Hundreds of Marines dead and wounded because Adminstration dropped ball on Armour

[nibor]

You want it that way, try THIS ...

How long does it take the latest-greatest stuff to trickle down from procurement to actual issue? During my 20 years, it took about 4 years for new stuff to hit, and about 4 years during the 90s for the stuff we had to fall apart.

So WHO exactly would be responsible for troops deploying in 2001 with what they had?

BTW... the body armor was just fine for us.

I WANT IT THAT WAY....................WTF kind of answer is that...............who exactly was it that dismantled and deconstructed our military...............ME??????????


Get real Gunny......................

 

[jillian]

The commander in chief has utmost responsibility of making sure that we are ready to go to war before sending us to war. It would not have taken much time or trouble at all for him to consult with the armory, defense department, generals, etc. and make sure that everything is ready.

Should the people of the United States be responsible for electing a leader that has failed like you said?[/QUOTE]

Well, I'd be embarrassed to have voted for him. But that's neither here nor there. I think we all know that at least part of the problem was Rummy's refusing to respect the military command. He wanted to subjugate their will to the civilian leadership and not only didn't listen to them, but overrode them and did the war on the cheap instead of listening to the military people.

I disagree with this war, but if it was going to be done, then they should have done it right.

 

[DeadCanDance]

If we want the Iraq war to continue, we need to start drafting people to relieve the unbelievable stress on soldiers, and get rid of the Bush tax cuts to pay for more armour and better equipement in a timely manner.




Oh for the love of god!!!! Bush is not in charge of what the military does with the money it is given!!! 2. I have been to Iraq 4 times and going back for my 5th, I DONT WANT DRAFTEES IN MY FU$&ING ARMY!!!! We are a professional military now and we would really like to keep it that way!!! 3. Will anyone fu%@ing blame Clinton for destroying the military over the 90's? People don't go to war with the military they WANT!!! WE GO WITH THE MILITARY WE HAVE!!! Try listening to the troops for one time!

Oh for the love of god!!!! Bush is not in charge of what the military does with the money it is given!!!


Bush voters in this thread were ever so ready to rush to Bush's defense, instead of comment on the litany of hardships face by our troops, which I documented.

Defending Bush at all costs is a pavlovian dog reaction on the right. Please note, there was not a single mention of Bush in my thread title, or post.

I noted that the adminstration has failed to perform to the standards the troops deserve. The Pentagon is part of the Executive Branch, hence part of the Adminstration. Moreover, the mangagement of the pentagon are Bush appointees, who are accountable for the pentagon's performance. Of course, I don't expect Bush to know the myriad details of pentagon procurement. But, he is ultimately responsible for the performance of HIS adminstration, including the different Executive Departments that are run and managed by HIS people.

 

[nibor]

Good.

I hope that you also swallow............because you're an expert at sucking..................don't be a Monica wannabe, take it like the real cock sucker that you are!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mattskramer]

Should the people of the United States be responsible for electing a leader that has failed like you said?

We did not have an unlimited number of candidates to choose from.
Honestly, I doubt that Kerry would have been that much better.

 

[Gunny]

The only fact in this that matters to me is that many soldiers were complaining that they did not have sufficient armor.



Then why were our fine soldiers complaining?



The commander in chief has utmost responsibility of making sure that we are ready to go to war before sending us to war. It would not have taken much time or trouble at all for him to consult with the armory, defense department, generals, etc. and make sure that everything is ready.

No, he does not. The CinC sets national strategy. It is up to the service or services to carry that strategy out. It is also up to the the services to notify the CinC of any perceived deficiencies they cannot themselves overcome.

Troops complained when "someone" told them they did not have the latest-greatest design. It was bullshit, dishonest politics from the start. The troops NEVER have the latest-greatest. They never have.

This isn't something new, nor is it anything anyone gives a shit about other than to sling mud.

What have YOU, in your self-righteous indignation done about it besides express the aforementioned on a message board? Write your congresscritter? Write the HASC and SASC? Purchase some cost-prohibitive body armor and send it to a troop?

