Frickin' Clueless Idiot Rummy
Rich Travsky
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
from the Pentagon chief.
"You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
...
Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own - not of the war
itself but of how it is being fought.
Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat
Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee
Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session
why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the
start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of
scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"
Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers
in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of
defense.
...
Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of
U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that
as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp
Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least
has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily
bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the
floorboard.
Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for
scrap metal and used bulletproof glass.
...
Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct
criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its "stop loss"
power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise
eligible to retire or quit.
Rumsfeld said that this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers
at time of war.
"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well
understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be
used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."
...
Spoken like a true chickenhawk.
RT
Rincewind
this:
And more on this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4079201.stm
Troops grill Rumsfeld over Iraq
US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld faced a grilling when he visited
troops about to face combat in Iraq.
Mr Rumsfeld was at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, to deliver a pep-talk to
soldiers about the significance of the task ahead of them.
But he faced tough questions from soldiers anxious about their equipment
and how long they will stay.
One soldier said troops were were forced to root through rubbish to
reinforce their armoured vehicles.
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of
scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmour our vehicles?"
Army Spc Thomas Wilson asked.
His question brought cheers from some 2,000 fellow soldiers - mostly
Reserve and National Guard troops - assembled in an aircraft hangar for
the question-and-answer session that followed Mr Rumsfeld's speech.
Mr Rumsfeld paused, before asking him to repeat the question, AP news
agency reported.
Spc Wilson did so, adding, "we do not have proper armoured vehicles to
carry with us".
"You go to war with the army you have," Mr Rumsfeld replied, saying
vehicle armour manufacturers were being exhorted to crank up production.
Mr Rumsfeld added that vehicle armour might not provide total protection
from the perils faced by soldiers in Iraq - such as roadside bombs.
"You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
'Unfair' treatment
Mr Rumsfeld denied the charge from another soldier that active-duty troops
were prioritised above Reserve and National Guard soldiers to receive the
best military equipment.
Another soldier asked how long the army would continue to use its powers
to extend tours of duty - the so-called stop-loss policy which is
currently estimated to be keeping some 7,000 soldiers in Iraq beyond their
expected return date.
Mr Rumsfeld said this was simply a fact of life for soldiers at time of
war.
"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well
understood" by soldiers, he said.
"My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that
it will continue to be used."
At one point Mr Rumsfeld's voice broke as he delivered prepared comments
to troops before the question-and-answer session.
"You know there are those who see the violence taking place in Iraq... and
they say we can't prevail," he said.
"I see that violence and say we must win," he said.
--
/\
/ \
/wizz\
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim FaROW
"You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
What a dumbfuck.
"Rincewind" <ri...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.08....@unseen.edu...
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Rich Travsky wrote:
>
> Ref at
>
> http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
>
> CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
> Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
> from the Pentagon chief.
>
> "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
>
Rumsfeld is correct.
--
"When my comfort was at stake, there was no trouble I would not go to."
-+Samuel Beckett, "Molloy"
Tim FaROW
"Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:41B73E5E...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> >
> > Ref at
> >
> > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
> >
> > CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
> > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> > armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
> > from the Pentagon chief.
> >
> > "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> > airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
> >
> Rumsfeld is correct.
>
You dumbshit. He's only correct if you complete the sentence with "You go to
war with the Army you have when you don't plan sufficiently for a prolonged
insurgent engagement and expect to be greeted like liberators with flowers"
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
The real question is why do we have an Army that doesn't have a good
plan to deal with the sort of threats it is likely to face in the 21st
century? The answer is clearly: Bill Clinton.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Tim FaROW wrote:
>
> This one really gets me:
>
> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
>
> What a dumbfuck.
>
Rumsfeld is exactly right again. We are in a phase of military
development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
those vehicles from being blown up.
Skymodem
|
|
| Tim FaROW wrote:
| >
| > This one really gets me:
| >
| > "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still]
be
| > blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
| >
| > What a dumbfuck.
| >
| Rumsfeld is exactly right again. We are in a phase of military
| development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
| those vehicles from being blown up.
*Sigh* Bill. You would support this cocksucker if he had said "Fuck you
soldier, you're under arrest for questioning the authority of the American
Empire.". We are also in a "phase of military development" that is
looking more and more like Vietnam.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Skymodem wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:41B74EA0...@backpacker.com...
> |
> |
> | Tim FaROW wrote:
> | >
> | > This one really gets me:
> | >
> | > "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still]
> be
> | > blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> | >
> | > What a dumbfuck.
> | >
> | Rumsfeld is exactly right again. We are in a phase of military
> | development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> | those vehicles from being blown up.
>
> *Sigh* Bill. You would support this cocksucker if he had said "Fuck you
> soldier, you're under arrest for questioning the authority of the American
> Empire.".
>
No, I will only support him if I agree with him. My views on vehicle
armour have been repeatedly and consistently stated online.
> We are also in a "phase of military development" that is
> looking more and more like Vietnam.
>
Nope.
Skymodem
Threat? Where was the threat? George W. Bush created and/or exacerbated
every threat we face, pug. Why is the American economy headed into a
flaming death spiral? Why is America rushing headlong into a neo-fascist
dictatorship? Why are over 100,000 non-combatants dead, and close to 20,000
Americans maimed and dead, in a conflict falsely predicated on the existence
of WMD? Why is Al Queda growing like a Kudzu on crank? Why is bin Laden
still a free man? Why is a WMD almost certainly going to be deployed on
American soil in the near future? The answer is clearly: George W. Bush.
Sid9
When you consider the amount of the US defense budget
you might wonder why they don't have goldplated Humvees
Eric da Red
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>Tim FaROW wrote:
>>
>> This one really gets me:
>>
>> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
>> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
>>
>> What a dumbfuck.
>>
>Rumsfeld is exactly right again.
Someone mentions "dumbfuck" and here you are.
>We are in a phase of military
>development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
>those vehicles from being blown up.
"invariably stop" and "reduce risk" are two different things. The
former is not attainable, the latter is.
How like you to confuse the issue in order to excuse Rummy's absurd
quotation.
--
Quote of the Week: "There was a time when I could rant about the 'liberal
media' with the best of them. But in recent years, I have puzzled over the
precise location of the 'liberal media.'" -- Paul Craig Roberts
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
I don't believe there is anything you can do to a vehicle the size of a
Humvee to stop anti-tank mines or improvised roadside bombs from hurting
or killing the occupants. The only solution I can see is to avoid the
bombs in the first place, not have people in the vehicles, or put people
in differently designed vehicles. I've been wondering about putting the
troops guarding the convoy on the roof of the trailers, using the sort
of trailers that are used to haul goods in civilian life. This would put
them as far away from the bombs as possible. We could reduce the number
of drivers by using the triple trailer configurations popular in
Australia.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Eric da Red wrote:
>
> In article <41B74EA0...@backpacker.com>,
> Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >Tim FaROW wrote:
> >>
> >> This one really gets me:
> >>
> >> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> >>
> >> What a dumbfuck.
> >>
> >Rumsfeld is exactly right again.
>
> Someone mentions "dumbfuck" and here you are.
>
> >We are in a phase of military
> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> >those vehicles from being blown up.
>
> "invariably stop" and "reduce risk" are two different things. The
> former is not attainable, the latter is.
>
More armour is possible, the problem though is that no matter how much
armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it. And
the factors of the added weight reducing agility can make it counter
productive.
> How like you to confuse the issue in order to excuse Rummy's absurd
> quotation.
>
Rumsfeld's statement was exactly correct.
Lord-Howard-hurts
"Skymodem" <skym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i9Jtd.488691$SM5....@news.easynews.com...
Sid9
The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
The Bush administration could have sent an adequate force.
The Bush administration could have not misplanned their war.
The Bush administration could have had competent administration of the
occupation
The Bush administration could have had a clue as to what they were getting
us into.
They were warned. They waved off the knowledgeable people.
Bush and his administration are incompetent
Steven Litvintchouk
Rich Travsky wrote:
> Ref at
>
> http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
>
> CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
> Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
> from the Pentagon chief.
>
> "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
> ...
> Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own - not of the war
> itself but of how it is being fought.
It's a soldier's right to complain. Griping is a time-honored tradition
among the enlistees.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Eric da Red
>>
>> >> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
>> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
>> >>
>> >> What a dumbfuck.
>> >>
>> >Rumsfeld is exactly right again.
>>
>> Someone mentions "dumbfuck" and here you are.
>>
>> >We are in a phase of military
>> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
>> >those vehicles from being blown up.
>>
>> "invariably stop" and "reduce risk" are two different things. The
>> former is not attainable, the latter is.
>>
>More armour is possible,
That's true. Stop now, while you're still right.
>the problem though is that no matter how much
>armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it.
A large part of soldiering, not to mention decision making in Real
Life, involves risk reduction.
Improving the armor on vehicles reduces risk to the soldiers. It
increases their chance of survival.
Some troops will still get killed by roadside bombs and small
missiles, but more will survive.
Sane military planners think that fairly small expenditures that
measurably improve the survival rate of their troops is a good
policy. You and Rummy have a different set of priorities.
>And
>the factors of the added weight reducing agility can make it counter
>productive.
No, it doesn't.
If it did, then the best solution would be to scrap Humvees and have
the troops ride around on Harleys.
Omega
tanks were far inferior to the German Tiger tanks. And the Japanese had
superior planes and aircraft carriers than we had.
In fact we have gone into every war without the proper equipment. Vietnam
era soldiers did not get issued proper uniforms for jungle warfare, did not
get the M16 or other equipment until 1967 and we had been in that war from
1959!
Likewise, every other war has been the same. We fight with the army we
have, not the one that we would like to have. It is the American way.
BTW, terms like SNAFU and FUBAR came out of WW2. Situation normal, all
fucked up and fucked up beyond all recognition. That is the way Americans
fight wars. We take pride in. WW2 soldiers fabricated equipment on the
battlefield, much like these guys are. Farm boy engineering....
All you are bitching about is that a democrat is not president. If this was
a democrat president, you would in total acceptance and gung ho for war.
We will get the equipment then it will be sold off by the next democrat
president just as Clinton did in the 1990s.
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:41B71F60...@hotmMOVEail.com...
: Ref at
Omega
: >> >> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can
[still] be
: >> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
: >> >>
: >> >> What a dumbfuck.
: >> >>
: >> >Rumsfeld is exactly right again.
: >>
: >> Someone mentions "dumbfuck" and here you are.
: >>
: >> >We are in a phase of military
: >> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
: >> >those vehicles from being blown up.
: >>
: >> "invariably stop" and "reduce risk" are two different things. The
: >> former is not attainable, the latter is.
: >>
: >More armour is possible,
:
: That's true. Stop now, while you're still right.
:
:
: >the problem though is that no matter how much
: >armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it.
:
: A large part of soldiering, not to mention decision making in Real
: Life, involves risk reduction.
:
: Improving the armor on vehicles reduces risk to the soldiers. It
: increases their chance of survival.
:
: Some troops will still get killed by roadside bombs and small
: missiles, but more will survive.
:
: Sane military planners think that fairly small expenditures that
: measurably improve the survival rate of their troops is a good
: policy. You and Rummy have a different set of priorities.
Americans do a poor job of planning for war. The Germans and Japanese were
better, had better tanks, aircraft and carriers than we had. Hell we used
broom sticks because we had no rifles to train with in WW2.
And this is the first war that body armor has really been available. There
was some armor in Vietnam, but it was developed by the soldiers on the
ground. After the war, the senior sergeants made them take off the armor
plating as it made the vehicles look ugly.
