PDA

View Full Version : Ok Conservatives, Time For An Argument....



nhp
12-18-2004, 06:20 PM
You know the thing that really puzzles me is that the Bush administration (and some republicans on this website) kept arguing that Kerry was evil and wouldn't let proper armor get supplied to our troops.....in the meanwhile, look at what is going on now, and HAS BEEN GOING ON! Why was this information about proper armor or ANY armor suppressed by the media until after the election!? Gee, I wonder.

So here we have a funny situation (not for our troops). The conservatives were calling Kerry evil because they said he wouldn't let our troops have proper armor, while at the same time, every conservatives best friend Rummy is telling the troops to toughen up, in their completly UNARMORED vehicles.

I just find it sad that, politics aside, most people here won't even bother to critisize anyone in the Bush administration for not protecting the troops that you claim to 'support' by sending them to war with 'the army they have'.

All I see is right-wing ideology getting in the way of regard for human life. If you 'support our troops', then TAKE SOME FRIGGIN RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONCE!


I'll go vomit now, thanks.

eg8r
12-18-2004, 08:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So here we have a funny situation (not for our troops). The conservatives were calling Kerry evil because they said he wouldn't let our troops have proper armor, while at the same time, every conservatives best friend Rummy is telling the troops to toughen up, in their completly UNARMORED vehicles. <hr /></blockquote> I am not defending Rumsfeld or anyone else, but these vehicles were not Jeeps off the show room floor. I have not read anything yet that said their were "completely UNARMORED" vehicles.

[ QUOTE ]
I just find it sad that, politics aside, most people here won't even bother to critisize anyone in the Bush administration for not protecting the troops that you claim to 'support' by sending them to war with 'the army they have'.
<hr /></blockquote> Have you been ignoring the other thread? Most everyone has agreed that this is wrong. How much more are you asking for?

[ QUOTE ]
All I see is right-wing ideology... <hr /></blockquote> All I see is that your post is no less than gross exaggeration. This post appears to be only an argument. Who has the time to sit around and argue for arguments sake? This is all your post appears to be.

eg8r

highsea
12-18-2004, 10:52 PM
Nate,
I have been pretty much staying out of here lately because I am tired of the a$$ rubbing. I don't intend to respond to this post unless the discussion is done in a civil fashion, which is something seems to have gone by the wayside here. Another casualty of war, I guess.

Armor is a relative term. Every armor package is rated to a certain threat level. All HMMWV's have a standard basic armor package that is fairly effective against fragments. There are no completely UNARMORED HMMWV's in Iraq, and only up-armored versions are allowed outside the green zone. The Marines have mostly the basic versions, because they chose speed over extra protection in their HMMWV's, but they are using vehicles borrowed from the Army in Iraq.

The company in the US that up-armors the HMMWV was running at about 150/month production the first year of the war (AMGen doesn't make the armor). When Rumsfeld was in the press conference and the soldier asked him the question, he answered that the production had been increased to about 400/mo. He was close, it was at 450/mo. But that is the max that this company can put out. It wasn't the soldier's question that increased the production, it was already at max rate (and had been since before the election).

Since 2003, the DOD has been working to tool up more suppliers, and the Army and Marines have their own kits coming online (several thousand already in service). But machinery has to be purchased, materials acquired, workers hired, and a great deal of red tape has to be cut. There is also a proving process that has to be done. It's happening, but it simply can't be done overnight. In the last year, several new kits have been under development by the Israelis and Battelle to meet various standards. Some of these have been deployed to Kuwaut, where the modifications take place.

I read a statement by the CEO of the US company that does the armoring. His company was almost put out of business by the demands of the Pentagon. This is not really that unusual, because when the DOD says jump, you jump. But they had to cancel existing orders, turn away customers, and work their employees 12/7 continuous for over 4 months just to ramp up production to their current level.

A big reason for the SNAFU was the fact that we can't manouver heavy armor in a lot of the urban areas, it would destroy the streets and bridges. Had the planners expected this, they would have had more light armor earlier on. The HMMWV is being used in a role it wasn't designed for. The lesson in Somalia was don't rely on light armor alone, and the planners didn't intend to. But the conditions in places like Fallujah preclude the use of M1A1's in many areas.

RPG-7's are an anti-armor weapon. They are ineffective on M1A1 and Challengers, but they will take out pretty much any other tank. An up-armored HMMWV will still not stop one. It's also not going to stop 500-1000 lbs. of HE in an IED. But they will provide more protection from small arms fire and fragments. But a HMMWV is not a MBT, and never will be. They will always be vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. There is a physical limit to how much armor you can put on one before the suspension fails.

In any case, all soldiers have to improvise in war, whether it's scrounging armor or ballistic glass from damaged vehicles, digging trenches, or filling sandbags. And all soldiers complain. It's their right, and it will never change. It's just that in the past, it didn't make the front page in 2 hours.

A big problem with this war is the instant media aspect of it. There is no question that the media is having a field day criticizing the administration, and rarely, if ever shows the positive things that are taking place in areas of Iraq that are not affected by the insurgency. It's a media axim that "if it bleeds, it reads". So they focus on the negatives, and ignore all else. In fact, the only place to see positive news is from the DOD itself.

Be that as it may. The war in Iraq, for all it's warts, and regardless of what CNN says, was prosecuted brilliantly from a military perspective. The US lost more Marines EACH DAY taking Iwo Jima in WW2 than all the soldiers we have lost in the 3 years in Iraq. Don't assume I am discounting the cost of Iraq, I am just trying to put it in perspective.

It's fashionable to blame America for the insurgency, the lack of electricity in Baghdad, the car bombings, etc. But it is not the US who is doing this, it is terrorists and Sunni extremists in Iraq fighting against the idea of a democratic Iraq. Roughly 80% of the population is Shia or Kurdish, and they are not part of the insurgency (since Mookie stood down). Of the remaining 20% Sunnis, about 20% of them are fighting the coalition. They have support from Iran and Syria, and (at least tacit support from) pretty much every other country in the ME. There are a lot of people over there that don't mind seeing the US get a bloody nose, and frankly, a large percentage of them don't have the same regard for human life that we do.

Anyone can be an armchair General and rant and rave about everything that's gone wrong. In war, things go wrong. I still don't believe the country really understands that the US is at war. Not just Iraq, but a real WAR. It's a conflict that encompasses the entire globe, and will be going on for years to come. We didn't start it, but I hope that America has the fortitude to see it through. I have my doubts though, and that concerns me a lot more than any OBL video on al-Jazeera.

HMMWV (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.htm)

-CM

pooltchr
12-19-2004, 06:30 AM
Thank you for a well written, well thought out, and well researced response!

Chopstick
12-19-2004, 06:53 AM
I second that. I wish there was an applause icon.

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2004, 06:59 AM
nhp...It is sad is what it is, but you may as well save yout breath, a knot head is a knot head and bushites are the densest of any I've ever encountered. American lives, they don't put much value in them themselves in the end run, else these discrepencies, political LIES, would absolutely leak through their own filters. They all should be ashamed, and I mean that with all of my heart...sid

SecaucusFats
12-19-2004, 11:33 AM
Clinton had downsized, underfunded and underprocured the US military to the point where it was alredy severely strained to accomplish the many tasks it was assigned.

Bush and Rumsfeld inherited a military which was undermanned, underequipped, and overstretched. Nine months after President Bush's inauguration as a result of the 9/11 attacks our country went to war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was refered to as the "graveyard of empires" and for the former Soviet Union that is precisely what it was. The US Military with Rumsfeld at the helm prosecuted one of the the most stunning military campaigns in history.

When Rumsfeld said "You go to war with the military you have", he was just telling it like it is. In an ideal world you always have what you need when you need it, and in limitless amounts, but we live in the real world. Face it, Clinton practically gutted our Armed Forces and now you want to blame Bush and Rumsfeld.

Go here and read hundreds of news articles regarding the status of our military under Clinton right up to the year 2000.

Underfunded, Undermanned, and Stretched Thin (http://www.alamo-girl.com/0013.htm)

SF

SecaucusFats
12-19-2004, 11:39 AM
Take some friggin responsibility?:

The Washington Times.com 12/26/00 Rowan Scarborough "..... The 1.4 million-member armed forces may turn out to be President-elect George W. Bush's most-demanding constituency. Mr. Bush directly sought the votes of service members, making their needs a pillar of his campaign. Now, sailors and soldiers tell The Washington Times they have a long "to do" list for the incoming commander in chief...... They say they plan to hold him to his vow to rebuild the force after eight grueling years of social turmoil, budget cuts and expanded missions throughout the world. Twelve officers and enlisted personnel, all speaking on the condition of anonymity because they are on active duty, said they want better pay and health care, new equipment and a full inventory of spare parts. ......"

