debauchery is woefully obvious for what it seeks: media approval, and in some cases, support for presidential aspirations.
In the much-reported town hall meeting in Kuwait on December 8, in reply to the question planted with Spc. Thomas Wilson and which has sparked the recent outcry for his removal, Rumsfeld said: You go to war with the Army you have. Theyre not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Plainly, this was a swipe at the previous administrations indifference and inept handling of the nations armed services. Rumsfelds predecessors, Defense Secretaries Les Aspin and William Cohen, did nothing of note during their tenure at DoDunless, of course, one considers undoing what eight years of the leadership of Ronald Reagan had donewhich was to give notice to Americas enemies that its armed forces stand in readiness to deter themsomething of note.
One of the hallmarks of the American military machine is its ability to improvise, overcome, and adapt. The Iraq War is no different in this regard. What worked in previous conflicts may not suffice here, as with the unarmored Humvees that were so successful during the Gulf War in 1991. We now use unmanned aerial vehicles, like Predator and Hunter drones, to save the lives of our soldiers and kill our enemies.
But such adaptation is commonplace in war, and should even be expected. In Tunisia, North Africa, in 1943, American forces for the first time faced the vaunted Panzer tank divisions of General Erwin Rommel, the most capable and feared commander of the Axis. After losing badly to Rommel, American troops nicknamed their own tanks purple heart boxes, because of the inadequacy of armor to protect the vehicles gas tanks. One piece of hot shrapnel would cause the tank to explode.
The same conditions prevailed in regard to the Armys half-track vehicles. General Omar Bradley was said to have asked a soldier if the machine gun bullets pierced the armor. The soldier replied: No sir. The bullets just pierce one side and rattle around a bit.
Such levity in the face of a life-and-death situation in war only affirms the ability of our fighting forces to adapt as the situation warrants. So, too, must Washington and all its bureaucratic machinations learn to adapt.
Donald Rumsfeld has had to fight two wars and an entrenched Washington bureaucracy at the same time. He has been a dedicated public servant for decades, and a true patriot. This political and media outcry is just so much noise over a condition that has greeted every major conflict ever fought by the U.S. Military; and that is in war, there will be the death of our own. To imply that Rumsfeld, and by extension, President Bush, are deaf to the needs of our soldiers in the field is not only dishonorable at its root, but hateful at its core.
The McCains and Hagels of the Senate--and their cheerleaders among the main stream media--may want to consider this the next time they open their mouths to promote only themselves and not what lies in the best interest of our fighting forces abroad.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson Neither of these protects someone from being error free.N8 said:
So that makes it okay? Just because we have done it before and are apparently too f'ing stupid to figure out not to do it again that makes it okay. Of course there will be death of our own, go to war, folks die. That's a news flash of epic portions there Vince.N8 said:
And as for the resourcefullness of US troops. Sometimes they are there own worst enemy. This hillbilly armor is just that. It is so approriate that they quoted the story about Bradley and the half track. They are slapping whatever sheet steel they can find. Well most of the time it isn't sufficient enough to stop the rounds until they have passed thru the first plate and then just sort of bounces around. OR even worse the armor itself turns into sharpnel worse than the orginial bomb, rocket or bullet. OR the fact that they hang 1000s of pounds of steel on vehicle that isn't designed to carry it and the thing breaks down in indian country.....
But they do what they do because no one else will.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it's morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy RooseveltN8 said:
The problem is that commanders in the field have been screaming for more armor, body and vehicle since the conflict was declared over 18 months ago. I know it cause I've heard it from friends that are there and have been there. But still numerous companies that provide this stuff have been working under capacity. 2 days after this little exchange the Pentagon orders another 100 armored humvees from O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt which filled up their excess capacity. Beyond that what attempts at finding more suppliers are being made? Why are suppliers still producing normal unarmored Humvees? Why are unarmored Humvees still being sent to Iraq? Why are armored Humvees being shipped to bases in the domestic US?
And do we have to go back to the stories about the lack of personal body armor in theater from several months ago?