It is has always been this way.
:
: >And
Omega
: > > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
: > >
: > > CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
: > > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
: > > armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
: > > from the Pentagon chief.
: > >
: > > "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
: > > airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
: > >
: > Rumsfeld is correct.
: >
:
: You dumbshit. He's only correct if you complete the sentence with "You go
to
: war with the Army you have when you don't plan sufficiently for a
prolonged
: insurgent engagement and expect to be greeted like liberators with
flowers"
Both sides went into the Civil War thinking that it would be over in weeks.
But that is typical of Americans. We do not plan for war, unlike the
communists, the fascists or even the Japs. But we still beat them. We go
to war with the army we have, not the one that we would like. We used broom
handles to train with in WW2 as we did not have rifles. We had ships and
aircraft that were inferior yet we beat the Japs. The Germans had a better
machine gun, aircraft (including jets), and tanks. We still beat them. In
many cases the soldiers invented their equipment on the battlefield (hedge
row clearing plows made on site in WW2). The same with how soldiers
invented the gun truck in Vietnam and put armor on APCs (which the sergeants
made them take off after the war as it was "ugly").
It is civilians such as yourself who are clueless. Let the men run the war
and you little girls just play.
Omega
>
: | > > > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
if we were truly "fascists" (like radical Islam is) then we would have a
couple million democrats and anti war types dead....
chris.holt
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>>And
>>the factors of the added weight reducing agility can make it counter
>>productive.
> No, it doesn't.
>
> If it did, then the best solution would be to scrap Humvees and have
> the troops ride around on Harleys.
Hey, it worked for Steve McQueen. Didn't it?
--
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
>
> > Ref at
> >
> > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
> >
> > CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
> > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> > armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
> > from the Pentagon chief.
> >
> > "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> > airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
> > ...
> > Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own - not of the war
> > itself but of how it is being fought.
>
> It's a soldier's right to complain. Griping is a time-honored tradition
> among the enlistees.
IDIOT. They're "griping" about getting killed and wounded...
RT
Skymodem
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:5TKtd.162444$5K2.105089@attbi_s03...
Translation: You got nothin.
Sid9
> In WW2 we did not have rifles, the troops trained with broom sticks.
> Our tanks were far inferior to the German Tiger tanks. And the
> Japanese had superior planes and aircraft carriers than we had.
>
> In fact we have gone into every war without the proper equipment.
> Vietnam era soldiers did not get issued proper uniforms for jungle
> warfare, did not get the M16 or other equipment until 1967 and we had
> been in that war from 1959!
>
> Likewise, every other war has been the same. We fight with the army
> we have, not the one that we would like to have. It is the American
> way.
>
> BTW, terms like SNAFU and FUBAR came out of WW2. Situation normal,
> all fucked up and fucked up beyond all recognition. That is the way
> Americans fight wars. We take pride in. WW2 soldiers fabricated
> equipment on the battlefield, much like these guys are. Farm boy
> engineering....
>
> All you are bitching about is that a democrat is not president. If
> this was a democrat president, you would in total acceptance and gung
> ho for war.
>
> We will get the equipment then it will be sold off by the next
> democrat president just as Clinton did in the 1990s.
>
>
Scuuzze me.
Who's been president for nearly four years?
How long does it take to make armor for a Humvee?
Clinton?
That's just a diversion from the incompetent Bush,Jr and his administration
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Omega wrote:
>
> In WW2 we did not have rifles, the troops trained with broom sticks.
>
Germans trained with faux guns as well.
> Our
> tanks were far inferior to the German Tiger tanks.
>
The French alone had more armour and strength against the Germans but
screwed everything up allowing the Nazis access to France, at which
point the French decided to become Nazis rather than fight. Paris and
many cities and towns were just turned over to the attackers with no
fight or nearly none. Even bridges were not blown to slow down the
attack.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Eric da Red wrote:
>
> In article <41B76B68...@backpacker.com>,
> Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >Eric da Red wrote:
> >>
> >> >> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
> >> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> >> >>
> >> >> What a dumbfuck.
> >> >>
> >> >Rumsfeld is exactly right again.
> >>
> >> Someone mentions "dumbfuck" and here you are.
> >>
> >> >We are in a phase of military
> >> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> >> >those vehicles from being blown up.
> >>
> >> "invariably stop" and "reduce risk" are two different things. The
> >> former is not attainable, the latter is.
> >>
> >More armour is possible,
>
> That's true. Stop now, while you're still right.
>
Armour is heavy and armour can't stop all attacks.
> >the problem though is that no matter how much
> >armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it.
>
> A large part of soldiering, not to mention decision making in Real
> Life, involves risk reduction.
>
I agree with that but the armour vs mobility trade off has been made for
centuries. Take a look at the knights in the Middle Ages. Knights
without foot are very vulnerable. Armour without foot soldiers are
similarly vulnerable.
> Improving the armor on vehicles reduces risk to the soldiers. It
> increases their chance of survival.
>
Another option is to put them outside the vehicle where they can see
better and can take cover. We are in a position where body armour is
gaining in effectiveness and can stop or mitigate many types of attack.
> Some troops will still get killed by roadside bombs and small
> missiles, but more will survive.
>
Can Humvees be protected from roadside bombs? If an APC can be breached,
I doubt you can protect a Humvee.
> Sane military planners think that fairly small expenditures that
> measurably improve the survival rate of their troops is a good
> policy. You and Rummy have a different set of priorities.
>
Rumsfeld said that armour manufacturers were making the armour as
rapidly as is humanly possible. What more do you want?
> >And
> >the factors of the added weight reducing agility can make it counter
> >productive.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
They have already had frames break because of the additional weight.
> If it did, then the best solution would be to scrap Humvees and have
> the troops ride around on Harleys.
>
Or maybe it would be best in the convoys to not ride in Humvees at all.
Get some of those triple trailer land train trucks from Australia and
put a few troops on the top of the trailer. Fewer drivers and a lot more
armed troops all far enough away from the roadside bomb blast that they
have a lot better chance of surviving than in a Humvee.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
There was no more time to waste.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Croatoan wrote:
>
> In article <41B76720...@backpacker.com>,
> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> Bill, the point is that they do not have the armor plating. They know it
> will not save all of them, but it might save more.
>
This armour did not exist in the 1991 Gulf War. American troops didn't
generally even use body armour back then. This is all new.
> I know you are not for allowing soldiers to die because we were cheap.
>
I don't see how we can make the armour faster than humanly possible.
> so why do you not want soldier to have armor for protecting them from
> RPG's?
>
I don't think that armour will protect a soldier in a Humvee from an RPG
hit.
chris.holt
> Sid9 wrote:
>>The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
> There was no more time to waste.
This is because of the WMDs that the inspectors wanted
more time to look for?
--
Sid9
Ho ho ho hee hee......it would be funny but our soldiers and marines are
dying for Bush's incompetence
Sid9
>>
>> In WW2 we did not have rifles, the troops trained with broom sticks.
>>
> Germans trained with faux guns as well.
>
>
>> Our
>> tanks were far inferior to the German Tiger tanks.
>>
> The French alone had more armour and strength against the Germans but
> screwed everything up allowing the Nazis access to France, at which
> point the French decided to become Nazis rather than fight. Paris and
> many cities and towns were just turned over to the attackers with no
> fight or nearly none. Even bridges were not blown to slow down the
> attack.
Wrong.
The French prepared for WWII with WWI tactics.
The Maginot Line. A fixed immobile defense line
Similarly Bush,Jr prepared to fight terrorists with the weapons of the cold
war.
An army is the wrong weapon against an enemy (terrorism) that is not a
national state.
Police and covert intelligence would be a better army.
But Bush,Jr doesn't like advice.
Yosemite (shoot from the hip) Georgie,Jr went off half cocked against the
wrong enemy.
Unprepared.
Wrong time.
Alienated our traditional allies.
Our soldiers and Marines die for his incompetence.
In the end we will leave Iraq with Iraqis still killing each other.
We ought to leave today.
Let the Iraqis get on with what they enjoy most.
Killing each other
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Sid9 wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) wrote:
> > Omega wrote:
> >>
> >> In WW2 we did not have rifles, the troops trained with broom sticks.
> >>
> > Germans trained with faux guns as well.
> >
> >
> >> Our
> >> tanks were far inferior to the German Tiger tanks.
> >>
> > The French alone had more armour and strength against the Germans but
> > screwed everything up allowing the Nazis access to France, at which
> > point the French decided to become Nazis rather than fight. Paris and
> > many cities and towns were just turned over to the attackers with no
> > fight or nearly none. Even bridges were not blown to slow down the
> > attack.
>
> Wrong.
>
Everything I said is correct.
> The French prepared for WWII with WWI tactics.
> The Maginot Line. A fixed immobile defense line
>
The Maginot Line didn't protect from attack through Belgium. Had the
Line been extended, France might've actually won a war. Of course even
without the Line, the French had more forces in the general area than
the Germans.
> Similarly Bush,Jr prepared to fight terrorists with the weapons of the cold
> war.
> An army is the wrong weapon against an enemy (terrorism) that is not a
> national state.
> Police and covert intelligence would be a better army.
>
You need to use all methods to win a war.
Rincewind
on Broadway'' ) mumbled something like this:
>> The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
>>
> There was no more time to waste.
Why was there no more time to waste?
Rinso
--
/\
/ \
/wizz\
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > Sid9 wrote:
>
> >>The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
>
> > There was no more time to waste.
>
> This is because of the WMDs that the inspectors wanted
> more time to look for?
>
We would have gone on for another decade or two with Saddam in change
and the status quo in the Middle East, leading to more attacks on
America. Bush could not wait any longer because the election was coming
up. I expect you'd be still telling him to leave Saddam alone even now.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Croatoan wrote:
>
> In article <41B73E5E...@backpacker.com>,
> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Ref at
> > >
> > > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
> > >
> > > CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
> > > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> > > armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
> > > from the Pentagon chief.
> > >
> > > "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> > > airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
> > >
> > Rumsfeld is correct.
>
> Bill, do you know what a granfalloon is?
>
Hi-ho.
Sid9
Iraq is the wrong enemy. Saudis were involved against us, not Iraqis.
Bush,jr attacked the wrong people
You would rather discuss ancient
history than Bush,jr's incompetence
and his responsibility for our losses
Eric da Red
chris.holt <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Bill Bonde wrote:
>> Sid9 wrote:
>
>>>The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
>
>> There was no more time to waste.
>
>This is because of the WMDs that the inspectors wanted
>more time to look for?
Those hundreds of Iraqi tanks parked at the Blaine border
crossing were pretty disturbing, too.
A Brick in the Wall
"Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
news:41B74EA0...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Tim FaROW wrote:
>>
>> This one really gets me:
>>
>> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
>> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
>>
>> What a dumbfuck.
>>
> Rumsfeld is exactly right again. We are in a phase of military
> development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> those vehicles from being blown up.
>
I wonder if Rummy prefers to travel in armored vehicles......
Sid9
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:36:16 -0800, Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies
> down on Broadway'' ) mumbled something like this:
>
>>> The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
>>>
>> There was no more time to waste.
>
> Why was there no more time to waste?
>
> Rinso
He bought into Bush,Jr's lie
A Brick in the Wall
Do you think Rummy travels in armored vehicles?
Omega
: | : | The real question is why do we have an Army that doesn't have a good
: | : | plan to deal with the sort of threats it is likely to face in the
21st
: | : | century? The answer is clearly: Bill Clinton.