Stars and Stripes Omnimedia 12/18/00 Ed Offley ".... It never took center stage as a campaign issue in the 2000 presidential race, but President-elect George W. Bush in five weeks will be confronted by a major issue neither he nor Congress can afford to ignore: the potential for a systemic collapse of the U.S. armed forces within the next decade.

While the 16-month electoral contest between Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore turned and twisted on a host of domestic issues -- the future health of Social Security and Medicare, income tax cuts and the federal role in controlling prescription drug prices -- a growing number of defense experts warn that one of the first nightmares the new president will inherit is the threat of a "defense train wreck" looming in the next five to 10 years as the result of a decade of massive under-funding of the true costs of maintaining the current size and structure of the U.S. military. ....."Everybody hits the wall about 2005-2006," says Dan Goure, deputy director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., who co-authored a detailed analysis of the defense budget crisis last year. "The derailment is in sight." ....."

SF

Ross
12-19-2004, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Nate,
I have been pretty much staying out of here lately because I am tired of the a$$ rubbing. I don't intend to respond to this post unless the discussion is done in a civil fashion, which is something seems to have gone by the wayside here. Another casualty of war, I guess.

Armor is a relative term. Every armor package is rated to a certain threat level. All HMMWV's have a standard basic armor package that is fairly effective against fragments. There are no completely UNARMORED HMMWV's in Iraq, and only up-armored versions are allowed outside the green zone. The Marines have mostly the basic versions, because they chose speed over extra protection in their HMMWV's, but they are using vehicles borrowed from the Army in Iraq.

The company in the US that up-armors the HMMWV was running at about 150/month production the first year of the war (AMGen doesn't make the armor). When Rumsfeld was in the press conference and the soldier asked him the question, he answered that the production had been increased to about 400/mo. He was close, it was at 450/mo. But that is the max that this company can put out. It wasn't the soldier's question that increased the production, it was already at max rate (and had been since before the election).

<font color="blue"> This contradicts what the president of the armor supplying company said:

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.
...
Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company's aerospace and defense group said in a telephone interview today.

``We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'' Mecredy said in the interview. ``I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.''

</font color>

Since 2003, the DOD has been working to tool up more suppliers, and the Army and Marines have their own kits coming online (several thousand already in service). But machinery has to be purchased, materials acquired, workers hired, and a great deal of red tape has to be cut. There is also a proving process that has to be done. It's happening, but it simply can't be done overnight. In the last year, several new kits have been under development by the Israelis and Battelle to meet various standards. Some of these have been deployed to Kuwaut, where the modifications take place.

I read a statement by the CEO of the US company that does the armoring. His company was almost put out of business by the demands of the Pentagon. This is not really that unusual, because when the DOD says jump, you jump. But they had to cancel existing orders, turn away customers, and work their employees 12/7 continuous for over 4 months just to ramp up production to their current level.

<font color="blue"> It may have caused a bit of disruption, but they seem to be doing pretty well by it.

"Armor Holdings has already boosted output from 60 vehicles a month a year ago, said Mecredy, 58. As a result of the increased output, Armor Holdings has cut the price for the armor its supplies for the trucks to $58,000 per vehicle, from $72,000 per vehicle a year ago, Mecredy said.

Shares of Armor Holdings rose 66 cents, or 1.6 percent in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 11:34 a.m."

And here is their 5 year stock history. Maybe the drop in 2002 is what the quote you mentioned refers to, but they have been going gangbusters since (comparison line is S&amp;P 500):
http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/armor_stock.gif

</font color>
A big reason for the SNAFU was the fact that we can't manouver heavy armor in a lot of the urban areas, it would destroy the streets and bridges. Had the planners expected this, they would have had more light armor earlier on. The HMMWV is being used in a role it wasn't designed for. The lesson in Somalia was don't rely on light armor alone, and the planners didn't intend to. But the conditions in places like Fallujah preclude the use of M1A1's in many areas.
<font color="blue">I just don't understand your argument. You seem to be saying two different things. One is that the military couldn't have anticipated their exact needs in Iraq. Fair enough.

But sometimes you also seem to be suggesting that the soldiers don't need and couldn't even use the up-armored Humvees if they had them because of road conditions, etc. I have problems with this claim. Apparently, the soldiers who are actually there have been trying to up-armor their own vehicles for months. They have been ordering welding equipment on-line and scrounging for metal wherever they can. Even the military has acknowledged the need -- they have been saying "we are doing everything we can to get more armored vehicles to them as quickly as possible." All of this contradicts your suggestion that the need isn't real and hasn't been known for many months.</font color>

RPG-7's are an anti-armor weapon. They are ineffective on M1A1 and Challengers, but they will take out pretty much any other tank. An up-armored HMMWV will still not stop one. It's also not going to stop 500-1000 lbs. of HE in an IED. But they will provide more protection from small arms fire and fragments. But a HMMWV is not a MBT, and never will be. They will always be vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. There is a physical limit to how much armor you can put on one before the suspension fails.
<font color="blue">I'm sure all of this is true. An up-armored vehicle is not a panacea. But the fact that there are limits on what additional armor can do doesn't mean that it shouldn't be provided. I imagine "providing more protection from small arms fire and fragments" is a pretty damn big deal to our soldiers when they are travelling in these vehicles.

</font color>
In any case, all soldiers have to improvise in war, whether it's scrounging armor or ballistic glass from damaged vehicles, digging trenches, or filling sandbags. And all soldiers complain. It's their right, and it will never change. It's just that in the past, it didn't make the front page in 2 hours.

<font color="blue">True, soldiers will always complain, just like workers will in civilian jobs. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the complaints are legitimate or not. So far you haven't presented any information that shows that the soldiers complaints about a shortage of up-armored humvees isn't a valid complaint. </font color>

A big problem with this war is the instant media aspect of it. There is no question that the media is having a field day criticizing the administration, and rarely, if ever shows the positive things that are taking place in areas of Iraq that are not affected by the insurgency. It's a media axim that "if it bleeds, it reads". So they focus on the negatives, and ignore all else. In fact, the only place to see positive news is from the DOD itself.

<font color="blue">Throughout history, the media focuses on what's wrong and what's dramatic and not what's going right mainly because that is what people want to see/read. This is not new to this war. To its credit, the media's watchdog role has served us well in uncovering fraud, scandal, and incompetence throughout US history. </font color>

Be that as it may. The war in Iraq, for all it's warts, and regardless of what CNN says, was prosecuted brilliantly from a military perspective. The US lost more Marines EACH DAY taking Iwo Jima in WW2 than all the soldiers we have lost in the 3 years in Iraq. Don't assume I am discounting the cost of Iraq, I am just trying to put it in perspective.

<font color="blue">If you are talking about the invasion of Iraq I agree. If you are talking about the mess that is the post-invasion rebuilding of Iraq I disagree completely. I know the military is not trained to re-build countries. But if you are going to overthrow a government you are also responsible for providing security in the aftermath. The US has not been able to do this, mainly because Rumsfeld did not listen to the voices that said that we would need a lot more troops to provide post-invasion security. </font color>

It's fashionable to blame America for the insurgency, the lack of electricity in Baghdad, the car bombings, etc. But it is not the US who is doing this, it is terrorists and Sunni extremists in Iraq fighting against the idea of a democratic Iraq. Roughly 80% of the population is Shia or Kurdish, and they are not part of the insurgency (since Mookie stood down). Of the remaining 20% Sunnis, about 20% of them are fighting the coalition. They have support from Iran and Syria, and (at least tacit support from) pretty much every other country in the ME. There are a lot of people over there that don't mind seeing the US get a bloody nose, and frankly, a large percentage of them don't have the same regard for human life that we do.

<font color="blue">McCain isn't blaming America for the insurgency, nor are all of Rummy's other critics. To claim this is to misunderstand what we are saying. But it IS the job of the military to do everthing it can to protect it's soldiers and I don't think Rummy has done this. You are in denial if you think this thing is going down anywhere near the way it was planned. The administration asked for and received billions of dollars for rebuilding Iraq. The money sits unspent because our contractors are too scared to go to work there. </font color>

Anyone can be an armchair General and rant and rave about everything that's gone wrong. In war, things go wrong. I still don't believe the country really understands that the US is at war. Not just Iraq, but a real WAR. It's a conflict that encompasses the entire globe, and will be going on for years to come. We didn't start it, but I hope that America has the fortitude to see it through. I have my doubts though, and that concerns me a lot more than any OBL video on al-Jazeera.

