Question for Rumsfeld was Planted by Media

[Patriot_1776]

From the article:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/213927.shtml

Thursday, Dec. 9, 2004 9:28 p.m. EST
Reporter Planted Armor Question for Rumsfeld

The question a U.S. soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday about the lack of armor on some combat vehicles in Iraq was actually sponsored by Edward Lee Pitts, a Chattanooga Times Free Press military affairs reporter.
Pitts explained in an e-mail sent to fellow newsmen that he wanted to ask the question himself but was foreclosed owing to the format of the town hall meeting for GIs in Kuwait.

"I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," Pitt wrote in his e-mail from Kuwait, where he is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team.  As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough so I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld."

At the meeting Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th asked, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"

Told that only soldiers – not reporters – could ask questions, Pitts explained how he "found the sergeant in charge of the microphone for the question-and-answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region "from all over the world, from where they're not needed to a place they're needed. It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money. It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

Tom Griscom, the Free Press' publisher and executive editor, said of the incident, which gathered comment all the way to the White House, "We have pictures of soldiers in the 278th literally going through [a] scrap heap" scavenging steel plate for their vehicles."

"They [the soldiers] spoke for themselves," Griscom said, adding that he supported the way Pitts handled the situation.

Here's more proof showing the acursed liberal media bias is still trying to run the war, and keep on the BS line that we are extremely ill-equipped, the war was wrong, in the W.place, at the W. time...You remember Kerry's un-memorable words.  Patriot

[fe352v8]

The real BS here is the fact that after 18 months we are not YET providing our troops with all the equipment they need.  Our military has done everything and more asked of them.  But it seems they are receive only some of the material support they need.  At present 75% of the humvees have some form of armour of which half were theater improvised.  Only 25% of the heavy and medium transport vehicles have any armour.  Of course the civilian leadership also planned for the military to complete their mission and be withdrawn by the end of summer 2003.  But what should we expect, when I was "asked" to help a SE asian country defend its freedom the civilian leadership was also composed of people, that when they were called upon to serve, had had other priorities and thus had no conception of what a grunt on the ground needs.  I voted AGAINST Kerry but it sure as hell was not a vote for Jr. and his chicken hawks.  If you are going to send our children to war you owe them more than lip service.    Supporting the troops is means demanding the best for them.  Not an unqustioned belief in a politicians words.  Actions speak louder than words if the administration has more moral fiber than the one that sent me to war than our troops will be equipted better soon.  The company that provides the armour stated that they had the ability to do a 100-150 more vehicles per month but had not been requested to do so.  Maybe Bush is OK but Rummy is no better than McNamara.

[williamlayton]

Amen and again I say Amen.
Blessings

[Loader 3009]

Maybe the reporter did plant the question, but judging by the cheers, the question needed to be asked.  According to the Pentagon, the "problem" had been recognized and was being solved.

If you will remember, a Reserve unit brought up this question a couple of months ago by refusing to follow orders.  They are being punished, as we speak.  I think the "question" was planted by the Government so they could give an appropriate response thereby pre-empting an attack by the media.

[magooch]

The lack of armor for the grunts is not the problem; placing them in harms way is the problem.  I submit that if the enemies ground is turned into a crater, no grunts with or without armor would be needed.

[williamlayton]

Doan think that works.
Blessings

[magooch]

It worked with Japan.

[williamlayton]

Are you suggesting "NUKE" em ??
Blessings

[Patriot_1776]

Magooch wrote:

It worked with Japan.