: | :
: | : Threat? Where was the threat? George W. Bush created and/or
: exacerbated: every threat we face, pug. Why is the American economy
headed into a
: | : flaming death spiral? Why is America rushing headlong into a
: neo-fascist: dictatorship? Why are over 100,000 non-combatants dead, and
close to
: | 20,000 Americans maimed and dead, in a conflict falsely predicated on
the
: | existence of WMD? Why is Al Queda growing like a Kudzu on crank? Why
is bin
: Laden still a free man? Why is a WMD almost certainly going to be
deployed on
: | : American soil in the near future? The answer is clearly: George W.
: Bush.
: |
: | if we were truly "fascists" (like radical Islam is) then we would have a
: | couple million democrats and anti war types dead....
:
: Translation: You got nothin.
No, it is you who is the bullshit artist. If the conservatives were truly
fascists, you would be dead.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
How would you attack the Saudis? Does that include invading Mecca?
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
How long does a military programme take to initiate and complete?
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Had Bush waited at all, it would've been Summer and then election
season. So I guess we'd be talking about invading about now, eh?
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>>Bill Bonde wrote:
>>>Sid9 wrote:
>>>>The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
>>>There was no more time to waste.
>>This is because of the WMDs that the inspectors wanted
>>more time to look for?
> We would have gone on for another decade or two with Saddam in change
He's getting on; he'd probably have left it to his kids,
not that that would be an improvement.
> and the status quo in the Middle East,
The status quo in the mid-East depends a lot more on Palestine
than it does on Iraq.
> leading to more attacks on America.
Whereas now, there are going to be more attacks on America.
That's not what I call helpful, especially since the US is
now in the morally indefensible position of having killed
tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
> Bush could not wait any longer because the election was coming
> up.
Oh, I agree it's quite likely that he did it for electoral
reasons, as well as for helping his friends financially.
> I expect you'd be still telling him to leave Saddam alone even now.
If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
--
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > "chris.holt" wrote:
> >>Bill Bonde wrote:
> >>>Sid9 wrote:
>
> >>>>The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
>
> >>>There was no more time to waste.
>
> >>This is because of the WMDs that the inspectors wanted
> >>more time to look for?
>
> > We would have gone on for another decade or two with Saddam in change
>
> He's getting on; he'd probably have left it to his kids,
> not that that would be an improvement.
>
> > and the status quo in the Middle East,
>
> The status quo in the mid-East depends a lot more on Palestine
> than it does on Iraq.
>
I think that Iraq pushes a lot of things including the Palis to find
peace. It's funny how at least they want to have a democracy.
> > leading to more attacks on America.
>
> Whereas now, there are going to be more attacks on America.
> That's not what I call helpful, especially since the US is
> now in the morally indefensible position of having killed
> tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
>
What are you talking about? US efforts in Iraq are no different from the
Balkans or the 1991 Gulf War. And compared to what Saddam was doing or
what Russia did in Chechnya, good grief, it's bloody nothing.
> > Bush could not wait any longer because the election was coming
> > up.
>
> Oh, I agree it's quite likely that he did it for electoral
> reasons, as well as for helping his friends financially.
>
What? He couldn't engage in the war in an election year. He had to do it
when it did it. That's American domestic politics, in case you didn't
understand.
> > I expect you'd be still telling him to leave Saddam alone even now.
>
> If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
> the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
> of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
>
Saddam caused the deaths of millions of people. Wrap your head round
that.
Skymodem
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:QYLtd.732213$8_6.398250@attbi_s04...
Sounds like a combination of vague threats and wishful thinking to me, but
nevertheless you are wrong. I am, to all who care to look, a happily
married and successful businessman who pays his taxes and goes to church
every Sunday. I sit in the pews with antichrist fucks like yourself and
pray for the political death and dismemberment of your cocksucking fuhrer
under every breath. It might interest you to know that there quite a number
of us scattered around every Evangelical congregation I've attended, and
lately we've begun to...oh shall we say, talk...
Sid9
> Sid9 wrote:
>>
>> Rincewind wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:36:16 -0800, Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies
>>> down on Broadway'' ) mumbled something like this:
>>>
>>>>> The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
>>>>>
>>>> There was no more time to waste.
>>>
>>> Why was there no more time to waste?
>>>
>>> Rinso
>>
>> He bought into Bush,Jr's lie
>>
> Had Bush waited at all, it would've been Summer and then election
> season. So I guess we'd be talking about invading about now, eh?
Nearly 1300 American soldiers and marines would be alive.
About 9,000 American soldiers and marines would have a full complement of
arms, legs, eyesight and hearing.
Saddam would still be suppressing the internecine killing in Iraq.
Saddam would still be an opponent of Saudi Arabia, religious fundamentalists
and the source of the terror attacks.
Saddam would still be a viable tool against Iran.
Now all we've got is a Bushmess
Sid9
In time of war?
Zero flat. (except for the incompetent Bush gang)
Sid9
There's more tools then guns for attacks......except for simpletons....like
Yosemite (shoot from the hip) George
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Probably the most moderate government possible is in control right now
in Saudi Arabia. What would you do, ignore Saddam and try to oust the
pro-western government in Riyadh?
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
LOL. The administration isn't the one who actually builds the armour,
for example.
Sid9
They are neither "pro-Western" nor are they "moderate"
They are an absolute Monarchy based on their Whabiism version of
fundamentalist Islam.
Dear friends and business partners of the Bush family
Sid9
It's their duty to get it done.
They failed.
They failed as they have failed at almost everything they've done, except
con the American people
Jim Gillogly
on Broadway'' ) wrote:
>> "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
>> airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
>>
> Rumsfeld is correct.
If the war were forced on you at a particular time and place,
then I'd agree with you. However, the administration and
Rumsfeld have said repeatedly that we would attack at a time
and place of our choosing. This means he gets to *choose* the
Army he would have for the attack. He chose an Army that fit
the model of the enemy that he had in his mind... an enemy
that was much different from the one on the ground.
--
Jim Gillogly
Mitchell Holman
news:UHKtd.209796$HA.110968@attbi_s01:
> In WW2 we did not have rifles, the troops trained with broom sticks.
> Our tanks were far inferior to the German Tiger tanks. And the Japanese
> had superior planes and aircraft carriers than we had.
>
> In fact we have gone into every war without the proper equipment.
> Vietnam era soldiers did not get issued proper uniforms for jungle
> warfare, did not get the M16 or other equipment until 1967 and we had
> been in that war from 1959!
>
> Likewise, every other war has been the same. We fight with the army we
> have, not the one that we would like to have. It is the American way.
>
That may be an excuse when you are attacked
or when war is forced on you, but that is not
the case here.
Bush picked this war. He picked the time,
he picked the country, he picked the advisers
who told him the military was ready and had
all it needed.
And now when the supplies prove inferior
and the troop numbers insufficient and the
allies fickle, who should we hold responsible?
And no, blaming Clinton doesn't work anymore.
ronin
"Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
news:41B74EA0...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Tim FaROW wrote:
> >
> > This one really gets me:
> >
> > "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still]
be
> > blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> >
> > What a dumbfuck.
> >
> Rumsfeld is exactly right again. We are in a phase of military
> development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> those vehicles from being blown up.
Is that why you haven't enlisted yet?
Jorge W Arbusto
"Bill Blondie ( ``I fuck Lambs down on Broadway'' )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:41B79E72...@backpacker.com...
>
> --
Sid9
The fish stinks from the head..... Rumsfeld is not the head.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
You are such a kook.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
It has never existed before. It recently became possible to make body
armour that could stop or mitigate significant attacks. The military is
moving to get everyone what is technically possible.
A Brick in the Wall
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:SwKtd.11579$714....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
>
>> Ref at
>>
>> http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
>>
>> CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
>> Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
>> armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
>> from the Pentagon chief.
>>
>> "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
>> airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
>> Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own - not of the war
>> itself but of how it is being fought.
>
> It's a soldier's right to complain. Griping is a time-honored tradition
> among the enlistees.
>
So --- go sign up --- we'll take your complaints to Rummy --- who is no
doubt riding in an armored vehicle.
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
1,281 SMOKED OIL SOLDIERS
>
> This one really gets me:
>
> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
>
> What a dumbfuck.
The army voted for these neocon assholes. Fuck 'em.
1,281 SMOKED OIL SOLDIERS
"Bill Bonde (And the Lamb lies down on Bill's Face & Pees)" wrote:
> The real question is why do we have an Army that doesn't have a good
> plan to deal with the sort of threats it is likely to face in the 21st
> century? The answer is clearly: Bill Clinton.
You're a moron.
1,281 SMOKED OIL SOLDIERS
Skymodem wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:41B74E41...@backpacker.com...
> |
> |
> | Tim FaROW wrote:
> | >
> | > "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> | > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> | > news:41B73E5E...@backpacker.com...
> | > >
> | > >
> | > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> | > > >
> | > > > Ref at
> | > > >
> | > > > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
> | > > >
> | > > > CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained
> to
> | > > > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> | > > > armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt
> retort
> | > > > from the Pentagon chief.
> | > > >
> | > > > "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> | > > > airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
> | > > >
> | > > Rumsfeld is correct.
> | > >
> | >
> | > You dumbshit. He's only correct if you complete the sentence with "You
> go to
> | > war with the Army you have when you don't plan sufficiently for a
> prolonged
> | > insurgent engagement and expect to be greeted like liberators with
> flowers"
> | >
> | The real question is why do we have an Army that doesn't have a good
> | plan to deal with the sort of threats it is likely to face in the 21st
> | century? The answer is clearly: Bill Clinton.
>
> Threat? Where was the threat? George W. Bush created and/or exacerbated
> every threat we face, pug. Why is the American economy headed into a
> flaming death spiral? Why is America rushing headlong into a neo-fascist
> dictatorship? Why are over 100,000 non-combatants dead, and close to 20,000
> Americans maimed and dead, in a conflict falsely predicated on the existence
> of WMD? Why is Al Queda growing like a Kudzu on crank? Why is bin Laden
> still a free man? Why is a WMD almost certainly going to be deployed on
> American soil in the near future? The answer is clearly: George W. Bush.
The American people have to accept part of the blame too...
1,281 SMOKED OIL SOLDIERS
> I don't believe there is anything you can do to a vehicle the size of a
> Humvee to stop anti-tank mines or improvised roadside bombs from hurting
> or killing the occupants.
It's simple. You take all the vehicles, put 'em on boats & planes with
the troops
and get the fuck out of Iraq.
War On Error
"Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
news:41B7D430...@backpacker.com...
Your opinion is noted; but he is quite correct on all counts. The Bush
family has longstanding political and business ties with the Saudi monarchy.
If you are pretending not to know this obvious fact, then you are either
ignorant or a liar.
Saudi Arabia is controlled by repressive anti-democratic Islamic extremists
who sponsor terrorism: 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked the US on 9/11/01
were Saudis.
So when do we invade Saudi Arabia?
WOE
1,281 SMOKED OIL SOLDIERS
"Bill Bonde (Lamb Lover)" wrote:
>
> Eric da Red wrote:
> > How like you to confuse the issue in order to excuse Rummy's absurd
> > quotation.
> >
> Rumsfeld's statement was exactly correct.
Which one?
The one about Iraq having WMDs and being a direct threat to the U.S.
or the one about the Iraqis throwing flowers at the Americans?
Sid9
The administration failed. period.
They continue to fail every day.