<font color="blue">I think you are making some incorrect assumptions about the critics of the war that started this thread. McCain, Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Schwartzkopf and I are all saying we should have MORE troops over there to make sure we win this war. That we should have had more troops there in the beginning so that the insurgency could never have been emboldened as they have now.

Think of it this way, Highsea. If Clinton were prosecuting this war and conservatives were criticizing him for not being realistic in realizing how difficult nation-building is, and for not sending enough troops or getting our soldiers up-armored humvees, would you be so quick to defend him?
</font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 02:12 PM
Brilliant post Friend. I am glad I read on before trying to post, you said it so much better than I could have. Unfortunately, we have folks on here who will go all the way back to the Somalia situation in order to muddy up the waters enough to avoid the facts. When are they going to get it, Clinton is gone, and so is the surplus! Clinton's been out of office going on five years, and they still want to blame him for the Bush shortsightedness.

If you don't have what you need to fight a war, then take some time to build up your needs and manpower before you go off half cocked.

Our only way out of this mess is through using Iraqi soldiers, and they won't fight! They'd rather sit back and let us do it for them, and we don't have enough soldiers to do the job.

Gayle in Md

It's gloom and doom alright!

highsea
12-19-2004, 02:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...When Rumsfeld was in the press conference and the soldier asked him the question, he answered that the production had been increased to about 400/mo. He was close, it was at 450/mo. But that is the max that this company can put out. It wasn't the soldier's question that increased the production, it was already at max rate (and had been since before the election).<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> This contradicts what the president of the armor supplying company said:

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.</font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">The statement I read was made prior to Dec. 9. After the hub-bub, they did make the statement to the media that they could up production. Their previous statements were that they were at full production. I am sure they have got the order, regardless if it can fit into the pipeline. As I already mentioned, there are several companies now up-armoring the HMMWV, besides the Army's and Marines's own versions (several thousand of which are already in theater, as I mentioned). I don't feel like giving you a list, you can google if you are really interested.

The decision to begin the up-armoring program was actually made after the Kosovo conflict, and was ramped up before the invasion of Iraq. It was ramped up again last May. The left is screaming bloody murder over this news story, and the OP stated some things that just weren't true. That's what I was addressing. </font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>A big reason for the SNAFU was the fact that we can't manouver heavy armor in a lot of the urban areas, it would destroy the streets and bridges. Had the planners expected this, they would have had more light armor earlier on. The HMMWV is being used in a role it wasn't designed for. The lesson in Somalia was don't rely on light armor alone, and the planners didn't intend to. But the conditions in places like Fallujah preclude the use of M1A1's in many areas.<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">I just don't understand your argument. You seem to be saying two different things. One is that the military couldn't have anticipated their exact needs in Iraq. Fair enough.

But sometimes you also seem to be suggesting that the soldiers don't need and couldn't even use the up-armored Humvees if they had them because of road conditions, etc. I have problems with this claim. Apparently, the soldiers who are actually there have been trying to up-armor their own vehicles for months. They have been ordering welding equipment on-line and scrounging for metal wherever they can. Even the military has acknowledged the need -- they have been saying "we are doing everything we can to get more armored vehicles to them as quickly as possible." All of this contradicts your suggestion that the need isn't real and hasn't been known for many months.</font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">If you don't understand what I wrote, fine. But don't put words into my mouth or twist the meaning. Read what I wrote, it simply stated that the HMMWV is being used in a role that it wasn't designed for, and why. I did not say, or even suggest, that they couldn't drive an up-armored HMMWV on the roads, I said they couldn't drive HEAVY ARMOR. At 67 tons, a MAIN BATTLE TANK will destroy the bridges and roads, they can't handle the weight. You can hang door plates on the HMMWV until the tires are flat, and it will NEVER be heavy armor.

I NEVER said there was no need, and I don't appreciate your suggestion that I did. If you don't understand the difference between a HMMWV and a M1A1, just ask, and I will explain in more detail.</font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>RPG-7's are an anti-armor weapon. They are ineffective on M1A1 and Challengers, but they will take out pretty much any other tank. An up-armored HMMWV will still not stop one. It's also not going to stop 500-1000 lbs. of HE in an IED. But they will provide more protection from small arms fire and fragments. But a HMMWV is not a MBT, and never will be. They will always be vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. There is a physical limit to how much armor you can put on one before the suspension fails. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">I'm sure all of this is true. An up-armored vehicle is not a panacea. But the fact that there are limits on what additional armor can do doesn't mean that it shouldn't be provided. I imagine "providing more protection from small arms fire and fragments" is a pretty damn big deal to our soldiers when they are travelling in these vehicles. </font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">Who the F*CK said it shouldn't be provided? Jesus Christ. I just pointed out that there is NO FLAT PLATE ARMOR that a HMMWV can carry that will protect it from RPG's and IED's. PERIOD. That's all I said, so please stop re-interpreting my comments.</font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>In any case, all soldiers have to improvise in war, whether it's scrounging armor or ballistic glass from damaged vehicles, digging trenches, or filling sandbags. And all soldiers complain. It's their right, and it will never change. It's just that in the past, it didn't make the front page in 2 hours.<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">True, soldiers will always complain, just like workers will in civilian jobs. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the complaints are legitimate or not. So far you haven't presented any information that shows that the soldiers complaints about a shortage of up-armored humvees isn't a valid complaint. </font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">Did I say it wasn't a valid complaint??? Why in the world would you say that I am trying to show that is not a valid complaint? The Army has been working on this for two years. It just hasn't been a front page story. But regardless, soldiers will ALWAYS have to improvise in war.

In fact, the problem is not with the HMMWV, it's with the way they are being used. They should be limited to convoy escorts, where high speed is needed, and patrols should be done in M113's. Then they WOULD have some protection from RPG's and IED's, which is what is killing most of our soldiers.</font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr><font color="blue">Think of it this way, Highsea. If Clinton were prosecuting this war and conservatives were criticizing him for not being realistic in realizing how difficult nation-building is, and for not sending enough troops or getting our soldiers up-armored humvees, would you be so quick to defend him?</font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">I am not going to discuss politics with you, or make believe scenarios about what if this, or what if that, or what Clinton would have done. That is a pointless excersize. And I'm not defending anyone. My comments on this thread were about a specific piece of material, and how it was being employed.

In typical fashion, you have attempted to twist everything I said, and to politicize my intent to clarify what the vehicle was designed to do, and the level of protection it provides to it's occupants.</font color>

-CM

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 02:47 PM
Amen friend!

ps, Don't hold your breath! LOL.

Gayle in Md., Big beautiful BLUE state!

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 02:50 PM
Ditto friend!
Love,
Gayle

highsea
12-19-2004, 02:55 PM
Nate, here is some more facts about the armor situation in Iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Central Command has added armor to 22,000 of its 30,000 fleet

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, December 10, 2004
The United States has satisfied about 70 percent of the military's combat armored vehicle requirements in the Middle East and surrounding regions.

Officials said that over the last year the U.S. Army has vastly increased the number of combat and support military vehicles that received armor. They said the aim was to armor every vehicle deployed by the U.S. military in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, South Asia and Central Asia regions.

Officials and soldiers said the accelerated rate of production has been insufficient to achieve the army's goal to armor its entire vehicle fleet in Iraq. They said the result has been a significant shortage of armored vehicles particularly among transport and support units, which has affected supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq.

At the same time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld echoed the Pentagon assessment that armored vehicles don't guarantee troop safety. He cited the destruction of U.S. main battle tanks from mines, and other officials said 120 up-armored Humvees were destroyed by insurgency attacks in Iraq, Middle East Newsline reported.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Defense Department officials said U.S. contractors were cranking out hundreds of armored Humvees per month for the army. They said that only 15 months ago production of armored Humvees was about 30 per month.
On Dec. 8, Rumsfeld, meeting U.S. forces in Kuwait, was told that army units were digging through local landfills for "pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles."

Rumsfeld responded that production capability marked a key element in the acquisition of up-armored kits for military vehicles deployed in Iraq.

"The army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe," Rumsfeld said. "It's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously but, at a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment."

The U.S. military set a requirement of 8,100 up-armored Humvees, of which about 6,000 were being produced, officials said. They said that about 22,000 of Central Command's fleet of 30,000 vehicles have received some form of armor.