Didn't think so.

 

[Gunny]

I WANT IT THAT WAY....................WTF kind of answer is that...............who exactly was it that dismantled and deconstructed our military...............ME??????????


Get real Gunny......................

You're the one making dishonest allegations and getting all excited and typing all caps.

But for the sake of argument, suppose you tell ME who dismantled and deconstructed our military .....

 

[Gunny]

Should the people of the United States be responsible for electing a leader that has failed like you said?

Well, I'd be embarrassed to have voted for him. But that's neither here nor there. I think we all know that at least part of the problem was Rummy's refusing to respect the military command. He wanted to subjugate their will to the civilian leadership and not only didn't listen to them, but overrode them and did the war on the cheap instead of listening to the military people.

I disagree with this war, but if it was going to be done, then they should have done it right.[/QUOTE]


The military always has been and always will be subjugated to civilian leadership. Without it being constructed as it is, the military would probably have taken over government by now. Which, wouldn't be so bad. The military can at least accomplish something.

 

[nibor]

You're the one making dishonest allegations and getting all excited and typing all caps.

But for the sake of argument, suppose you tell ME who dismantled and deconstructed our military .....

Dishonest allogations......................horseshit Gunny...............the people responsible for the greatest downsizing were the ones that sent us there, Cheney and Rumsfeld and it didn't start in the 90s.............

 

[nibor]

Horseshit!!! The 90's saw the military downsized drastically. Over the last few years the Army has been growing. Where did you get that?

Granted the largest dismantling was through the nineties, through the official BRAC Commission......................but before that there were major problems of decommision all the way back to the sixties so much so that Pres. Carter had to pass legislation in 1977 to stop it.

Also btw around the same time our steel industry began its intentional implosion..............

 

[jreeves]

Dishonest allogations......................horseshit Gunny...............the people responsible for the greatest downsizing were the ones that sent us there, Cheney and Rumsfeld and it didn't start in the 90s.............

It did start in the 90's here's the link.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1993/ns93241.pdf

 

[nibor]

It did start in the 90's here's the link.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1993/ns93241.pdf

I'm not denying what happened in the nineties, it had to with our steel industry gone................but I'm telling you it started before that.........before the actual BRAC Commission took up the axe, although they slashed at will.........


http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/launchpad/5577/philo/fedpercapita.htm

I dislike charts and graphs but the first one on the page shows part of what I'm talking about...............

 

[Gunny]

Dishonest allogations......................horseshit Gunny...............the people responsible for the greatest downsizing were the ones that sent us there, Cheney and Rumsfeld and it didn't start in the 90s.............

I hate to drop this little newsfalsh on you, but I was on active duty when the downsizing began and I damned-well know when it started. The actual downsizing did not begin until we returned from the First Gulf War.

BRAC actually was initiated by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in the late 80s.

What's your point? Who introduced it based on need at the time is irrelvant to the fact that it was allowed to continue unabated throughout the 90's, and the 90s are when it was put in practice.

I know during the 80s we had extra bodies to pick and choose from and during the 90s we were all understrength and assuming more and more jobs from billets not being filled. Marine Corps OpTempo increased while manpower and assets decreased. That equates to more deployment time for me, no new equipment/material, and deploying more often.

The facts are in black and white. Do some homework on the topic and get back to me.

 

[mattskramer]

No, he does not. The CinC sets national strategy. It is up to the service or services to carry that strategy out. It is also up to the the services to notify the CinC of any perceived deficiencies they cannot themselves overcome.

Troops complained when "someone" told them they did not have the latest-greatest design. It was bullshit, dishonest politics from the start. The troops NEVER have the latest-greatest. They never have.

This isn't something new, nor is it anything anyone gives a shit about other than to sling mud.

What have YOU, in your self-righteous indignation done about it besides express the aforementioned on a message board? Write your congresscritter? Write the HASC and SASC? Purchase some cost-prohibitive body armor and send it to a troop?

Didn't think so.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit, asked Rumsfeld why more military combat vehicles were not reinforced for battle conditions.