Bush,jr promotes and retains his failures.
Surrounded by failures Bush looks pretty good
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>>The status quo in the mid-East depends a lot more on Palestine
>>than it does on Iraq.
> I think that Iraq pushes a lot of things including the Palis to find
> peace. It's funny how at least they want to have a democracy.
Most of them wanted to decades ago. The current process
isn't facilitating matters much, that I can see.
>>Whereas now, there are going to be more attacks on America.
>>That's not what I call helpful, especially since the US is
>>now in the morally indefensible position of having killed
>>tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
> What are you talking about? US efforts in Iraq are no different from the
> Balkans or the 1991 Gulf War.
I'm afraid they are.
> And compared to what Saddam was doing or
> what Russia did in Chechnya, good grief, it's bloody nothing.
If you're going to go back in time, how would you compare
it to what happened in Vietnam?
>>Oh, I agree it's quite likely that he did it for electoral
>>reasons, as well as for helping his friends financially.
> What? He couldn't engage in the war in an election year.
Why not? Other presidents have done so. Of course, those
presidents didn't think that re-election was a higher
priority than people's lives.
> He had to do it
> when it did it. That's American domestic politics, in case you didn't
> understand.
I've watched American domestic politics for more than
three decades now. Longer, if you count being taken
to hear Kennedy give a speech in 1960.
>>If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
>>the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
>>of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
> Saddam caused the deaths of millions of people. Wrap your head round
> that.
You're not very good at tenses, are you.
--
Bill Bonde
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > "chris.holt" wrote:
>
> >>The status quo in the mid-East depends a lot more on Palestine
> >>than it does on Iraq.
>
> > I think that Iraq pushes a lot of things including the Palis to find
> > peace. It's funny how at least they want to have a democracy.
>
> Most of them wanted to decades ago. The current process
> isn't facilitating matters much, that I can see.
>
They apparently need to hit rock bottom again before they accept rehab.
> >>Whereas now, there are going to be more attacks on America.
> >>That's not what I call helpful, especially since the US is
> >>now in the morally indefensible position of having killed
> >>tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
>
> > What are you talking about? US efforts in Iraq are no different from the
> > Balkans or the 1991 Gulf War.
>
> I'm afraid they are.
>
There was less justification for what Clinton did than what Bush did.
> > And compared to what Saddam was doing or
> > what Russia did in Chechnya, good grief, it's bloody nothing.
>
> If you're going to go back in time, how would you compare
> it to what happened in Vietnam?
>
It's no match for that either. The US is hypercarful in Iraq and it's
being told it is a genociding monster. Meanwhile, Russia gets a pass,
Clinton gets a pass, France gets a pass in Ivory Coast.
> >>Oh, I agree it's quite likely that he did it for electoral
> >>reasons, as well as for helping his friends financially.
>
> > What? He couldn't engage in the war in an election year.
>
> Why not? Other presidents have done so. Of course, those
> presidents didn't think that re-election was a higher
> priority than people's lives.
>
Clinton said he could not attack bin Laden near the election and during
the end of his 2nd term since that should be a job for the next
president. Other presidents, like for example Bush Sr, stepped up and
did what needed doing at the end of their terms, in his case Somalia.
> > He had to do it
> > when it did it. That's American domestic politics, in case you didn't
> > understand.
>
> I've watched American domestic politics for more than
> three decades now. Longer, if you count being taken
> to hear Kennedy give a speech in 1960.
>
So you should be another Ken Jennings. What happened?
> >>If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
> >>the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
> >>of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
>
> > Saddam caused the deaths of millions of people. Wrap your head round
> > that.
>
> You're not very good at tenses, are you.
>
I'm fine with tense/aspect.
--
Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of
his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy
neutral delight in things as they were—an outpouring of his young
vivacity which it was impossible to read just now. -+George Eliot,
"Middlemarch"
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>>>What are you talking about? US efforts in Iraq are no different from the
>>>Balkans or the 1991 Gulf War.
>>I'm afraid they are.
> There was less justification for what Clinton did than what Bush did.
You can either talk about international law, about
treaties, or about people. In terms of people, Clinton
didn't directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands
of them. I don't think he did the right thing, but
I don't think his actions were as egregious either.
>>>And compared to what Saddam was doing or
>>>what Russia did in Chechnya, good grief, it's bloody nothing.
>>If you're going to go back in time, how would you compare
>>it to what happened in Vietnam?
> It's no match for that either.
Think of where the US was around 1964 or so.
> The US is hypercarful in Iraq and it's
> being told it is a genociding monster.
It's not hypercareful, but it's not being accused
of genocide either. It's accused of causing the deaths
of tens of thousands of innocent people.
> Meanwhile, Russia gets a pass,
> Clinton gets a pass, France gets a pass in Ivory Coast.
I haven't seen Russia get a pass, except from politicians
who want to deal in oil. Clinton often gets a pass, but
I've seen a lot of people criticize him who are on the
left. France largely gets a pass because they were passive
rather than actively killing lots of people; but I've seen
a fair amout of criticism there as well.
>>>What? He couldn't engage in the war in an election year.
>>Why not? Other presidents have done so. Of course, those
>>presidents didn't think that re-election was a higher
>>priority than people's lives.
> Clinton said he could not attack bin Laden near the election and during
> the end of his 2nd term since that should be a job for the next
> president.
You may remember that there was a certain amount of
political opposition from Congress at the time, and
that it wasn't seen to be an immediate threat. Of
course, when he told Bush that bin Laden was a serious
problem, he was ignored.
> Other presidents, like for example Bush Sr, stepped up and
> did what needed doing at the end of their terms, in his case Somalia.
So as I said, other presidents have done so.
>>>>If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
>>>>the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
>>>>of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
>>>Saddam caused the deaths of millions of people. Wrap your head round
>>>that.
>>You're not very good at tenses, are you.
> I'm fine with tense/aspect.
Then you understand that 'would' does not generally refer to
the past tense.
--
Eric da Red
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>> >Eric da Red wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
>> >> >We are in a phase of military
>> >> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
>> >> >those vehicles from being blown up.
>> >>
>> >> former is not attainable, the latter is.
>> >>
>> >More armour is possible,
>>
>> That's true. Stop now, while you're still right.
>>
>Armour is heavy and armour can't stop all attacks.
One more time, slowly.
We. Aren't. Talking. About. Stopping. All. Attacks.
>> >the problem though is that no matter how much
>> >armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it.
>>
>> A large part of soldiering, not to mention decision making in Real
>> Life, involves risk reduction.
>>
>I agree with that but the armour vs mobility trade off has been made for
>centuries.
The trade-off was decided in favor of armor in Iraq War II. At
least, that's what the White House and the Pentagon said.
Unfortunately, they didn't live up to their promises.
Now, the soldiers get to hear Rummy tell them to sit down and shut
up.
>Take a look at the knights in the Middle Ages. Knights
>without foot are very vulnerable. Armour without foot soldiers are
>similarly vulnerable.
>
>> Improving the armor on vehicles reduces risk to the soldiers. It
>> increases their chance of survival.
>>
>Another option is to put them outside the vehicle where they can see
>better and can take cover.
And get shot.
Do you have any idea why the troops are riding around Iraq in
Humvees?
>We are in a position where body armour is
>gaining in effectiveness and can stop or mitigate many types of attack.
Oh yeah, I forgot, there's a shortage of body armor too.
>> Some troops will still get killed by roadside bombs and small
>> missiles, but more will survive.
>>
>Can Humvees be protected from roadside bombs? If an APC can be breached,
>I doubt you can protect a Humvee.
You can increase the probability of the troops surviving attacks.
Not that you or Rummy care. More dead troops means more soldiers'
graves you and Rummy can dance on.
>> Sane military planners think that fairly small expenditures that
>> measurably improve the survival rate of their troops is a good
>> policy. You and Rummy have a different set of priorities.
>>
>Rumsfeld said that armour manufacturers were making the armour as
>rapidly as is humanly possible. What more do you want?
The truth.
And a Secretary of Defense who is not a clueless hack.
--
Quote of the Week: "There was a time when I could rant about the 'liberal
media' with the best of them. But in recent years, I have puzzled over the
precise location of the 'liberal media.'" -- Paul Craig Roberts
Bill Bonde
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > "chris.holt" wrote:
> >>Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> >>>What are you talking about? US efforts in Iraq are no different from the
> >>>Balkans or the 1991 Gulf War.
>
> >>I'm afraid they are.
>
> > There was less justification for what Clinton did than what Bush did.
>
> You can either talk about international law, about
> treaties, or about people. In terms of people, Clinton
> didn't directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands
> of them.
>
He ordered the dropping of thousands of bombs from 40,000 feet on
targets that included the Chinese embassy. He had no UN resolution
backing his decision to use military force.
> I don't think he did the right thing, but
> I don't think his actions were as egregious either.
>
Bush's actions in Iraq are part of something that could save the Middle
East, remake it as democracy, peaceful and prosperous nation-states.
Compare that to Clinton's bombing of Iraq which accomplished nothing.
How many people died in the Clinton light show?
> >>>And compared to what Saddam was doing or
> >>>what Russia did in Chechnya, good grief, it's bloody nothing.
>
> >>If you're going to go back in time, how would you compare
> >>it to what happened in Vietnam?
>
> > It's no match for that either.
>
> Think of where the US was around 1964 or so.
>
Why do you try to relive Vietnam? The US wants all Iraqis to form a
democracy and be represented. If we'd found a way to do that in Vietnam,
it would not have been what it turned out to be.
> > The US is hypercarful in Iraq and it's
> > being told it is a genociding monster.
>
> It's not hypercareful, but it's not being accused
> of genocide either. It's accused of causing the deaths
> of tens of thousands of innocent people.
>
What are you talking about? The US is feeding millions of people in
Iraq, building their infrastructure, helping them create a democracy.
The US is not indiscriminately killing people.
> > Meanwhile, Russia gets a pass,
> > Clinton gets a pass, France gets a pass in Ivory Coast.
>
> I haven't seen Russia get a pass, except from politicians
> who want to deal in oil. Clinton often gets a pass, but
> I've seen a lot of people criticize him who are on the
> left. France largely gets a pass because they were passive
> rather than actively killing lots of people; but I've seen
> a fair amout of criticism there as well.
>
Not going into Iraq was passively killing Iraqis.
> >>>What? He couldn't engage in the war in an election year.
>
> >>Why not? Other presidents have done so. Of course, those
> >>presidents didn't think that re-election was a higher
> >>priority than people's lives.
>
> > Clinton said he could not attack bin Laden near the election and during
> > the end of his 2nd term since that should be a job for the next
> > president.
>
> You may remember that there was a certain amount of
> political opposition from Congress at the time, and
> that it wasn't seen to be an immediate threat. Of
>
It was Clinton's responsibility to make us understand what the threat
was, he was president. No one in Congress opposed dealing with bin
Laden. Clinton's wag the dog bullshit, that was right out.
> course, when he told Bush that bin Laden was a serious
> problem, he was ignored.
>
If bin Laden was a serious problem warranting the new administration
just do what the previous one said, more than shades of the Bay of Pigs
mind you, then why didn't the previous administration, in both cases, do
those things they felt needed doing? I know the answer, they were too
scared, too weak and too unable to make a decision so they pawned it off
on the next guy, the new guy.
> > Other presidents, like for example Bush Sr, stepped up and
> > did what needed doing at the end of their terms, in his case Somalia.
>
> So as I said, other presidents have done so.