Over the last few months, the army has expanded the up-armor effort to include non-combat vehicles in Iraq, officials said. They said the army has added armor to 507 heavy tactical trucks, 492 medium tactical vehicles, two heavy equipment trailers, eight M-915 trucks and 187 palletized load system vehicles that serve in Iraq. The army has operated four depots, two arsenals and one ammunition plant for the production of the armor kits.

Lt. Gen. Steve Whitcomb, commander of the U.S. Third Army, outlined three levels of up-armoring. In a briefing on Thursday, Whitecomb said Level One, manufactured in the United States, provides glass and other armament on the side, front, rear, top and bottom of the vehicle. He said slightly under 6,000 vehicles have received such protection.

Another 10,000 vehicles have received Level 2 protection, or the installation of add-on armor on existing vehicles. Whitcomb said such work has taken place in Iraq and Kuwait. Whitcomb said Level 2 does not provide protection at the top or bottom of the vehicle.

The lowest level, regarded as an interim measure, was termed Level 3, or hardening. This involved the welding of steel plates on military vehicles.

"Our real focus for the Level 3 armor is not the Humvees," Whitcomb said. "It's really the series of trucks that the army uses in combat operations. We're not doing it in large numbers yet. We're doing it where we can. We're building a capacity to be able to do that more frequently, to refurbish the fleet. But that is an issue."

Officials said the army has decided to produce armor add-on kits for all wheeled vehicles deployed to Iraq and the rest of the area under U.S. Central Command. The command is responsible for most of the Middle East, Persian Gulf, Central Asia and South Asia.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said the decision to launch add-on armor production took place around August 2003 amid in an increase in insurgency bombing attacks on U.S. combat vehicles and covoys in Iraq. Di Rita said army commanders determined that combat troops and support units were not sufficiently protected from rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and roadside bombs, known in the military as improvised explosive devices.

In Iraq, Di Rita, said, commanders no longer permit unarmored vehicles to drive alone. Instead, they have been placed in convoys with combat armored vehicles.

"Commanders there at that point started to face this growing improvised explosive device challenge and said that they would like to have higher numbers of armored Humvees than they had originally projected," Di Rita said.

In December, the Pentagon awarded a $6.6 million contract to O'Gara-Hess &amp; Eisenhardt Armoring Armoring for support of up-armored Humvees for the army. The Fairfield, Ohio-based company was contracted to complete the project by December 2007.

Officials said that in 2004, the army has been producing about 450 armored Humvees per month. They said the armor add-on kits were being fitted on to the 19,000 Humvees in the U.S. Central Command area of operations.

So far, 15,000 Humvees have been fitted with armor. The command has a total of 30,000 vehicles and officials said about 8,000 of them have no form of armor protection.

"While armor provides protection, it is not the be-all and end-all for security," Pentagon spokesman Maj. Paul Swiergosz said. "The army's IED Task Force and the Center for Army Lessons Learned have provided as much, if not more, protection for our forces by sharing tactics, techniques and procedures to help counter IED attacks."<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_10.html

-CM

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 02:57 PM
HighSea,
When I saw the top man of the company in question interviewed on either CNN, or MSNBC, (Maybe Fox) what I heard him say was basically, "We've been ready, we haven't been asked"

I wonder, did anyone else see that interview?
Gayle

highsea
12-19-2004, 03:12 PM
Since last summer, the main focus has been to get the add-on armor to the vehicles already in theater. You can build 100 extra new vehicles each month, but transporting them to Iraq may mean that 500 add-on kits get left back here in the states.

There are logistical and transport issues that also have to be taken into consideration.

Chopstick
12-19-2004, 03:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Clinton is gone, and so is the surplus! <hr /></blockquote>

I am glad they are gone. They should be in jail. The surplus you mention was in the off-budget items. Namely the Social Security fund which derives it's income from FICA taxes. The surplus appeared in the unified budget as a result of cuts in on-budget itmes i.e. defense spending. That is not an acceptable trade off.

highsea
12-19-2004, 04:01 PM
More facts....

Special Defense Department Briefing on Armored Vehicles

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041209-1765.html

nhp
12-19-2004, 05:37 PM
Highsea, you can be an armchair general and complain, or a whitehouse spokesperson and say everything is fine, when it's not.

Over a span of about 6 months at my work, we get military personell on leave maybe about once a week. In the last 2 months, I've spoken to about 10 different marines and soldiers who had come back from Iraq, and 3 or 4 of them were Afghanistan and then Iraq. Highsea I really find it disheartening when I hear the truth from a soldier or marine who experienced it, and then hear that same truth downplayed and made phony by someone who supports our president. It truly, honestly, deeply bothers me that right now our soldiers are making a cry for help and half of the country is ignoring them, saying that "all soldiers complain". Of course they all complain, but the validity of their complaints should be a little more recognized when they are forced to dig thru garbage heaps to find armor, or are lucky enough to have their family send them body armor for their birthdays.

It bothers me to hear someone totally avoid the subject matter of reaching out to our soldiers and just try to blame everything on the Clinton administration. Bush has been around for FOUR YEARS, S Fats. BUSH invaded Iraq, not Clinton.

And of course it bothers me when I make a thread entitled "It's time for an argument" and someone comes in here and complains that I want to argue. Oh, and of course it bothers me when that same person says that I am exaggerating everything, grossly, when I am talking about the same story that I get from 50 different media outlets, including Time and Newsweek magazines, with articles that most of you should read before you just blindly defend your best buddy Rummy.

Everything bothers me. I wouldn't be an armchair general if I was too easygoing.

SecaucusFats
12-19-2004, 05:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
It bothers me to hear someone totally avoid the subject matter of reaching out to our soldiers and just try to blame everything on the Clinton administration. Bush has been around for FOUR YEARS, S Fats. BUSH invaded Iraq, not Clinton.

<font color="blue">Yes, Bush did order the Iraq invasion. My point is that if Clinton had not allowed our military readiness in terms of funding, manpower, and logistics to decay, we could have fielded a much larger and better equipped force in Iraq. Bush did not have a magic wand that he could wave and 'presto' there would be 10 more fully equipped Army divisions. Your guy dropped the ball during his watch and now you refuse to accept the facts. </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

SF

pooltchr
12-19-2004, 06:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> When are they going to get it, Clinton is gone, and so is the surplus! Clinton's been out of office going on five years, and they still want to blame him for the Bush shortsightedness.
<font color="blue"> This can't POSSIBLY be the same person who in another thread said she couldn't forget the 2000 election???????????????? </font color>

If you don't have what you need to fight a war, then take some time to build up your needs and manpower before you go off half cocked.

<font color="blue"> Unfortunately, our enemies don't ask us if we are ready to go to war before they attack. </font color>


Gayle in Md

It's gloom and doom alright! <hr /></blockquote>

Ross
12-19-2004, 06:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...When Rumsfeld was in the press conference and the soldier asked him the question, he answered that the production had been increased to about 400/mo. He was close, it was at 450/mo. But that is the max that this company can put out. It wasn't the soldier's question that increased the production, it was already at max rate (and had been since before the election).<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> This contradicts what the president of the armor supplying company said:

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.</font color><hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">The statement I read was made prior to Dec. 9. After the hub-bub, they did make the statement to the media that they could up production. Their previous statements were that they were at full production. I am sure they have got the order, regardless if it can fit into the pipeline. As I already mentioned, there are several companies now up-armoring the HMMWV, besides the Army's and Marines's own versions (several thousand of which are already in theater, as I mentioned). I don't feel like giving you a list, you can google if you are really interested.

<font color="green">Highsea, I certainly wasn't trying to twist your words. For those times I misinterpreted you (and I see I did later on in this post) I apologize, it was not intentional.

But to the issue at hand. I still think that your statement that the plant was working at full capacity since before the election is contradicted by the president of the company that it had not been operating at max capacity and was still waiting (as of Dec. 9) for an order to do so. If I'm missing something here I am open to hearing it.</font color>

The decision to begin the up-armoring program was actually made after the Kosovo conflict, and was ramped up before the invasion of Iraq. It was ramped up again last May. The left is screaming bloody murder over this news story, and the OP stated some things that just weren't true. That's what I was addressing. </font color>

<font color="green">I'm not sure this is just some over-reaction from the left. Republican Senators are questioning why we haven't been using all of our resources to get the armored humvees over there faster. Maybe they are wrong to be pointing fingers as well, but I cannot just automatically assume that.</font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>A big reason for the SNAFU was the fact that we can't manouver heavy armor in a lot of the urban areas, it would destroy the streets and bridges. Had the planners expected this, they would have had more light armor earlier on. The HMMWV is being used in a role it wasn't designed for. The lesson in Somalia was don't rely on light armor alone, and the planners didn't intend to. But the conditions in places like Fallujah preclude the use of M1A1's in many areas.<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">I just don't understand your argument. You seem to be saying two different things. One is that the military couldn't have anticipated their exact needs in Iraq. Fair enough.