"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.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar to hear Rumsfeld deliver a pep talk at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting.

These vehicles should have been fitted and prepared long ahead of schedule – certainly long before they were actually delivered.

Finally, concerning Bush, I might be expecting too much from a commander in chief but I don’t think so. If some leader is going to send people in to war – send them to get injured and killed – it is not too much to ask that he check on supplies and armor from his immediate underlings.

It does seem feasible. I have not served in the military so this scenario may seem simplistic but this is how I picture it:

“Okay. Get me representatives from the top 5 places where they make and store armor. Thank you.” “Okay, gentleman. I plan for us to go to war in Iraq in a few months. Think about the possible weapons that might be used against our boys – the mines, the IEDs, the insurgents, etc. Get together as much armor and jeeps as you can. Outfit the jeeps. Increase production. I’ll see to it that you get paid for your work. Ask for metal to be donated if need be. When you have more than you think that we need, let me know and we can proceed.”

I have sent letters to my congressmen. I have donated blood and continue to do so semi regularly, and I send care packages.

 

[nibor]

I hate to drop this little newsfalsh on you, but I was on active duty when the downsizing began and I damned-well know when it started. The actual downsizing did not begin until we returned from the First Gulf War.

BRAC actually was initiated by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in the late 80s.

What's your point? Who introduced it based on need at the time is irrelvant to the fact that it was allowed to continue unabated throughout the 90's, and the 90s are when it was put in practice.

I know during the 80s we had extra bodies to pick and choose from and during the 90s we were all understrength and assuming more and more jobs from billets not being filled. Marine Corps OpTempo increased while manpower and assets decreased. That equates to more deployment time for me, no new equipment/material, and deploying more often.

The facts are in black and white. Do some homework on the topic and get back to me.

Gunny in the run up to previous engagement we did so by armouring up and supplying up, the biggest spike in the eighties was for missle systems and "STAR WARS", not for foundation equipment including vehicles and guns..........yeah we got alot of very expensive choppers and ground support planes which are now langueshing due to lack of available parts, but they came on line.

You may have had all the "bodies" you needed, because that was also the push time of "come get a free college education" and introducing large numbers of women into the military, while still closing bases and cutting everything else to create this "leaned out mean fighting machine" to go up against forces with extremely superior potential numbers.................which in MHO was very haphazard, the Marines may have been kept happy, but the rest of our services suffered and badly.

 

[rayboyusmc]

An administration does have responsibility through its oversight on the military and through the SECDEF whom it appoints. They have oversight and they have the responsiblity to know what equipment they are sending the troops into battle with our without.

Nothing is Bush's accoutability, bullshit. I love the way Clinton is slammed for weaking the military (which he didn't) but Incurious George gets a buy.

WASHINGTON - The Marine Corps has asked the Pentagon's inspector general to examine allegations that a nearly two-year delay in the fielding of blast-resistant vehicles led to hundreds of combat casualties in Iraq.

The system for rapidly shipping needed gear to troops on the front lines has been examined by auditors before and continues to improve, Col. David Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said Monday night. Due to the seriousness of the allegations, however, "the Marine Corps has taken the additional step" of requesting the IG investigation, Lapan said in an e-mailed statement.

In a Jan. 22 internal report, Franz Gayl, a civilian Marine Corps official, accused the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_investigation

 

[Gunny]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit, asked Rumsfeld why more military combat vehicles were not reinforced for battle conditions.

"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.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar to hear Rumsfeld deliver a pep talk at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting.

These vehicles should have been fitted and prepared long ahead of schedule – certainly long before they were actually delivered.

Finally, concerning Bush, I might be expecting too much from a commander in chief but I don’t think so. If some leader is going to send people in to war – send them to get injured and killed – it is not too much to ask that he check on supplies and armor from his immediate underlings.