>
> >>>>If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
> >>>>the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
> >>>>of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
>
> >>>Saddam caused the deaths of millions of people. Wrap your head round
> >>>that.
>
> >>You're not very good at tenses, are you.
>
> > I'm fine with tense/aspect.
>
> Then you understand that 'would' does not generally refer to
> the past tense.
>
On what planet do you claim that Saddam only killed a few hundred a
year?
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>>Bill Bonde wrote:
>>>There was less justification for what Clinton did than what Bush did.
>>You can either talk about international law, about
>>treaties, or about people. In terms of people, Clinton
>>didn't directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands
>>of them.
> He ordered the dropping of thousands of bombs from 40,000 feet on
> targets that included the Chinese embassy. He had no UN resolution
> backing his decision to use military force.
Quite so, which is why I say below that I don't think
he did the right thing. But that's not the same as
directly causing the deaths of tens of thousands of
people. If you've seen estimates that that was the
level of mayhem, I'd like to see them; I could be
misremembering.
>>I don't think he did the right thing, but
>>I don't think his actions were as egregious either.
> Bush's actions in Iraq are part of something that could save the Middle
> East, remake it as democracy, peaceful and prosperous nation-states.
They are also something that could turn it into a
bloodbath, with more tens or hundreds of thousands
of people killed. Since Bush seems to be following
the Sharon approach, I'm not hopeful.
> Compare that to Clinton's bombing of Iraq which accomplished nothing.
> How many people died in the Clinton light show?
From the bombing? Not too many; it was elder Bush who
caused the real casualties. Indirectly, via the
sanctions? Quite a number, which is why I criticize
the policy. FWIW, I also criticize the policy
concerning Cuba, which has been followed by Democrat
and Republican alike, for much the same reasons.
>>>>If you're going to go back in time, how would you compare
>>>>it to what happened in Vietnam?
>>>It's no match for that either.
>>Think of where the US was around 1964 or so.
> Why do you try to relive Vietnam?
Because I don't want to forget history, and I
don't want to have to relive it. How many lives
would have been saved if the US had pulled out
of Vietnam in 1964? When you're waist-deep in
the Big Muddy, you don't want a big fool telling
you to push on.
> The US wants all Iraqis to form a
> democracy and be represented.
That's not what they said a year and a half ago,
after the mission was accomplished. When they
had vast amounts of public good will, they did
sweet f.a. to facilitate immediate elections.
Hence the accusations of hypocrisy.
> If we'd found a way to do that in Vietnam,
> it would not have been what it turned out to be.
Since the US colluded in preventing a democracy
in Vietnam, it's not surprising they didn't manage
to find a way to do that.
>>>The US is hypercarful in Iraq and it's
>>>being told it is a genociding monster.
>>It's not hypercareful, but it's not being accused
>>of genocide either. It's accused of causing the deaths
>>of tens of thousands of innocent people.
> What are you talking about? The US is feeding millions of people in
> Iraq, building their infrastructure, helping them create a democracy.
> The US is not indiscriminately killing people.
The US is feeding people who would otherwise have
been feeding themselves. The US is building an
infrastructure that the US first destroyed. The
US is helping them build a democracy only so long
as the vote turns out the way the US wants. The
US is not indiscriminately killing people, but it's
killing large numbers of people nevertheless.
>>>Meanwhile, Russia gets a pass,
>>>Clinton gets a pass, France gets a pass in Ivory Coast.
>>I haven't seen Russia get a pass, except from politicians
>>who want to deal in oil. Clinton often gets a pass, but
>>I've seen a lot of people criticize him who are on the
>>left. France largely gets a pass because they were passive
>>rather than actively killing lots of people; but I've seen
>>a fair amout of criticism there as well.
> Not going into Iraq was passively killing Iraqis.
That doesn't justify going into Iraq and actively killing
even more Iraqis.
>>>Clinton said he could not attack bin Laden near the election and during
>>>the end of his 2nd term since that should be a job for the next
>>>president.
>>You may remember that there was a certain amount of
>>political opposition from Congress at the time, and
>>that it wasn't seen to be an immediate threat. Of
> It was Clinton's responsibility to make us understand what the threat
> was, he was president.
This is ridiculous. He said he hadn't done anything
wrong with Whitewater, and his political opponents
refused to believe him. You might remember that
the investigations didn't find any reason to
disbelieve him. How do you convince enemies who
have their hands over their ears?
> No one in Congress opposed dealing with bin
> Laden.
Of course they did; they didn't see bin Laden as a
threat, and thought Clinton was trying to wiggle out.
> Clinton's wag the dog bullshit, that was right out.
So if Clinton had said "Look, this is a guy who might
take down the World Trade Center", you think he would
have been taken seriously? If so, you're misremembering
the acrimony of the time.
>>course, when he told Bush that bin Laden was a serious
>>problem, he was ignored.
> If bin Laden was a serious problem warranting the new administration
> just do what the previous one said, more than shades of the Bay of Pigs
> mind you, then why didn't the previous administration, in both cases, do
> those things they felt needed doing?
Well, some people think that evidence is helpful if you
want to get other people on board. Don't worry, I know
Bush doesn't.
> I know the answer, they were too
> scared, too weak and too unable to make a decision so they pawned it off
> on the next guy, the new guy.
If you remember, it was quite likely to be Gore; and he
was very into anti-terrorism. Everyone thought that the
Republicans would be even more so; they didn't think that
Bush would just walk away from it.
>>>>>>If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
>>>>>>the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
>>>>>>of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
>>>>>Saddam caused the deaths of millions of people. Wrap your head round
>>>>>that.
>>>>You're not very good at tenses, are you.
>>>I'm fine with tense/aspect.
>>Then you understand that 'would' does not generally refer to
>>the past tense.
> On what planet do you claim that Saddam only killed a few hundred a
> year?
On the planet that looks at what was going on for the five
years previous to the US invasion, and doesn't use misleading
statistics about what happened when the US was supporting
Saddam's large-scale killings.
--
Omega
: | : | if we were truly "fascists" (like radical Islam is) then we would
have
: a couple million democrats and anti war types dead....
: | :
: | : Translation: You got nothin.
: |
: | No, it is you who is the bullshit artist. If the conservatives were
: truly fascists, you would be dead.
:
: Sounds like a combination of vague threats and wishful thinking to me, but
: nevertheless you are wrong. I am, to all who care to look, a happily
: married and successful businessman who pays his taxes and goes to church
: every Sunday. I sit in the pews with antichrist fucks like yourself and
: pray for the political death and dismemberment of your cocksucking fuhrer
: under every breath. It might interest you to know that there quite a
number
: of us scattered around every Evangelical congregation I've attended, and
: lately we've begun to...oh shall we say, talk...
If you are evangelical, you need to repent. Start with Rom 10:9,10 and make
Jesus your lord.
It sounds like you have become the nazi with your death thoughts. Not a
very Christ like individual, are you?
Again, if Bush was a bad as you think, you would be dead.
Bill Bonde
Eric da Red wrote:
>
> In article <41B7818D...@backpacker.com>,
> Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Eric da Red wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
> >> >> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> ...
> >> >> >We are in a phase of military
> >> >> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> >> >> >those vehicles from being blown up.
> >> >>
> >> >> "invariably stop" and "reduce risk" are two different things. The
> >> >> former is not attainable, the latter is.
> >> >>
> >> >More armour is possible,
> >>
> >> That's true. Stop now, while you're still right.
> >>
> >Armour is heavy and armour can't stop all attacks.
>
> One more time, slowly.
>
> We. Aren't. Talking. About. Stopping. All. Attacks.
>
The armour is a trade off. I keep trying to explain this to you. It's
also very new. I keep explaining this to you. You seem deaf in both
ears. Maybe Braille?
> >> >the problem though is that no matter how much
> >> >armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it.
> >>
> >> A large part of soldiering, not to mention decision making in Real
> >> Life, involves risk reduction.
> >>
> >I agree with that but the armour vs mobility trade off has been made for
> >centuries.
>
> The trade-off was decided in favor of armor in Iraq War II. At
> least, that's what the White House and the Pentagon said.
> Unfortunately, they didn't live up to their promises.
>
The technology is brand new and they haven't built it yet.
> Now, the soldiers get to hear Rummy tell them to sit down and shut
> up.
>
> >Take a look at the knights in the Middle Ages. Knights
> >without foot are very vulnerable. Armour without foot soldiers are
> >similarly vulnerable.
> >
> >> Improving the armor on vehicles reduces risk to the soldiers. It
> >> increases their chance of survival.
> >>
> >Another option is to put them outside the vehicle where they can see
> >better and can take cover.
>
> And get shot.
>
Get shot with an AK-47 which is a different situation than a roadside
bomb.
> Do you have any idea why the troops are riding around Iraq in
> Humvees?
>
The Humvee is the main light vehicle for the military, replacing the
jeep. It was never intended to take on anti-tank weapons.
> >We are in a position where body armour is
> >gaining in effectiveness and can stop or mitigate many types of attack.
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot, there's a shortage of body armor too.
>
It's a new technology. Those in areas with a lot of insurgent activity
have body armour.
> >> Some troops will still get killed by roadside bombs and small
> >> missiles, but more will survive.
> >>
> >Can Humvees be protected from roadside bombs? If an APC can be breached,
> >I doubt you can protect a Humvee.
>
> You can increase the probability of the troops surviving attacks.
>
Not necessarily. Mobility and situational awareness are traded off as
you increase armour. Look at a guy in a tank. He has to have infantry
around him or he is a sitting duck.
> Not that you or Rummy care. More dead troops means more soldiers'
> graves you and Rummy can dance on.
>
> >> Sane military planners think that fairly small expenditures that
> >> measurably improve the survival rate of their troops is a good
> >> policy. You and Rummy have a different set of priorities.
> >>
> >Rumsfeld said that armour manufacturers were making the armour as
> >rapidly as is humanly possible. What more do you want?
>
> The truth.
>
> And a Secretary of Defense who is not a clueless hack.
>
He's a great Secretary of Defense and is trying to move the military
forward.
Bill Bonde
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > "chris.holt" wrote:
> >>Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> >>>There was less justification for what Clinton did than what Bush did.
>
> >>You can either talk about international law, about
> >>treaties, or about people. In terms of people, Clinton
> >>didn't directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands
> >>of them.
>
> > He ordered the dropping of thousands of bombs from 40,000 feet on
> > targets that included the Chinese embassy. He had no UN resolution
> > backing his decision to use military force.
>
> Quite so, which is why I say below that I don't think
> he did the right thing. But that's not the same as
> directly causing the deaths of tens of thousands of
> people.
>
Thousands of bombs dropped in 40,000 feet did exactly what? That's what
you are blaming on Bush in Iraq.
> If you've seen estimates that that was the
> level of mayhem, I'd like to see them; I could be
> misremembering.
>
I think Bush's 2003 Iraq war had major combat over more quickly than
Clinton's bombing the hell out of the Balkans.
> >>I don't think he did the right thing, but
> >>I don't think his actions were as egregious either.
>
> > Bush's actions in Iraq are part of something that could save the Middle
> > East, remake it as democracy, peaceful and prosperous nation-states.
>
> They are also something that could turn it into a
> bloodbath, with more tens or hundreds of thousands
> of people killed. Since Bush seems to be following
> the Sharon approach, I'm not hopeful.
>
Or maybe it will be millions dead. Of course Bush lifts a finger and
hundreds of thousand die, Saddam is in power killing for decades and
it's just a few hundred.