But see none of that matters to Vincent, he just wants folks to quit blaming Bush and Rumsfeld. So he drags out the most tired of all devices....... ITS CLINTON'S FAULT.
Plus the other side of the story is.....there isn't one. Rumsfeld f'ed up. He never should have responded in the manner in which he did to that Specialist. In reality Rumsfeld never really answered the question. That Specialist is painfully aware of the fact "You go to war with the army you have," cause he did. He is fighting everyday with that Army. He was asking what Rumsfeld was doing to make it a better Army....... and he is still waiting for him to answer.
At the risk of repeating myself, whatever happened to "the buck stops here"...
That went out with "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
As for Bush, atleast he admits that the insurgents are having an effect over there. As for the humvee thing, I can tell you that being stationed here at TraDoc (Training and Doctrine) here at Fort Benning has truly opened my eyes to how much bulls*it there is in the military. Until I got here I had no idea the amount of money that is wasted in the Army (atleast). The Army goes out and spends 30K on explorer sport tracs for the command elements, range control people, and various othes that think they need them. I would think that all the commanders can use regular humvees to get them around post. There would save about $750,000 on vehicle costs, fuel and upkeep. Something else that makes me sick is to see that the Army recruiters are bringing in people that think the army is a 9-5 job and that they can get a job where you dont have to deploy to fight. So there is more money wasted on training, food, clothing, and time investment. Why is it so hard to find money for the things that the soldiers need? Because we waste it on stupid things that people dont need but want because they think they deserve it.
As for Bush, atleast he admits that the insurgents are having an effect over there. As for the humvee thing, I can tell you that being stationed here at TraDoc (Training and Doctrine) here at Fort Benning has truly opened my eyes to how much bulls*it there is in the military. Until I got here I had no idea the amount of money that is wasted in the Army (atleast). The Army goes out and spends 30K on explorer sport tracs for the command elements, range control people, and various othes that think they need them. I would think that all the commanders can use regular humvees to get them around post. There would save about $750,000 on vehicle costs, fuel and upkeep. Something else that makes me sick is to see that the Army recruiters are bringing in people that think the army is a 9-5 job and that they can get a job where you dont have to deploy to fight. So there is more money wasted on training, food, clothing, and time investment. Why is it so hard to find money for the things that the soldiers need? Because we waste it on stupid things that people dont need but want because they think they deserve it.
genpowell71 do you read your PMs? Noob.
When I have one in there. SchmuckDRB said:
You sure you don't have one? Retard.genpowell71 said:
Now I do. Butt pirateDRB said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/soldiers.scrounging.ap/index.html
BUT when the soldiers try to make things better or safer in doing their jobs we court martial them.
The thing that really gripes my ass about this is that this commander did the best she knew how to make it as safe as possible for her soldiers to complete their mission. As opposed to the reservists that just decided not to complete their mission. They got off with nonjudicial punishments but she ends up court martialed.
BUT when the soldiers try to make things better or safer in doing their jobs we court martial them.
The thing that really gripes my ass about this is that this commander did the best she knew how to make it as safe as possible for her soldiers to complete their mission. As opposed to the reservists that just decided not to complete their mission. They got off with nonjudicial punishments but she ends up court martialed.
DRB said:
I am sure the liberal media left some important facts out like she was scrounging parts for crazy recycling programs or modern sculpture. Frikkin' hippies.
What GM needs to do is lobby for the Freedom Tax Credit. With the FTC, GM could send to Iraq all of the unsold 04 and 05 H2's to make room for the 06 models on the showroom floor come January.
I really have nothing of value to add to this thread other than waste within the armed forces is nothing new (unnecessary vehicles and everything Halliburton included).
I really have nothing of value to add to this thread other than waste within the armed forces is nothing new (unnecessary vehicles and everything Halliburton included).
"The Oil Age"
Right:N8 said:
`Scrounging' for Iraq war puts GIs in jail
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20041212/ts_chicagotrib/scroungingforiraqwarputsgisinjail