It does seem feasible. I have not served in the military so this scenario may seem simplistic but this is how I picture it:

“Okay. Get me representatives from the top 5 places where they make and store armor. Thank you.” “Okay, gentleman. I plan for us to go to war in Iraq in a few months. Think about the possible weapons that might be used against our boys – the mines, the IEDs, the insurgents, etc. Get together as much armor and jeeps as you can. Outfit the jeeps. Increase production. I’ll see to it that you get paid for your work. Ask for metal to be donated if need be. When you have more than you think that we need, let me know and we can proceed.”

I have sent letters to my congressmen. I have donated blood and continue to do so semi regularly, and I send care packages.

I don't see your point. If there is armor, rest-assured there is something that will pierce it, just as there are those that will whine because they are not completely impervious to injury.

All wars throughout history have cycled around armor and defeating armor/the tactics to defeat armor. Weapons improve, armor and strategy/tactics improve ... it's a neverending cycle.

Your little scenario is naive. One, that is NOT the President's responsibility. I don't know what part of that you aren't getting. He has professionals that are paid to take care of that.

By your reckoning, the Commanding General should be concerned with who has to clean the heads. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny in the run up to previous engagement we did so by armouring up and supplying up, the biggest spike in the eighties was for missle systems and "STAR WARS", not for foundation equipment including vehicles and guns..........yeah we got alot of very expensive choppers and ground support planes which are now langueshing due to lack of available parts, but they came on line.

You may have had all the "bodies" you needed, because that was also the push time of "come get a free college education" and introducing large numbers of women into the military, while still closing bases and cutting everything else to create this "leaned out mean fighting machine" to go up against forces with extremely superior potential numbers.................which in MHO was very haphazard, the Marines may have been kept happy, but the rest of our services suffered and badly.

Think you could perhaps create more than two run-on sentences that address what you are trying to say?

 

[Gunny]

An administration does have responsibility through its oversight on the military and through the SECDEF whom it appoints. They have oversight and they have the responsiblity to know what equipment they are sending the troops into battle with our without.

Nothing is Bush's accoutability, bullshit. I love the way Clinton is slammed for weaking the military (which he didn't) but Incurious George gets a buy.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_investigation

I am amazed that a LtCol in the USMC can be as ignorant and/or use such purposefully deceitful crap as you.

Basically, you're comparing apples and oranges ... that's right before we get to the part where you're just generally full of shit ... with all due respect, of course, sir.

Clinton takes a hit for cutting the military budget. Period. Plain and simple.

If Bush personally refused to purchase this latest, greatest body armor when the services said purchasing and outfitting the military with it was feasible, then I would blame him for it.

You know damned good and well he went to the JCS and they responded to whatever he asked with "Aye, aye, sir ... three bags full, sir" and NOT A SINGLE ONE was going to say he could not accomplish an assigned mission because of a lack of the latest, greatest body armor according to the Bush hating libs looking for piss-poor, whiney-assed excuses to try and lay even more dirt on him than they already try to.

Get real.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't see your point. If there is armor, rest-assured there is something that will pierce it, just as there are those that will whine because they are not completely impervious to injury.

Oh. In that case, why not send them out with no armor? Look. Some armor is better than no armor.

All wars throughout history have cycled around armor and defeating armor/the tactics to defeat armor. Weapons improve, armor and strategy/tactics improve ... it's a neverending cycle.

I still contend that Bush should have waited until we were fully prepared with more than enough of our finest armor readily available.

Your little scenario is naive. One, that is NOT the President's responsibility. I don't know what part of that you aren't getting. He has professionals that are paid to take care of that.

I guess that I hold the commander in chief (no matter the political party) to a higher standard. The buck stops with the president and it would not have taken too much time and trouble to check with his military armament suppliers and others to make sure that all was ready. Isn’t the president ultimately the boss of those professionals? Again, the president calls the shots. He ultimately makes the decision. He pushes the big red button. He pushed it way too soon when not enough was ready.

By your reckoning, the Commanding General should be concerned with who has to clean the heads. It just doesn't work that way.

I don’t see that as a good comparison. Someone sending soldiers out to risk death without sufficient top-quality armor is not the same as someone neglecting the cleanliness of a toilet seat.