> > Compare that to Clinton's bombing of Iraq which accomplished nothing.
> > How many people died in the Clinton light show?
>
> From the bombing? Not too many; it was elder Bush who
> caused the real casualties. Indirectly, via the
> sanctions?
>
So you'd drop sanctions? Sanctions are the Liberal solution so we won't
use force. Sanctions were not on food or medicine. The oil for food
programme was in full swing. France and Saddam stole the money and the
people starved, you blame Bush. What kind of cracked thinking is that?
> Quite a number, which is why I criticize
> the policy. FWIW, I also criticize the policy
> concerning Cuba, which has been followed by Democrat
> and Republican alike, for much the same reasons.
>
You mean sanctions? How about South Africa?
> >>>>If you're going to go back in time, how would you compare
> >>>>it to what happened in Vietnam?
>
> >>>It's no match for that either.
>
> >>Think of where the US was around 1964 or so.
>
> > Why do you try to relive Vietnam?
>
> Because I don't want to forget history, and I
>
Trying to claim anything you don't like is Vietnam is absurd.
> don't want to have to relive it. How many lives
> would have been saved if the US had pulled out
> of Vietnam in 1964? When you're waist-deep in
> the Big Muddy, you don't want a big fool telling
> you to push on.
>
Go back to my dozen reasons for the 2003 war in Iraq. One of those
reasons is to show people like bin Laden that the US will not back down
because we took a few casualties. He's sure that we will back down
because we've done it so many times before.
> > The US wants all Iraqis to form a
> > democracy and be represented.
>
> That's not what they said a year and a half ago,
> after the mission was accomplished. When they
> had vast amounts of public good will, they did
> sweet f.a. to facilitate immediate elections.
> Hence the accusations of hypocrisy.
>
I have no idea what you are talking about. The efforts to rebuild Iraq
and get a representative government in place started right away.
Elections have been delayed because you insurgents keep blowing things
up.
> > If we'd found a way to do that in Vietnam,
> > it would not have been what it turned out to be.
>
> Since the US colluded in preventing a democracy
> in Vietnam, it's not surprising they didn't manage
> to find a way to do that.
>
> >>>The US is hypercarful in Iraq and it's
> >>>being told it is a genociding monster.
>
> >>It's not hypercareful, but it's not being accused
> >>of genocide either. It's accused of causing the deaths
> >>of tens of thousands of innocent people.
>
> > What are you talking about? The US is feeding millions of people in
> > Iraq, building their infrastructure, helping them create a democracy.
> > The US is not indiscriminately killing people.
>
> The US is feeding people who would otherwise have
> been feeding themselves.
>
Since the ability to feed themselves in Iraq has not been degraded by
the war, you are wrong.
> The US is building an
> infrastructure that the US first destroyed. The
>
That's just a lie. The US didn't destroy the infrastructure in Iraq in
2003. Saddam had things bombed since 1991 and didn't repair and keep
things up elsewhere.
> US is helping them build a democracy only so long
> as the vote turns out the way the US wants. The
> US is not indiscriminately killing people, but it's
> killing large numbers of people nevertheless.
>
Prove it. And I mean civilians, not insurgents. We should be killing the
insurgents.
> >>>Meanwhile, Russia gets a pass,
> >>>Clinton gets a pass, France gets a pass in Ivory Coast.
>
> >>I haven't seen Russia get a pass, except from politicians
> >>who want to deal in oil. Clinton often gets a pass, but
> >>I've seen a lot of people criticize him who are on the
> >>left. France largely gets a pass because they were passive
> >>rather than actively killing lots of people; but I've seen
> >>a fair amout of criticism there as well.
>
> > Not going into Iraq was passively killing Iraqis.
>
> That doesn't justify going into Iraq and actively killing
> even more Iraqis.
>
Don't all lives matter the same, at least all innocent lives? Passively
letting people die is the same as actively killing them, isn't it?
> >>>Clinton said he could not attack bin Laden near the election and during
> >>>the end of his 2nd term since that should be a job for the next
> >>>president.
>
> >>You may remember that there was a certain amount of
> >>political opposition from Congress at the time, and
> >>that it wasn't seen to be an immediate threat. Of
>
> > It was Clinton's responsibility to make us understand what the threat
> > was, he was president.
>
> This is ridiculous. He said he hadn't done anything
> wrong with Whitewater, and his political opponents
> refused to believe him.
>
Because he's a liar.
> You might remember that
> the investigations didn't find any reason to
> disbelieve him.
>
You might remember that Mrs McDoogle spent a few years in prison and her
ex-husband mysteriously died, these were the direct witnesses to the
Clinton crimes.
> How do you convince enemies who
> have their hands over their ears?
>
Clinton never mentioned it. Clinton's hand picked successor, who was
there the entire time Clinton was president, Al Gore, didn't make
terrorism a theme for the 2000 campaign. Why not?
> > No one in Congress opposed dealing with bin
> > Laden.
>
> Of course they did; they didn't see bin Laden as a
> threat, and thought Clinton was trying to wiggle out.
>
What planet are you on? No one opposed dealing a death blow to bin
Laden.
> > Clinton's wag the dog bullshit, that was right out.
>
> So if Clinton had said "Look, this is a guy who might
> take down the World Trade Center", you think he would
> have been taken seriously?
>
He might've pointed out that this was the guy who ordered the first
attempt to take down the WTC.
> If so, you're misremembering
> the acrimony of the time.
>
Whatever you think the reaction would've been, why didn't Clinton even
bother to try? He seemed to have the extra time for phone sex with
Monica.
> >>course, when he told Bush that bin Laden was a serious
> >>problem, he was ignored.
>
> > If bin Laden was a serious problem warranting the new administration
> > just do what the previous one said, more than shades of the Bay of Pigs
> > mind you, then why didn't the previous administration, in both cases, do
> > those things they felt needed doing?
>
> Well, some people think that evidence is helpful if you
> want to get other people on board. Don't worry, I know
> Bush doesn't.
>
How about answering the question? Why didn't Clinton do the things that
he thought Bush should do within hours, it seems, of taking office?
> > I know the answer, they were too
> > scared, too weak and too unable to make a decision so they pawned it off
> > on the next guy, the new guy.
>
> If you remember, it was quite likely to be Gore; and he
> was very into anti-terrorism. Everyone thought that the
> Republicans would be even more so; they didn't think that
> Bush would just walk away from it.
>
What are you talking about?
> >>>>>>If Saddam would have killed a couple of hundred people while
> >>>>>>the US killed tens of thousands and destroyed the infrastructure
> >>>>>>of the country, I invite you to display your own moral calculus.
>
> >>>>>Saddam caused the deaths of millions of people. Wrap your head round
> >>>>>that.
>
> >>>>You're not very good at tenses, are you.
>
> >>>I'm fine with tense/aspect.
>
> >>Then you understand that 'would' does not generally refer to
> >>the past tense.
>
> > On what planet do you claim that Saddam only killed a few hundred a
> > year?
>
> On the planet that looks at what was going on for the five
> years previous to the US invasion, and doesn't use misleading
> statistics about what happened when the US was supporting
> Saddam's large-scale killings.
>
The US never supported Saddam's large-scale killings. You can't find
weapons in Iraq made by the US that aren't there because the US brought
them there to kick Saddam's ass. Compare that to weapons made by France.
Larry Hewitt
"Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:41B92975...@mail.com...
>
>
> Eric da Red wrote:
> >
> > In article <41B7818D...@backpacker.com>,
> > Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >Eric da Red wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can
[still] be
> > >> >> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> > ...
> > >> >> >We are in a phase of military
> > >> >> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably
stop
> > >> >> >those vehicles from being blown up.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "invariably stop" and "reduce risk" are two different things. The
> > >> >> former is not attainable, the latter is.
> > >> >>
> > >> >More armour is possible,
> > >>
> > >> That's true. Stop now, while you're still right.
> > >>
> > >Armour is heavy and armour can't stop all attacks.
> >
> > One more time, slowly.
> >
> > We. Aren't. Talking. About. Stopping. All. Attacks.
> >
> The armour is a trade off. I keep trying to explain this to you. It's
> also very new. I keep explaining this to you. You seem deaf in both
> ears. Maybe Braille?
>
>
Trade off?? Bodies for votes??
>
> > >> >the problem though is that no matter how much
> > >> >armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it.
> > >>
> > >> A large part of soldiering, not to mention decision making in Real
> > >> Life, involves risk reduction.
> > >>
> > >I agree with that but the armour vs mobility trade off has been made
for
> > >centuries.
> >
> > The trade-off was decided in favor of armor in Iraq War II. At
> > least, that's what the White House and the Pentagon said.
> > Unfortunately, they didn't live up to their promises.
> >
> The technology is brand new and they haven't built it yet.
>
>
The technology is not brand new. In fact, many parents of GI's are buying
body armor retail and shipping it ot Iraq.
And the humvee armor is not new, either. In fact, the manufacturer says tey
have been producing it for quite a whiole, and that increased orders for
armored humvees has even brought the cost down. Armor Holdings, Inc, the
manufacturer, even calims they can increase production by as much as 22%
without retooling, if they got the orders. Seems like the army isonly
oredering armired humvees at the reate of about 400 a month, and has placed
no orders for armor upgrade kits.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aMGdbQCSwiRg&refer=home
>
> > Now, the soldiers get to hear Rummy tell them to sit down and shut
> > up.
> >
> > >Take a look at the knights in the Middle Ages. Knights
> > >without foot are very vulnerable. Armour without foot soldiers are
> > >similarly vulnerable.
> > >
> > >> Improving the armor on vehicles reduces risk to the soldiers. It
> > >> increases their chance of survival.
> > >>
> > >Another option is to put them outside the vehicle where they can see
> > >better and can take cover.
> >
> > And get shot.
> >
> Get shot with an AK-47 which is a different situation than a roadside
> bomb.
>
So what difference does it make if an AK47 ro0und kills a soldier by
piercing inadequate body armor or an IED kills the soldier by piercing
inadeauate humvee armor??
>
>
> > Do you have any idea why the troops are riding around Iraq in
> > Humvees?
> >
> The Humvee is the main light vehicle for the military, replacing the
> jeep. It was never intended to take on anti-tank weapons.
>
>
It isn't. It is IEDs that are killing our troops. Car bombs.
> > >We are in a position where body armour is
> > >gaining in effectiveness and can stop or mitigate many types of attack.
> >
> > Oh yeah, I forgot, there's a shortage of body armor too.
> >
> It's a new technology. Those in areas with a lot of insurgent activity
> have body armour.
>
>
No, it isn't. it has been around for years. The pentagon just doesn't want
to pay for it.
>
> > >> Some troops will still get killed by roadside bombs and small
> > >> missiles, but more will survive.
> > >>
> > >Can Humvees be protected from roadside bombs? If an APC can be
breached,
> > >I doubt you can protect a Humvee.
> >
> > You can increase the probability of the troops surviving attacks.
> >
> Not necessarily. Mobility and situational awareness are traded off as
> you increase armour. Look at a guy in a tank. He has to have infantry
> around him or he is a sitting duck.
>
>
It is impossibl;e to be mobile on a crowded city street. It is impossible
for mobility to be used to avoid an IED or mine triggered to go off as a
uhmvee passes. Your excuse making for the criminals is getting strained.
>
> > Not that you or Rummy care. More dead troops means more soldiers'
> > graves you and Rummy can dance on.
> >
> > >> Sane military planners think that fairly small expenditures that
> > >> measurably improve the survival rate of their troops is a good
> > >> policy. You and Rummy have a different set of priorities.