But sometimes you also seem to be suggesting that the soldiers don't need and couldn't even use the up-armored Humvees if they had them because of road conditions, etc. I have problems with this claim. Apparently, the soldiers who are actually there have been trying to up-armor their own vehicles for months. They have been ordering welding equipment on-line and scrounging for metal wherever they can. Even the military has acknowledged the need -- they have been saying "we are doing everything we can to get more armored vehicles to them as quickly as possible." All of this contradicts your suggestion that the need isn't real and hasn't been known for many months.</font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">If you don't understand what I wrote, fine. But don't put words into my mouth or twist the meaning. Read what I wrote, it simply stated that the HMMWV is being used in a role that it wasn't designed for, and why. I did not say, or even suggest, that they couldn't drive an up-armored HMMWV on the roads, I said they couldn't drive HEAVY ARMOR. At 67 tons, a MAIN BATTLE TANK will destroy the bridges and roads, they can't handle the weight. You can hang door plates on the HMMWV until the tires are flat, and it will NEVER be heavy armor.

I NEVER said there was no need, and I don't appreciate your suggestion that I did. If you don't understand the difference between a HMMWV and a M1A1, just ask, and I will explain in more detail.</font color>

<font color="green">You are completely correct and I apologize for misreading that paragraph. When I read "they can't maneuver heavy armor" I immediately thought you were referring to the weight of the armor (since that was still in my mind) put in the humvees and missed that you were talking about "heavy armor" in it's usual sense of tanks and the like. That misreading lead me to believe you were saying something totally different than what you actually said. My bad. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>RPG-7's are an anti-armor weapon. They are ineffective on M1A1 and Challengers, but they will take out pretty much any other tank. An up-armored HMMWV will still not stop one. It's also not going to stop 500-1000 lbs. of HE in an IED. But they will provide more protection from small arms fire and fragments. But a HMMWV is not a MBT, and never will be. They will always be vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. There is a physical limit to how much armor you can put on one before the suspension fails. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">I'm sure all of this is true. An up-armored vehicle is not a panacea. But the fact that there are limits on what additional armor can do doesn't mean that it shouldn't be provided. I imagine "providing more protection from small arms fire and fragments" is a pretty damn big deal to our soldiers when they are travelling in these vehicles. </font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">Who the F*CK said it shouldn't be provided? Jesus Christ. I just pointed out that there is NO FLAT PLATE ARMOR that a HMMWV can carry that will protect it from RPG's and IED's. PERIOD. That's all I said, so please stop re-interpreting my comments.</font color>

<font color="green">In the context of the current discussion it sounded to me like you were pointing out the limitations of armoring humvees as an argument against those who are upset about Rummys apparent (not proven) lack of due diligence. I don't think that was a totally unreasonable assumption for me to have made given the context of your entire post(my misunderstanding of the previous paragraph probably contributed to to my thinking this) but apparently I was wrong. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>In any case, all soldiers have to improvise in war, whether it's scrounging armor or ballistic glass from damaged vehicles, digging trenches, or filling sandbags. And all soldiers complain. It's their right, and it will never change. It's just that in the past, it didn't make the front page in 2 hours.<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">True, soldiers will always complain, just like workers will in civilian jobs. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the complaints are legitimate or not. So far you haven't presented any information that shows that the soldiers complaints about a shortage of up-armored humvees isn't a valid complaint. </font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">Did I say it wasn't a valid complaint??? Why in the world would you say that I am trying to show that is not a valid complaint? The Army has been working on this for two years. It just hasn't been a front page story. But regardless, soldiers will ALWAYS have to improvise in war.

In fact, the problem is not with the HMMWV, it's with the way they are being used. They should be limited to convoy escorts, where high speed is needed, and patrols should be done in M113's. Then they WOULD have some protection from RPG's and IED's, which is what is killing most of our soldiers.</font color>
<font color="green">In terms of the complaint issue: true you didn't explicity say it wasn't a valid complaint but you strongly imply that the issue is one of just the usual griping and the press building it up. Those interpretations do suggest, to me at least, that their complaint is not valid.

As far as your solution to the problem - using M113's and not humvees, you might be right. I certainly don't know enough about the number and nature of their missions to know what is practical and what isn't. I would like to hear more about your ideas, because it is hard to believe we can't come up with some more creative ways to protect our soldiers and get the job done correctly as well.
</font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr><font color="blue">Think of it this way, Highsea. If Clinton were prosecuting this war and conservatives were criticizing him for not being realistic in realizing how difficult nation-building is, and for not sending enough troops or getting our soldiers up-armored humvees, would you be so quick to defend him?</font color><hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">I am not going to discuss politics with you, or make believe scenarios about what if this, or what if that, or what Clinton would have done. That is a pointless excersize. And I'm not defending anyone. My comments on this thread were about a specific piece of material, and how it was being employed.

In typical fashion, you have attempted to twist everything I said, and to politicize my intent to clarify what the vehicle was designed to do, and the level of protection it provides to it's occupants.</font color>

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="green">Ok, I admit that bringing Clinton in was a mistake on my part. I am just a little sensitive about what I see as a hypocritical stance taken by some conservatives who seemed to believe most everything bad they heard about the previous Democratic administration no matter how tenous and open to an alternative interpretation the information was, but now give the current Republican admin so much benefit of the doubt that it would require videotaped dispositions signed in blood before they will even entertain the idea that they have made a mistake. But this discussion is about this Secretary of Defense and his conduct of this war, not any previous ones so I shouldn't have brought this up. Again my bad.

But I was just making the point that you seem (THIS IS MY IMPRESSION, I MAY BE WRONG) to be giving the current leadership the benefit of the doubt in all of the areas where we are working on partial information. I just don't know how you can be so sure that Rummy and the military brass had been pushing as hard as they could to get the armored humvees out when there is evidence (the statement of the president of Armored Holding's Inc on Dec. 9) that seemingly contradicts that assertion. Can you explain this to me?



And I was really surprized by your comment about my "typical fashion." I have never attempted to twist what you (or anyone else on this board) says. And you have never (to my memory) even mentioned that you perceived me that way before. I'm not perfect but I always try to understand what you say and then reply to it. My misunderstanding of the "heavy armor" paragraph was indeed a complete misreading, but I don't think I tend to do that very often.

Highsea, I enjoy your posts and learn from them and I am sorry if I pixxed you off. That was not my intention.
</font color>

Ross

highsea
12-19-2004, 09:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr><font color="green">But to the issue at hand. I still think that your statement that the plant was working at full capacity since before the election is contradicted by the president of the company that it had not been operating at max capacity and was still waiting (as of Dec. 9) for an order to do so. If I'm missing something here I am open to hearing it.</font color><hr /></blockquote>Ross, all I was doing was relating a statement from the company that I had read previously. If you want me to try to dig it up, I will. As a former manager of a manufacturing company, I can relate to what he said, and I can also understand his statement of Dec. 9. Once the machinery and tooling is in place, production can be increased by adding manpower. From what I gathered from his previous statement, the company runs 2 shifts (probably 2x10 or 10+8). This would translate to a 20-25 percent increase in production if the company was to go to a 24 hour schedule. The fact that they were not asked to do this, suggests to me that the pipeline was already full and there was no way to move the additional vehicles into Iraq. Logistics and transport are finite, and the priority has been on getting the upgrade kits to Iraq.

I'm going to assume you read the article I posted and the DOD briefing on the armor situation, so you realize there are no unarmored Humvees running around in Indian country.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <font color="green">In the context of the current discussion it sounded to me like you were pointing out the limitations of armoring humvees as an argument against those who are upset about Rummys apparent (not proven) lack of due diligence.</font color><hr /></blockquote>No, what annoys me is that people are misrepresenting the HMMWV issue to accuse the Army of not giving a dam about the soldiers. The Army started addressing this issue back in August 2003, yet the media can leave this impression in the mind of the general public:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>...while at the same time, every conservatives best friend Rummy is telling the troops to toughen up, in their completly UNARMORED vehicles.<hr /></blockquote>This just isn't the case, and I was trying to clarify that point.