Whoa now, hold your horses.  We did not drop " THE bomb" just for the sole purpose to make it easier for ourselves.  There were many GOOD reasons to do so.  First, the people of Japan were (and I mean ALL the people) were ready to fight to the death; even going so far as to use pitchforks, sickles, and other primitive tools.  Second, do you know what would have happened in that situation?  With what many men were already lost, this would have posed an even more difficult problem for the U.S. fighting forces.  Going against an entire country would have proved catastrophic for the U.S.  Most likely, the Civil War would have been a kid's game compared to this.  Third, and finally, this would help spare the people of Japan from total annhialation.  Being they would have fought to the death, ALL of them, there would be bombing, after bombing, assault after assault. etc.  Not to mention the indefinite, immense lengthening of the war.  Hence, with airpower combined with manpower, both sides would have sustained more than just staggering losses.  So, with all due respect, there was complete and total necessity to use such means.  As one can see, the usage of that weapon has, in a strange and unthinkable way, benefitted both sides.  Now, in modern day fighting, this is not totally necessary; as yet.  But, the key is to remain on guard, and make sure such deadly weapons do NOT fall into the WRONG hands.  

Using that means of force (not nukes; I mean destroying any possibility of attack against our country using ground troops, assaults, etc.) to prevent such an occurance in America (as shown in Afghanistan and Iraq), is quite justified.  I'm sure this line is quite familiar:  "...and conquer we must, when our cause it is just; and this be our motto: In God is our trust......"  There is perfect reasoning to that line.  After all, gun owners who have used proper force to eliminate a threat to their life, and their family's, are perfectly in their right to do so.  Hence, to protect American values, her freedom, and her citizens, there must be a line drawn somewhere.  Letting everyone conspire against America is the worst thing to do.  Letting the terrorists, who have free access to plenty of countries that support their "cause" to destroy America, AHEM, is grounds for a war against that country.  Not in hate, violent impulse, or tyrannisim, but in defense and for the safety of America, her citizens and her values. Reason being, that country, by showing hospitality to the terrorists and going to no lengths to stopping them in any way, shows they too would be giving aid and support to their "cause".  So, the only way to not have any innocent American citizens killed in terrorist acts, the threat must be neutralized BEFORE it has a chance to take root.  This is called "preventive medicine" so to speak.  If we let them gather support, recieve funds from terrorist supporting countries, and sit twiddling our thumbs "hoping" nothing will happen, then I believe we will be quite sorry for our lack of action in the future.  

Now with that said, since I've shot my face off, everyone is welcome to do the same, if they so wish.  Patriot

[williamlayton]

Patriot--
That was a good response.
I cannot exactly agree with all of it, and in light of a couple of other comments from folks, think that is an undoable remedy. Even with tha nukes.
Everbody thinks their cause is just and holy, it seems, and are willing to die for that cause.
The only cause that has any advantage over the other is the cause of Christ Jesus. He advocated another way to overcome your enemy. We may have to die for that but it is not to death but to life.
I find a lot of holes in the bomb em back to the stoneage theory, one of em is that it does not work. This theory only galvanizes the survivors.
Blessings

[magooch]

First of all I didn't say we have to use nukes.  Conventional bombs can create some pretty nice craters.  In Fallujah, we pretty well knew that only bad guys were left in there, so why not let the Air Force take it down instead of putting our soldiers in there to go house to house.
 
I hate to give Clinton credit for anything, but he used the Air Force to bring Serbia to its knees and no ground troops were lost in that effort.

All I'm saying is; when we have the bad guys surrounded, why give them a fighting chance; why give them a chance to earn their way into their version of heaven.  I believe if they saw that continued resistance was futile, at some point they might decide to call it a day.

On the other hand, I'm not against using a well placed nuke--after sufficient warning, mind you--to demonstrate to certain folks that we aren't going to play their silly games.  Iran and Seria come to mind.

Now if that isn't being thenthitive enough to some of you, I guess I'm just not that kind of guy.

[Loader 3009]

'thenthitive"......I love it!!!! :-D  :-D  :-D

One point to consider, magooch:  when we dropped the nukes on Japan, no other nation had ever seen such devastation.  Quite a novelty in warfare.  Now ALL God's chillun' got nukes, so retaliation in kind is a great concern, I'm sure......not that they aren't gonna use 'em on us, anyway.