> > >>
> > >Rumsfeld said that armour manufacturers were making the armour as
> > >rapidly as is humanly possible. What more do you want?
> >
> > The truth.
> >
> > And a Secretary of Defense who is not a clueless hack.
> >
> He's a great Secretary of Defense and is trying to move the military
> forward.
>
Forward into the grave
Larry
>
> --
> Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of
> his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy
> neutral delight in things as they were-an outpouring of his young
Rich Travsky
>
> Croatoan wrote:
> >
> > In article <41B76720...@backpacker.com>,> > > Sid9 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) wrote:
> > > > > Skymodem wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> > > > >> news:41B74EA0...@backpacker.com...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Tim FaROW wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> This one really gets me:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> [still] be blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Rumsfeld is exactly right again. We are in a phase of military
> > > > >>> development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> > > > >>> those vehicles from being blown up.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Fuck you soldier, you're under arrest for questioning the authority
> > > > >> of the American Empire.".
> > > > >>
> > > > > No, I will only support him if I agree with him. My views on vehicle
> > > > > armour have been repeatedly and consistently stated online.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> We are also in a "phase of military development" that is
> > > > >> looking more and more like Vietnam.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > When you consider the amount of the US defense budget
> > > > you might wonder why they don't have goldplated Humvees
> > > >
> > > I don't believe there is anything you can do to a vehicle the size of a
> > > Humvee to stop anti-tank mines or improvised roadside bombs from hurting
> > > or killing the occupants.
> >
> > will not save all of them, but it might save more.
> >
> This armour did not exist in the 1991 Gulf War. American troops didn't
> generally even use body armour back then. This is all new.
Bullshit.
http://www.usmc.mil/images.nsf/0/8b6f707ec53a39b48525667f007af0d9?OpenDocument
Photo Information:
HMM-268/CH-46E on USS New Orleans(LPH-11). Aircrew wearing body armor and
awaiting amphibious mission for the Gulf War-prior to the ground war. Early
1991 in Persian Gulf.
http://www.camelbak.com/mil/news.cfm?news_id=50
...
Soldiers have long had body armor, but improvements in materials in the past
decade have lightened the load. The new version weighs about 16 pounds, down
from about 26 pounds in the 1991 Gulf War.
...
http://www.camelbak.com/mil/news.cfm?news_id=53
...
New body armor, known as the Interceptor, uses both Kevlar fabric and ceramic
plates slipped into a harness. Interceptor is heavy-16 pounds-but it stops
rifle bullets. During Desert Storm, troops' vests could stop only shrapnel
and pistol shots.
...
http://www.specwargear.com/vest.html
...
Tactical Floatation Vest
Tactical floatation vest. It has inner floatation panels, 3 M-16 magazine
pouches, radio pouch, equipment attachment bars and 4 buckles for backpack
attachment. It was used by US Navy SEALs during gulf war period.
...
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/fisher_ii/
Reported Mustard Exposure Operation Desert Storm
(from there follow titled "b. Tests of Coveralls and Flak Jacket"
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/fisher_ii/fisher_ii_s04.htm#b.%20%20Tests%20of%20Coveralls%20and%20Flak%20Jacket
...
Over three days, Fox vehicle MM-1s twice tested PFC Fisher’s clothing and
flak jacket: on March 2, 1991, one Fox vehicle crew tested his coveralls,
and on March 4, 1991, two Fox crews working simultaneously examined the
flak jacket.
...
Feel free to find something to back up your claim "American troops didn't
generally even use body armour back then"...
> > I know you are not for allowing soldiers to die because we were cheap.
> >
> I don't see how we can make the armour faster than humanly possible.
Troops and their families are buying on their own - doesn't that suggest to
you the armor IS there???
> > so why do you not want soldier to have armor for protecting them from
> > RPG's?
> >
> I don't think that armour will protect a soldier in a Humvee from an RPG
> hit.
Why the hell do you think they ARE trying to get them armored? DUH?
http://www.postherald.com/me112404.shtml
...
Some Humvees have armor that can withstand a rocket-propelled grenade, but
many have no armor, no doors and no top, Lucas said. If the military has
the money, Lucas said, it should absolutely invest in more armored vehicles.
"Some vehicles are fully armored almost like tanks," he said. "I've seen one
take an RPG. If they can take that and keep going, that's what you need."
...
Feel free to back up your mouth that armor WON'T help - you frickin' moron...
RT
Jorge W Arbusto
"Bull Dyke Blondie" <dumbb...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:41B8C6D8...@mail.com...
>
>
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde wrote:
>> > "chris.holt" wrote:
>> >>Bill Bonde wrote:
>>
>> >>>What are you talking about? US efforts in Iraq are no different from
>> >>>the
>> >>>Balkans or the 1991 Gulf War.
>>
>> >>I'm afraid they are.
>>
>> > There was less justification for what Clinton did than what Bush did.
>>
>> You can either talk about international law, about
>> treaties, or about people. In terms of people, Clinton
>> didn't directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands
>> of them.
>>
> He ordered the dropping of thousands of bombs from 40,000 feet on
> targets that included the Chinese embassy. He had no UN resolution
> backing his decision to use military force.
>
DIDN'T NEED A UN RESOLUTION.
We were in the Balkans at the request of NATO. Educate yourself, Blondie:
www.nato.int
The Shrub invaded Iraq unilaterally, while the chickenshits in Congress
washed their hands of the whole affair, by unconstitutionally giving the
executive branch the power to go to war.
chris.holt
Nations Peacekeeping Force should be deployed to Iraq under the auspices
of the U.N. General Assembly (not the U.S. co-opted U.N. Security
Council) pursuant to its powers under the Uniting for Peace Resolution
(1950). The U.S. and U.K. aggressor military occupation forces should be
removed immediately from Iraq. This is exactly what happened in the 1956
Middle East "war" when the U.N. General Assembly deployed the United
Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to the Sinai in order to facilitate the
withdrawal of aggressor military forces by the United Kingdom, France
and Israel that had illegally attacked and invaded Egypt in their joint
and severable Nuremberg Crime against Peace for the purpose of
inflicting "regime change" against Egyptian President Nasser.62
The Bush Jr. pro-consul in Iraq Paul Bremer and his Iraqi puppet council
under the pro-Israeli Chicago Straussian Neo-Con CIA asset Chalabi
should be replaced by a U.N. Transitional Authority reporting directly
to the U.N. Trusteeship Council (not the U.S. co-opted U.N. Security
Council) in accordance with Chapter XIII of the U.N. Charter. The Iraqi
People can then proceed to exercise their international legal right to
self-determination for themselves in order to decide thei
Bill Bonde
in those plots, thereby ignoring the abundant evidence unearthed
by the Church Committee which says he had none. Nevertheless,
Kelley and Exner will now exhume the hidden history of those
times for People. Let's examine their excavation.
Exner says that Kennedy needed help in West Virginia in the 1960
primary. So her first secret assignment for Kennedy was to
arrange a meeting with "Sam Flood" for JFK. (By a coincidence,
Kennedy also knew Giancana by the very same alias that Exner did,
even though he had fifteen others.) After the meeting, with Exner
waiting outside, Kennedy emerged beaming. He was so exuberant he
wanted to pay for a mink coat for his girl. And of course, he won
the election. On the heels of this success, Exner arranged
another meeting between Kennedy and Giancana. (In an insider
aside, Exner assures us that Giancana called the president
"Jack"). In the ensuing exchanges of sealed envelopes between the
two, Exner didn't open any of them. In another aside, Kennedy
cutely tells her, "Don't let him [Giancana] turn your head."
Later, JFK wanted meetings with Roselli too. After a series of
these, the meetings stopped. Retroactively, Exner finally
realized that, unbeknownst to her, she was arranging the plots to
kill Castro.
The trusting Kelley never seemed curious enough to ask the
skeptical questions that any researcher would pose. For instance,
the Kennedy family's worth at that time was estimated to be
between 400 and 600 million. With that kind of money, why would
they need someone like Giancana to buy a state as spars
chris.holt
investigation. The HSCA had found too much corroborating evidence
supporting Jim Garrison's allegations about certain people
involved with Oswald in the summer of 1963. One of these
witnesses described elements of a conspiracy in New Orleans which
included David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. He also said that Shaw knew
Ruby. He then passed a polygraph with flying colors. That was
enough for Blakey. He switched investigating teams. Some of the
people Blakey brought in knew nothing about New Orleans: they
were actually pulled off the Martin Luther King side of the HSCA.
The man brought in to actually bury Garrison was Ewing. Two of
the people Ewing consulted with before dismissing Garrison were
Bill Gurvich and Aaron Kohn, two men strongly connected to the
FBI and whose credibility on Garrison is quite suspect.
At the beginning of his project, Hersh declared that Ewing had
"an I.Q. of about 800 and government documents coming out of his
ears." (Anson p. 120) It is questionable whether Hersh was ever
going to do a book about the Kennedy murder. But if he was, Ewing
would give him several advantages: 1) He was anti-Garrison. As
has been shown by Summers, Davis, and David Scheim, being anti-
Garrison is always a plus for media exposure. 2) If they found a
conspiracy, Ewing's history would guarantee it would be mob-
oriented. Another plus for media exposure. 3) As Anson reveals,
Ewing has now broadened his character assassination talents from
Garrison to the Kennedys (p. 110). Like John Davis, and against
the record, Ewing believes RFK was not only in on the Castro
plots but controlled them to the point of choosing which mobsters
to use. His source on this? A "senior CIA official" (Anson p.
115). Did Ewing follow the Davis example and l
Jorge W Arbusto
hated most in life and can now revile in death. There is
something Orwellian about this of course.
The converse of this thesis is also true. The voices the Kennedys
symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on
never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the
weak, minorities, and the left's intelligentsia must not be
unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties,
on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members
in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.) The image
of JFK on national television giving hell to the steel companies;
of Kennedy staking out his policy for detente at American
University; of RFK grilling Sam Giancana and Jimmy Hoffa; of
Bobby going through the personnel list at the State Department to
be sure there was no Dulles still on the payroll; these images
have to be erased. Most of all, the RFK of 1965-68 witgry at the
perversion of his brother's policies, must be subverted. Who of
the elite would want people to remember RFK saying these words:
What the Alliance for Progress has come down to then is that
[the native rulers] can close down newspapers, abolish
Congress, fail religious opposition, and deport your
political enemies, and you'll get lots of help, but if you
fool around with a U.S. oil company, we'll cut you off
without a penny. Is that right?
It was no day at the beach answering that kind of question with
Bobby staring a hole through you.
By 1963, after the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis and the cries
for escalation in Vietnam, Kennedy was moving toward the Sorenson-
Schlesinger side of the White House. By 1968, RFK was further to
the left than that, being hooked up with labor leaders like
Walter Reuther and Cesar Chavez. As Otis Chandler, a
Bill Bonde
enumerate the overseas holdings of the family but, suffice it to
say, the Kennedys weren't in the same league in that category.
JFK knew this. As Mort Sahl relates, before the 1960 election, he
liked to kid Kennedy about being the scion of a multimillionaire.
Kennedy cornered him once on this topic and asked him point blank
how much he thought his family was worth. Sahl replied, "Probably
about three or four hundred million." Kennedy then asked him how
much he thought the Rockefellers were worth. Sahl said he had no
idea. Kennedy replied sharply, "Try about four billion." JFK let
the number sink in and then added, "Now that's money, Mort."