When it comes to strategic issues, the politicians decide, but tactical decisions are the province of professional military men and women. The Generals decide what they need, and it's up to the politicians to give it to them. I'm not going to comment on McCains or Lott's remarks, but I happen to feel that the Generals in theater have a better idea how to deal with the problem than a Senator here at home. If they say they want more kits because it's a faster way to add the armor, than give them kits, not whole vehicles.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <font color="green"> As far as your solution to the problem - using M113's and not humvees, you might be right. I certainly don't know enough about the number and nature of their missions to know what is practical and what isn't. I would like to hear more about your ideas, because it is hard to believe we can't come up with some more creative ways to protect our soldiers and get the job done correctly as well. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>Ross, I have been sceptical of the whole up-armoring issue for a long time. The reason is that it is a jury-rig solution which is no real solution at all. Every one of these up-armored HMMWV's has a reduced mobility and service life. The engines, transmissions, brakes, suspension are not designed to carry the extra weight. That means they will wear out faster, they are not as fast, and they cannot be operated the way the vehicle was designed to operate.

The weapons of choice for the insurgents are the RPG and IED, and there is no way that a HMMWV is going to protect against these, I don't care how much armor you hang on it. If you can pick up an Abrams or Brad with an IED, you're going to send a HMMWV flying.

HMMWV's are used in lots of different roles, in lots of different versions, and they're great at what they do. The convoys that move materials from Kuwait to Iraq have to move fast. Tracked vehicles can't keep up the pace. Here you do need armored gun trucks and Humvees for escort, and the route really should be cleared of IED's by armor in advance. That would leave only RPG's as a threat, and they have to hit a target going 60 mph. The gunners on the gun trucks and HMMWV's can take them out when they pop their heads up (or at least force them to keep their heads down).

But for patrols, manning checkpoints, and moving infantry into a combat area, the HMMWV offers a very tempting soft target for insurgents with RPG's. They are usually moving slow or stopped, and the enemy knows that one hit will take it out.

An APC like the M113A3 is a much better choice for these missions. First of all, that's exactly what they were designed for. They can be easily fitted with the same grills that the Brads and Strykers carry, which will disrupt the RPG round before it hits the armor. This would provide a lot more protection for the soldiers than a HMMWV ever can. They can carry a heavier gun and more soldiers.

And we have several thousand M113's sitting in depots, unused. The problem with using them is the impression they will leave. A HMMWV is a much less imposing vehicle than a 13 ton tracked APC. And if we put them in there, the media will call them "tanks", because anything with a track and a turret is a tank to these dumb-ass reporters.

Which means they will cry and moan about how the US is not trying to "win the hearts and minds" war. So it's a two-edged sword. I will leave you to decide which is better.

-CM

crawdaddio
12-19-2004, 09:38 PM
That's a good post Highsea. I thank you for the info.

Peace
~DC&gt;&gt;doesn't even have 2 cents

Ross
12-19-2004, 11:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ... The fact that they were not asked to do this, suggests to me that the pipeline was already full and there was no way to move the additional vehicles into Iraq. Logistics and transport are finite, and the priority has been on getting the upgrade kits to Iraq.
<font color="blue">
Highsea, this is where we differ. We both see the same fact: the company was not operating at full capacity on Dec. 8th when the question was asked. If I read you correctly you give the military brass the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME that this is not explained by incompetence or lack of leadership, but is rather explained by some reasonable explanation such as the pipeline being full. You might well be right but I don't think you are in this case.

The reason why I don't see the innocent explanation as likely to be valid is two-fold. First the military asked the company to ramp up to full capacity two days after the soldiers question hit the papers. That is just too big a coincidence to be explained by pipeline suddenly getting freed up. More importantly the military now says THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT ARMOR, INC HAD ADDITIONAL CAPACITY UNTIL APPARENTLY THEY READ ABOUT IT IN THE PAPERS (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6700937/site/newsweek/). But we don't have to agree on this issue. The truth may or may not be fully known someday.

BTW thanks for the links to the articles and the information you provided. I've read through it but haven't had time to think it all through. It is a lot to read between the lines for truth in the story. A reporter is going to dig for scandal and a DOD spokesman is going to make everything sound as rosy as possible. The truth is inevitably somewhere in between.

One final point. I agree with you completely that Monday morning quarterbacking is easy and that no war goes as planned. I also agree that civilians often come to the wrong conclusion based on not having all of the information. BUT I also know that the military is a gigantic bureaucracy and makes plenty of correctable and avoidable mistakes. I believe it is the press's job to hold their feet to the fire, just like they should do with politicians and everyone else in power. Our free and critical press is a BIG part of why things get fixed in this country.

And finally I also have seen enough of Rumsfeld to know that he is arrogant and stubborn and loath to admit when he is wrong so I don't trust the guy. He seems to not be that open to suggestions from his own military generals, so I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't just learned to toe the line in what they say in public. MSNBC also cites "critics" who claime that Rummy's mantra of a "lighter, faster" military is part of the reason that the older M113's you recommend aren't being sent to Iraq. But I would have to do more research to see if that claim is true.

Have to go to bed now! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
</font color>

eg8r
12-20-2004, 06:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And of course it bothers me when I make a thread entitled "It's time for an argument" and someone comes in here and complains that I want to argue. Oh, and of course it bothers me when that same person says that I am exaggerating everything, grossly, when I am talking about the same story that I get from 50 different media outlets, including Time and Newsweek magazines, with articles that most of you should read before you just blindly defend your best buddy Rummy.
<hr /></blockquote> I think this same person thinks you are acting like a child. If you don't know what you are talking about, at least calm some of your chest-beating when you are called out.

If you honestly believe that absolutely ludicrous statement that the vehicles are "completely unarmoured" then so be it, you are not a likely candidate to see the truth anyways. Go ahead and continue twisting the truth to fit your desires for arguing.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 07:43 AM
The stealing of the 2,000 election was, (Is) a totally separate issue in my mind from general history. We should never forget what happened in that election. To blame Clinton for the fact that Bush went to war on false pretenses, with a country that did not attack us, and encouraged other heads of state to use false information to justify what HE wanted to do, is something that you totally ignore. Iraq did not attack us. AGAIN! Iraq did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us.

We are now known in the world as a country which practices pre-emptive strikes. What does that say to the world about us as a peace loving country. What message does it send to other nations with nuclear capability?

I would encourage you to read some of the books which were written about the Bush path to war. I think you would find them very enlightening.

Gayle in Md.

Chopstick
12-20-2004, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
What message does it send to other nations ...

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

This one.

http://www.redneck.org/pix/crater.jpg

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 08:50 AM
Jeeze, aren't you the same guy who was just preaching to Jim S. about hate? Spouting off about the devil? What a flip flop, LOL.
Gayle in Md.

SecaucusFats
12-20-2004, 11:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> The stealing of the 2,000 election was, (Is) a totally separate issue in my mind from general history. We should never forget what happened in that election.

<font color="blue"> What happened in that election is simple: Sore Loserman won the popular vote and lost the electoral college vote, pure and simple. If it had been the other way around you'd be waxing poetic about the fairness of the system and how great it is that it worked. It's old news, get over it. If you can't then I'd suggest you start drinking heavily. May I suggest some Thunderbird? (Thousands of strung out bums prefer it, and I'm sure they all favor true democrat values, plus it turns your mouth, lips, and tongue an attractive shade of charcoal black.)

BTW, what do you think of the Democratic campaign workers paying off crackheads (in crack) for phony voter registrations in Ohio? LOL </font color>

To blame Clinton for the fact that Bush went to war on false pretenses,

<font color="blue">Cite one example where anyone blamed Clinton for Bush going to war in Iraq, just one.
The fact remains that if Clinton had maintained an adequate amount of funding for the military, had not downsized our forces so drastically, and had not overextended it with so many different "peacekeeping" missions, his successor would have inherited a much more capable and robust force. We could not go into Iraq with 500,000 troops because we simply did not have the manpower and equipment to do so. I takes years to rebuild military units. What part of this don't you understand? For someone who claims to do a lot of reading you certainly seem to lack the capacity to understand what people write. </font color>

with a country that did not attack us, and encouraged other heads of state to use false information to justify what HE wanted to do, is something that you totally ignore. Iraq did not attack us. AGAIN! Iraq did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us.

We are now known in the world as a country which practices pre-emptive strikes. What does that say to the world about us as a peace loving country.

