"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up."
Published on December 9, 2004 By Solnac In Politics
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

Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 10, 2004
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.
on Dec 10, 2004

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.
on Dec 10, 2004

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.
on Dec 10, 2004
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?


3 Pages1 2 3