Throughout the book, Davis tries to convey the feeling of a
destined royalty assuming power. So, according to Davis, Kennedy
was thinking of the Senate when he was first elected to the
House. Then, from his first day in the Senate, he was thinking of
the Vice-Presidency (p. 147). Epitomizing this idea, Davis
relates a personal vignette about the Kennedy family wake after
JFK's funeral. Davis, a cousin of Jackie Kennedy, was leaving the
hall and paused to shake hands with Rose Kennedy to offe
Bill Bonde
You are lying again. The armour didn't exist in 1991. Flack jackets have
existed since at least WWII.
>
> Feel free to find something to back up your claim "American troops didn't
> generally even use body armour back then"...
>
American troops generally didn't use body armour in the 1991 Gulf War.
> > > I know you are not for allowing soldiers to die because we were cheap.
> > >
> > I don't see how we can make the armour faster than humanly possible.
>
> Troops and their families are buying on their own - doesn't that suggest to
> you the armor IS there???
>
They have body armour now. Stop lying. Now you kooks are complaining
about Humvee armour and then it's armour on trucks.
> > > so why do you not want soldier to have armor for protecting them from
> > > RPG's?
> > >
> > I don't think that armour will protect a soldier in a Humvee from an RPG
> > hit.
>
> Why the hell do you think they ARE trying to get them armored? DUH?
>
It won't stop an antitank round. That's what I just said.
> http://www.postherald.com/me112404.shtml
> ...
> Some Humvees have armor that can withstand a rocket-propelled grenade, but
> many have no armor, no doors and no top, Lucas said.
>
Why don't they have doors or a top? Because the rule was to get out of
the vehicle and take cover because ARMOUR DID NOT EXIST. Look at jeeps
in the Korean War, for example.
> If the military has
> the money, Lucas said, it should absolutely invest in more armored vehicles.
>
This is something that has been in debate for years.
> "Some vehicles are fully armored almost like tanks," he said. "I've seen one
> take an RPG. If they can take that and keep going, that's what you need."
> ...
>
So now a Humvee is a tank? Main battle tanks, M1A2 for example, weigh
something like 60 tons. One of these was flipped over by a roadside
bomb. Think about that.
> Feel free to back up your mouth that armor WON'T help - you frickin' moron...
>
I didn't say that armour wouldn't help.
--
Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of
his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy
neutral delight in things as they were—an outpouring of his young
Bill Bonde
Have you looked at the armour that is being ad hoc added to the Humvees?
There is certainly a trade off in situational awareness going on.
> >
> > > >> >the problem though is that no matter how much
> > > >> >armour you have, the other side has something that can pierce it.
> > > >>
> > > >> A large part of soldiering, not to mention decision making in Real
> > > >> Life, involves risk reduction.
> > > >>
> > > >I agree with that but the armour vs mobility trade off has been made
> for
> > > >centuries.
> > >
> > > The trade-off was decided in favor of armor in Iraq War II. At
> > > least, that's what the White House and the Pentagon said.
> > > Unfortunately, they didn't live up to their promises.
> > >
> > The technology is brand new and they haven't built it yet.
> >
> >
>
> The technology is not brand new. In fact, many parents of GI's are buying
> body armor retail and shipping it ot Iraq.
>
Combat soldiers have body armour.
> And the humvee armor is not new, either. In fact, the manufacturer says tey
> have been producing it for quite a whiole,
>
I think the numbers on the Newshour tonight were about 230 armoured
Humvees in 2003. That's not very many. They now have thousands,
producing hundreds a month.
> and that increased orders for
> armored humvees has even brought the cost down. Armor Holdings, Inc, the
> manufacturer, even calims they can increase production by as much as 22%
> without retooling, if they got the orders. Seems like the army isonly
> oredering armired humvees at the reate of about 400 a month, and has placed
> no orders for armor upgrade kits.
>
They are producing upgrade kits, that's what was reported tonight on
PBS.
>
> >
> > > Now, the soldiers get to hear Rummy tell them to sit down and shut
> > > up.
> > >
> > > >Take a look at the knights in the Middle Ages. Knights
> > > >without foot are very vulnerable. Armour without foot soldiers are
> > > >similarly vulnerable.
> > > >
> > > >> Improving the armor on vehicles reduces risk to the soldiers. It
> > > >> increases their chance of survival.
> > > >>
> > > >Another option is to put them outside the vehicle where they can see
> > > >better and can take cover.
> > >
> > > And get shot.
> > >
> > Get shot with an AK-47 which is a different situation than a roadside
> > bomb.
> >
>
> So what difference does it make if an AK47 ro0und kills a soldier by
> piercing inadequate body armor or an IED kills the soldier by piercing
> inadeauate humvee armor??
>
If you are dead, I guess no difference. I think though that we can
protect your life and limbs mostly from an AK-47. I don't know if armour
can protect against IEDs because they can grow to whatever size is
needed to breach whatever armour you come up with. You can make it
harder for the enemy but there are always vulnerabilities.
> >
> >
> > > Do you have any idea why the troops are riding around Iraq in
> > > Humvees?
> > >
> > The Humvee is the main light vehicle for the military, replacing the
> > jeep. It was never intended to take on anti-tank weapons.
> >
> >
>
> It isn't. It is IEDs that are killing our troops. Car bombs.
>
IEDs have flipped M1 tanks. We are talking about big bombs.
> > > >We are in a position where body armour is
> > > >gaining in effectiveness and can stop or mitigate many types of attack.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, I forgot, there's a shortage of body armor too.
> > >
> > It's a new technology. Those in areas with a lot of insurgent activity
> > have body armour.
> >
> >
>
> No, it isn't. it has been around for years. The pentagon just doesn't want
> to pay for it.
>
Bullshit.
> >
> > > >> Some troops will still get killed by roadside bombs and small
> > > >> missiles, but more will survive.
> > > >>
> > > >Can Humvees be protected from roadside bombs? If an APC can be
> breached,
> > > >I doubt you can protect a Humvee.
> > >
> > > You can increase the probability of the troops surviving attacks.
> > >
> > Not necessarily. Mobility and situational awareness are traded off as
> > you increase armour. Look at a guy in a tank. He has to have infantry
> > around him or he is a sitting duck.
> >
> >
>
> It is impossibl;e to be mobile on a crowded city street. It is impossible
> for mobility to be used to avoid an IED or mine triggered to go off as a
> uhmvee passes. Your excuse making for the criminals is getting strained.
>
One advantage of mobility is that you can pick a different path putting
the attackers off guard.
> >
> > > Not that you or Rummy care. More dead troops means more soldiers'
> > > graves you and Rummy can dance on.
> > >
> > > >> Sane military planners think that fairly small expenditures that
> > > >> measurably improve the survival rate of their troops is a good
> > > >> policy. You and Rummy have a different set of priorities.
> > > >>
> > > >Rumsfeld said that armour manufacturers were making the armour as
> > > >rapidly as is humanly possible. What more do you want?
> > >
> > > The truth.
> > >
> > > And a Secretary of Defense who is not a clueless hack.
> > >
> > He's a great Secretary of Defense and is trying to move the military
> > forward.
> >
>
> Forward into the grave
>
Forward into the future of warfare.
--
Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of
his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy
neutral delight in things as they were—an outpouring of his young
Bill Bonde
What could possibly be wrong with having business ties with Saudi
Arabians?
> Saudi Arabia is controlled by repressive anti-democratic Islamic extremists
> who sponsor terrorism: 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked the US on 9/11/01
> were Saudis.
>
> So when do we invade Saudi Arabia?
>
Why would we want to do that? How could we invade Mecca without setting
off the entire Islamic world?
A Brick in the Wall
If you you are a Bush -- nothing to them---
If you had a family member die on 9/11 --- maybe a lot.
>
>
>> Saudi Arabia is controlled by repressive anti-democratic Islamic
>> extremists
>> who sponsor terrorism: 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked the US on
>> 9/11/01
>> were Saudis.
>>
>> So when do we invade Saudi Arabia?
>>
> Why would we want to do that? How could we invade Mecca without setting
> off the entire Islamic world?
>
>
>
> --
> Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of
> his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy
> neutral delight in things as they were-an outpouring of his young
Rich Travsky
>
> >
> > Ref at
> >
> > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
> >
> > CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
> > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> > armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
> > from the Pentagon chief.
> >
> > "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> > airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
> >
> Rumsfeld is correct.
No, he's not. In the first place there was no need to go to war. And the current
screwup of Chimpoleon's is that they blew it expecting to be greated with
hugs and kisses.
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> news:41B73E5E...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Ref at
> > >
> > > http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/wire/041208d.asp
> > >
> > > CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to
> > > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of
> > > armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort
> > > from the Pentagon chief.
> > >
> > > "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public
> > > airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
> > >
> > Rumsfeld is correct.
> >
>
> war with the Army you have when you don't plan sufficiently for a prolonged
> insurgent engagement and expect to be greeted like liberators with flowers"
Bingo.
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> Tim FaROW wrote:
> >
> > This one really gets me:
> >
> > blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> >
> >
> Rumsfeld is exactly right again. We are in a phase of military
> development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> those vehicles from being blown up.
You're just as big an idiot as Dumbsfeld.
More armor can *save* lives and injuries.
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> Tim FaROW wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> plan to deal with the sort of threats it is likely to face in the 21st
> century? The answer is clearly: Bill Clinton.
Ah, the rightard's excuse: blame it on someone else, preferably Clinton.
Clue for Billie Bonghit: Chickenhawk Cheney's Peace Dividend...
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> In article <41B74EA0...@backpacker.com>,
> Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >Tim FaROW wrote:
> >>
> >> This one really gets me:
> >>
> >> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can [still] be
> >> blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> >>
> >> What a dumbfuck.
> >>
> >Rumsfeld is exactly right again.
>
>
> >We are in a phase of military
> >development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably stop
> >those vehicles from being blown up.
>
> former is not attainable, the latter is.
>
> quotation.
That's only because he doesn't understand the difference...
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> Sid9 wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) wrote:
> > > Sid9 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) wrote:
> > >>> Skymodem wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> > >>>> news:41B74EA0...@backpacker.com...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Tim FaROW wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This one really gets me:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and it can
> > >>>>>> [still] be blown up," Mr Rumsfeld said.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> What a dumbfuck.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> development where armour on vehicles is not going to invariably
> > >>>>> stop those vehicles from being blown up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Fuck you soldier, you're under arrest for questioning the
> > >>>> authority of the American Empire.".
> > >>>>
> > >>> No, I will only support him if I agree with him. My views on vehicle
> > >>> armour have been repeatedly and consistently stated online.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> We are also in a "phase of military development" that is
> > >>>> looking more and more like Vietnam.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Nope.
> > >>
> > >> When you consider the amount of the US defense budget
> > >> you might wonder why they don't have goldplated Humvees
> > >>
> > > I don't believe there is anything you can do to a vehicle the size of
> > > a Humvee to stop anti-tank mines or improvised roadside bombs from
> > > avoid the bombs in the first place, not have people in the vehicles,
> > > or put people in differently designed vehicles. I've been wondering
> > > about putting the troops guarding the convoy on the roof of the
> > > trailers, using the sort of trailers that are used to haul goods in
> > > civilian life. This would put them as far away from the bombs as
> > > possible. We could reduce the number of drivers by using the triple
> > > trailer configurations popular in Australia.
> >
> > The Bush administration could have not rushed into war
> >
> There was no more time to waste.
What was the rush? As far as that goes, why did Iraq need invading???
RT