<font color="blue"> It says don't f*ck with us. I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us. Fact is, even if we spent all our time and effort kissing their azzes, if we were on fire they wouldn't even pee on us to put it out. </font color>

What message does it send to other nations with nuclear capability?

Responsible nations with a nuclear capability have nothing to worry about, on the other hand places like North Korea should be sh*tting their pants.

I would encourage you to read some of the books which were written about the Bush path to war. I think you would find them very enlightening.

<font color="blue"> I suggest you read some books which do not fit your political views. Or is yours a case of "do as I say, not as I do"? </font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

SF

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 11:32 AM
Oh Wow, weren't you the man who was just preaching to Jim S. about the futality of hatred? I seriously doubt that you would ever see Jim S. or I post something like this which suggests that you think our message to the world should be "Our way or we blow you up"

You're a dangerous man. People like you give us all a bad name as Americans.

Gayle

Chopstick
12-20-2004, 12:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Jeeze, aren't you the same guy who was just preaching to Jim S. about hate? Spouting off about the devil? What a flip flop, LOL.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

That is the message that we are sending isn't it? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

As I have posted previously, there are some things in life that are not going to leave you alone. I used fire ants as an example. When you encounter them you must kill them. They will leave you no other choice. I do not hate the Islamofacists any more than I hate fire ants. The solution to both is the same. They are still human beings. It is their twisted ideals that make them a threat. The only way to seperate them from these ideals is to unite them with their 72 virgins. It should be done dispassionately and with expediency. Hate mongering serves no one.

hondo
12-20-2004, 01:15 PM
Highsea, what happened to civilized responses only?
You cussing out out the brightest poster on here
didn't sound all that civilized to me. Ah, if we
could only see ourselves as others see us.

hondo
12-20-2004, 01:19 PM
hondo in West Virginia- little , DUMB red state.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Amen friend!

ps, Don't hold your breath! LOL.

Gayle in Md., Big beautiful BLUE state! <hr /></blockquote>

nhp
12-22-2004, 03:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
And of course it bothers me when I make a thread entitled "It's time for an argument" and someone comes in here and complains that I want to argue. Oh, and of course it bothers me when that same person says that I am exaggerating everything, grossly, when I am talking about the same story that I get from 50 different media outlets, including Time and Newsweek magazines, with articles that most of you should read before you just blindly defend your best buddy Rummy.
<hr /></blockquote> I think this same person thinks you are acting like a child. If you don't know what you are talking about, at least calm some of your chest-beating when you are called out.

If you honestly believe that absolutely ludicrous statement that the vehicles are "completely unarmoured" then so be it, you are not a likely candidate to see the truth anyways. Go ahead and continue twisting the truth to fit your desires for arguing.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Hey, thanks Ed, you know what now that I think about it, I really have been acting like a child, you know since I have a couple friends in Iraq right now, two of them in the NG.

According to Newsweek Magazine, the unarmored M998 Humvee's "armor" is completely innefective against attacks from insurgents. The M1078 FMTV's, which are medium weight transport trucks, 90% of them HAVE NO ARMOR. The M977 HEMTT, which is used for transporting vehicles, equipment, etc., 85% of those HAVE NO ARMOR.

[ QUOTE ]
Of the 20,000 Humvees crisscrossing Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, fewer than one third are fully armored, and only half the Army's entire fleet of 32,000 transport vehicles are armored AT ALL (gross exaggeration, huh?) <hr /></blockquote>

You know, it's rather childish to deny the truth, especially when it's right in front of your face. More insults, please.

nhp
12-22-2004, 03:56 PM
Oh, here is our good friend Time Magazine chiming in to prove Eg8r even more wrong.

According to Time:

There are 19,389 Humvees in Iraq
5,910- Armored- Factory-installed protection and a larger engine to handle the added weight.

9,134 Humvees are Armored via ADD-ONS- Prefabricated pieces that attach to roof and doors

3,145 Humvees are UNARMORED - Soldiers may "hillbilly" the vehicle, placing sandbags on the floor or bolting scrap metal to the frame

GROSS EXAGGERATION? YOU STILL SURE ABOUT THAT?

Whatever happened to supporting our troops, Eg8r? You think my concerns for the safety of our troops is a "gross exaggeration". Judging by what you said, it sounds like you don't support our troops, all you give a crap about is the "integrity" of the Bush Administration.

eg8r
12-22-2004, 09:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever happened to supporting our troops, Eg8r? <hr /></blockquote> Go take a look at highsea's links. As far as supporting our troops, please quote me where I have stated I did not support the troops. If you are going to put words in my mouth, be the big guy and state it up front.

eg8r

highsea
01-09-2005, 10:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> As far as your solution to the problem - using M113's and not humvees, you might be right. I certainly don't know enough about the number and nature of their missions to know what is practical and what isn't. I would like to hear more about your ideas, because it is hard to believe we can't come up with some more creative ways to protect our soldiers and get the job done correctly as well.

Ross<hr /></blockquote>
Not to drag this thread back up, but this was relevant. I don't have a link, so I will post the entire article.
[ QUOTE ]
Army Adding Armor In Iraq
Biloxi Sun Herald
January 4, 2005

The Army, beset with complaints that its troops are going into combat in inadequately armored Humvees, will send an older and less used class of armored personnel carriers to Iraq after spending $84 million to add armor to them.

These vehicles, both veteran warhorses, are the M113/A3 armored personnel carrier and the M577 command post carrier. Both will be tougher and safer than newly armored Humvees.

Army officials who pushed hard over the last two years for getting the M113 into duty in Iraq said it was more useful, cheaper and easier to transport than the Army's new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle, which also is in use in Iraq.

The Army and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld found themselves at the center of a firestorm last month over the pace of adding armor to the Humvee, a small transport vehicle that's been pressed into service in Iraq as a combat vehicle. Critics have charged that even with armor the Humvee is too easily destroyed by rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices.

An Army representative, who didn't want to be identified, said Monday that $84 million was being spent to add armor to 734 M113/A3s and M577s.

For the M113s, that includes hardened steel side armor, a slat armor cage that bolts to the side armor and protects against RPGs, anti-mine armor on the bottom and a new transparent, bulletproof gun shield on the top that vastly improves gunners' vision.

The M577, nicknamed the "high-top shoe" for its tall, ungainly silhouette, will get only slat armor and anti-mine armor. Its high sides can't take the steel armor without making the vehicle unstable and even more liable to roll over.

The slat-type armor essentially is a metal cage designed to detonate RPGs before they breach the steel armor and the light aluminum wall. Similar slat armor has been added to the Stryker vehicle.

The armor kits will be produced in the United States, the Army representative said, and installed in Kuwait.

The representative said the M113 upgrade was requested by Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the ground commander in Iraq, and approved by Gen. George Casey, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq.

The M113 typically carries a driver, a commander and 11 infantry soldiers. It can be fitted with a .50-caliber machine gun or an MK19 40 mm grenade launcher. The M113/A3 version, introduced in 1987, has a bigger turbocharged diesel engine, an improved transmission, steering and braking package, and inside liners to suppress spall, the superheated molten metal produced by RPG and tank-round hits. It has a range of 300 miles and a road speed of more than 40 mph. It also can swim.

More than 80,000 M113s in 28 configurations have been manufactured since they were introduced in 1960, and they still do yeoman duty in many of the world's armies.

At around 13 tons, the M113 is much easier to transport than the behemoth M1A2 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or even the wheeled Stryker.

The Army has spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying armored Humvees at $150,000 each and buying and making special tempered-steel and bulletproof-glass kits to add armor protection to the thin-skinned variety. The demand for armor on the Humvees grew as insurgents began pouring RPGs onto American patrols and convoys, and detonating deadly homemade bombs in the late summer of 2003.

The current demand in Iraq is for more than 22,000 armor-protected Humvees, a goal the Army says it will meet sometime between now and March. Its prime focus has turned now to armoring the five models of trucks that travel Iraq's dangerous roads to supply American forces.

Rumsfeld recently told a Mississippi National Guard soldier, who asked why his outfit had to scavenge dumps in Kuwait for scraps of armor for their Humvees, that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might like to have."

One serving officer, who asked not to be identified, said Rumsfeld "didn't even let us go to war with the Army we had; he made us leave half our armored vehicles at home in pursuit of lighter, faster and cheaper."<hr /></blockquote>
This is exactly what I was talking about. These APC's are sorely needed. The add-on screens will protect them from RPG's, except from a top-down shot. These vehicles will still be vulnerable to IED's, but not nearly so much as the HMMWV, and will carry more troops with much better protection for patrols in dangerous zones.

About Time! /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

-CM~~~now if the media will just refrain from calling them tanks...
__________________________________________________ _____

ceebee
01-10-2005, 10:00 AM
I smile when I read these posts, from both sides of the argument. I laugh when I realize that nothing can be done about the government's doings, by any or all of us. Ha!Ha!

We have become a nation of citizens supporting our government. We are in debt (deep doo-doo). Our governement used to be a servant of the public. Things have changed &amp; things will only get worse. Accountability is a thing of the past.

Ross
01-10-2005, 05:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> As far as your solution to the problem - using M113's and not humvees, you might be right. I certainly don't know enough about the number and nature of their missions to know what is practical and what isn't. I would like to hear more about your ideas, because it is hard to believe we can't come up with some more creative ways to protect our soldiers and get the job done correctly as well.

Ross<hr /></blockquote>
Not to drag this thread back up, but this was relevant. I don't have a link, so I will post the entire article.
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Army Adding Armor In Iraq
Biloxi Sun Herald
January 4, 2005

The Army, beset with complaints that its troops are going into combat in inadequately armored Humvees, will send an older and less used class of armored personnel carriers to Iraq after spending $84 million to add armor to them.

These vehicles, both veteran warhorses, are the M113/A3 armored personnel carrier and the M577 command post carrier. Both will be tougher and safer than newly armored Humvees.

Army officials who pushed hard over the last two years for getting the M113 into duty in Iraq said it was more useful, cheaper and easier to transport than the Army's new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle, which also is in use in Iraq.

The Army and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld found themselves at the center of a firestorm last month over the pace of adding armor to the Humvee, a small transport vehicle that's been pressed into service in Iraq as a combat vehicle. Critics have charged that even with armor the Humvee is too easily destroyed by rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices.

An Army representative, who didn't want to be identified, said Monday that $84 million was being spent to add armor to 734 M113/A3s and M577s.

For the M113s, that includes hardened steel side armor, a slat armor cage that bolts to the side armor and protects against RPGs, anti-mine armor on the bottom and a new transparent, bulletproof gun shield on the top that vastly improves gunners' vision.

The M577, nicknamed the "high-top shoe" for its tall, ungainly silhouette, will get only slat armor and anti-mine armor. Its high sides can't take the steel armor without making the vehicle unstable and even more liable to roll over.

The slat-type armor essentially is a metal cage designed to detonate RPGs before they breach the steel armor and the light aluminum wall. Similar slat armor has been added to the Stryker vehicle.

The armor kits will be produced in the United States, the Army representative said, and installed in Kuwait.

The representative said the M113 upgrade was requested by Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the ground commander in Iraq, and approved by Gen. George Casey, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq.

The M113 typically carries a driver, a commander and 11 infantry soldiers. It can be fitted with a .50-caliber machine gun or an MK19 40 mm grenade launcher. The M113/A3 version, introduced in 1987, has a bigger turbocharged diesel engine, an improved transmission, steering and braking package, and inside liners to suppress spall, the superheated molten metal produced by RPG and tank-round hits. It has a range of 300 miles and a road speed of more than 40 mph. It also can swim.

More than 80,000 M113s in 28 configurations have been manufactured since they were introduced in 1960, and they still do yeoman duty in many of the world's armies.

At around 13 tons, the M113 is much easier to transport than the behemoth M1A2 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or even the wheeled Stryker.

The Army has spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying armored Humvees at $150,000 each and buying and making special tempered-steel and bulletproof-glass kits to add armor protection to the thin-skinned variety. The demand for armor on the Humvees grew as insurgents began pouring RPGs onto American patrols and convoys, and detonating deadly homemade bombs in the late summer of 2003.

The current demand in Iraq is for more than 22,000 armor-protected Humvees, a goal the Army says it will meet sometime between now and March. Its prime focus has turned now to armoring the five models of trucks that travel Iraq's dangerous roads to supply American forces.

Rumsfeld recently told a Mississippi National Guard soldier, who asked why his outfit had to scavenge dumps in Kuwait for scraps of armor for their Humvees, that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might like to have."

One serving officer, who asked not to be identified, said Rumsfeld "didn't even let us go to war with the Army we had; he made us leave half our armored vehicles at home in pursuit of lighter, faster and cheaper."<hr /></blockquote>
This is exactly what I was talking about. These APC's are sorely needed. The add-on screens will protect them from RPG's, except from a top-down shot. These vehicles will still be vulnerable to IED's, but not nearly so much as the HMMWV, and will carry more troops with much better protection for patrols in dangerous zones.

About Time! /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

-CM~~~now if the media will just refrain from calling them tanks...
__________________________________________________ _____ <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the follow-up, Highsea. And I agree completely with the ABOUT TIME argument.

And, sorry to bring this back up as well, but I do think it is relevant:

I think this report validates what I and other critics had been saying -- that Rumsfeld had NOT been making sure everything possible was being done to protect our soldiers in the minefield that is Iraq.

I had read about this part before:

"Army officials who pushed hard over the last two years for getting the M113 into duty in Iraq said it was more useful, cheaper and easier to transport than the Army's new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle, which also is in use in Iraq."


Rumsfeld's reponses of "use what you got and be happy you got it" and "it's just physically impossible to do anything more" were correctly read by his critics as non-responsive bureaucratic crap that has now been shown to be flat out wrong. If civilian Rummy weren't too intellectualy arrogant to listen to his military leaders and too wedded to his "high tech solves everything" view, many US soldiers could have been spared either death or maiming, and many family members here at home would have been spared the loss of their children, brothers, sisters, or parents. I'm sure he has his denial so finely honed that he sleeps soundly at night in any case.

I'm guessing that if the Sec. of Def. were Powell, a military man who doesn't seems to need to condescend to those who challenge him, those M113'a would have been over there long ago.

highsea
01-10-2005, 07:34 PM
I should have realized you would use this story to continue your assault on Rumsfeld. You seem to have a need to constantly portray him as some kind of arrogant, uncaring demon who doesn't give a rat's-ass about our soldiers.

Tommy Franks wrote the battle plan for Iraq. Rumsfeld only approved it before sending it to the President. Note that Metz and Casey were the ones who made the decision to deploy the M113 to Iraq, not Rumsfeld. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if Rummy put some pressure on them)

I understand why the M-113 was not deployed for the invasion. It's too slow, burns a lot of fuel, and was not needed for that part of the operation. Basically, it didn't fit in the battle plan. The need arose when the tactics of the insurgency changed, and the weapons used against the patrols became more powerful. I never liked the way the Humvees were being used, and I think the M113's should have been sent over last year. But unlike you, I don't just go "It's all Rummy's fault". It was the commanders in Iraq that decided to uparmor the HMMWV and continue to use it for patrols, and the problem has been growing in intensity over time.

The SecDef is the pointman for the Pentagon, but he does not make tactical decisions. I don't know why people have so much difficulty understanding this, but it seems like a practically universal lack of understanding. Maybe it's because commands change, but the SecDef stays the same, I don't know. But Rumsfeld does not micro-manage the war, and couldn't even if he wanted to. The C4I structure doesn't work with that kind of centralized control.

You mis-characterize Rumsfeld when you say he thinks everything has a high-tech solution. It was Rumsfeld that pushed for cancellation the Comanche and Seawolf programs, and he has been a long standing critic of the F/A-22. Those are three of our highest tech programs in recent years. (And decisions that I am [or was] against) Thankfully the Seawolf program has been replaced by the Virginia class boats.

What Rumsfeld has done, is push for the transformation of our military from a Division-centric force to a Brigade-centric force woth more emphasis on Specops. This makes sense in todays world, with no Soviet threat and the emergence of Islamic terrorism as the major threat. That this has come under criticism from some people in the Military is not a big surprise, but I think it's the right thing for the US.

onepocketfanatic
01-10-2005, 09:25 PM
This tread sucks. Cut to the chase. The fact is that planning was extremely poor, the execution of the poor planning was even worse, and the entire "war" is a fiasco due to the above 2 things mentioned. I don't give a hoot about politics one way or another (consev. or liberal)(Rep. or Dem.) no one can deny that the entire thing has been fubar (Fu..ed up beyond all recognition) from the onset. The death rate mounts....not to mention (which is never talked about by anyone) the limbs, eyes, etc. lost by our young men and women...with no end in sight. If anyone has a clue as to when we will be out, let me know please. My guess is when we get tired of getting our young people killed, and my guess is that will be a long long time.