1 man, 1 question...
 

ok, so maybe 2 men, the reporter and the soldier who asked Rumsfeld about the armor.

Notice the news coverage, reporters uncovering the story, the military reaction. Things are actually happening. Reality is seeping between the tightly clenched fists of the Pentagon. Such a great country!

Really proves that one person can change the world in an instant. One minute before asking that question, he was just a nervous soldier sitting in an audience. Next minute, he's a (fill in the blank).

Just my patriotic $.02 for the year: a foot soldier questioning the leader of the entire military and getting an appropriate response. No where else but here.

point being , if that question was never asked, nothing would've happened.

Same with the abuse with at the Abu - Whatever -prison. If none of those photos ever exited, just would've been swept under the rug. says a lot about the people in charge. don't care until it's public.

I'm dying to see what the conservative response is going to be...

To the victors go the spoils - oxymoronic as spoils are.

but, but ...ugh Shaun... that was an illegitimate question planted by a reporter. How dare a reporter use a soldier to question the administration's running of the war? :rolleyes:

You fail to note that the soldier could have refused to ask the question - that was within his power. But since he did ask the question - and since the question did involve him directly - it does show legitimacy. The soldiers are under-equipped; the soldier acknowledged that fact.

What I wouldn't give now to be in the USC Journalism Dept., or on the news floor of the LA or NY Times. The philosophy bouncing around those places in regard to "the question" must be tremendous.

Obviously, the desired outcome was achieved: the question was asked, and it utterly stumped Rumsfeld. His answer could be nothing but horrible. But the philosophy, as I see it is this:

Does the fact that the question was asked supercede whether or not the question was legitimate?

DEfine "illegitimate question".

What made it illigitmate? Is it illigitimate for an organization or administration (like they have done for decades) to put "ringers" in the audience?

I'm pretty sure Neil is using sarcasm here.

Thank you Shaun.

I thought my feigned stuttering would give my sarcasm away. It's funny how for a while some people were more concerned that a journalist, who was looking out for his own ass as well, had "planted" the question rather than focus on the real issue.

It's nice to see that something is being done about the issue now.

As the most secretive administration since Nixon, it really makes you wonder what else is under the carpet.

The highest form of American patriotism: questioning authority. It actually works with real, tangible benefits. The New Right (think it will stick?) should try it some time versus tearing down anyone who questions their actions, motives, etc.

:rolleyes:

The question was an obvious set-up . .. leveraging an existing concern.

I've got to ask you critics; is a Humvee quicker, or slower, when modified with massive amounts of steel-plating?

I mean what do we really have out there?

Do we have a surgical, fast, quiet moving force in Humvees, or a heavy, noisy, big-blowem-up tank force?

. . . or some Gruppe B'ers with Humvees, thinking they can weld-on stuff until it looks like the Abrams?

FWIW, I'm fine with giving our troops the tanks. . . no more of this door to door search crap . . . just point that big gun and BOOM goes the building.

. . .That is what you whiners want . . right?

Ooooh, Island, what are we going to do with you?

Let's start from the top.

Obvious set-up. Uh, duh! And it worked... more armored Hummers are on order. So you are against soldiers getting what they need? Remember that last bit of "logic" you tried to spew where you backed yourself into an "I love Hitler" corner. Jeez man, think before you type.

onward.

You ask about the quickness of a Hummer. Quick Hummer is an oxymoron (look it up) (and maybe not for you... pun intended). Island, there is no such thing as a quick hummer whether it has one man or fully loaded with soldiers and armor. Do you really think it will be able to outrun an RPG? Or that it will be so fast without armor that it will outrun the explosion set-off by an IED? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

Your last point about blowing up buildings without knowing who is inside confirms your accreditation in the Hitler Youth Blitzkrieg School of War. Congratulations, your diploma is in the mail.

no arguement - our guys deserve the best. What if the war was being waged 5, 10, 15 years ago? Be great to have some smarter bombs, before vehicles, better rails, but back then they didn't exist or only available in limited quantity. So you make do with what you got.

That buck private had some moxey for sure - and it was a great question that deserves an answear and even action. Set-up? Moot point - the tree fell and someone heard it. nuff said.

Shaun - all it takes is one to acheive that "tipping point"!

Ask Bill Clinton . . . or Monica. :rolleyes:

Man, you are just being a liberal media TOOL . . so was the guy who asked the question.

So let me ask you this, Shaun; how much armour is ENOUGH armour, for a HumVee?

I counselled you earlier on using too many rolleyes, be careful with them.

How much armor is enough? Why that much the military deems is enough AFTER first evaluating a situation, developing a spec, testing that spec, putting that spec into the field, evaluating results against that spec and developing a new solution.

Island, all of this has been done. The Army has a solution. The Pentagon just didn't fund it.

Now was the soldier a tool or the reporter? You ask yourself, why did this soldier agree to ask the question? Why did the crowd of soldiers get excited about it? Why did Rumsfeld not have an answer.

You can call people tools all day long, it won't save lives. That soldier is a hero for stepping up to the plate. Rumsfeld is a traitor to this country for not supplying known critical equipment to his own troops. Tool indeed.

WTF are you talking about?

.. . or is that you briliant counter-argument? .. .apply liberally: "you're a Hitler-Lover." (?) ...kind of like saying 'yeah, well MY dad is stronger than YOUR dad.

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

i'll dig out the thread a little later where your friend Bryan first pointed out that you sounded just like Hitler.

ya see, this is why you are just a tool here.

The smart question (for Rummy) isn't why don't the HumVees have more armour? . . the smart question is; why do we have quick, light, fast vehicles (HumVees) in locations where we need heavy armour?

Geez man . . what a reach!

I thought you said you were smart (G9):rolleyes: . . .and this is what you've got? . . "you sounded just like Hitler." .. ?

Obviously, our military is equipped with vehicles carrying various amounts of armour . . . various degrees of quickness. What part of that concept is so tough?

Please try NOT to be distracted by the fact that Hitler also had forces with various levels of armourment. :rolleyes:

I truly am sorry for having to post this.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads4/11102786376.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads4/21102786389.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads4/31102786403.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads4/41102786422.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads4/51102786435.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads4/61102786447.jpg

I guess Rummy gave a stupid answer? I guess the message didn't get across to smart people? I guess putting the procurement political bs in the hot seat was to hot a subject for objective reporting? I guess you gotta use cannon fodder whenever you can?

Geez, what's with all the screen-captures? . . looks like a lot of sorry work. You know you COULD have just posted a link . . . but then people would see the context, I suppose. (you wouldn't want that.) ;)

He Shaun, what's worse than an Idiot?



. . . an idiot who thinks he's a "G9" :rolleyes:


Oh, and, s o r r y I had to to post this. :rolleyes:

island911 got OWNED!
:)

I'm definitely in favor of the military having the best possible tools available for doing their jobs -- but I'm biased, being from the submarine community. We of the silent service have been mostly fortunate -- when we ask for money, we get it, more often than not. Most of the known universe has no clue what happens at test depth, and they don't want to know, so when we say "We need a $35,000 breaker made by Umpty-Froobitz," they say "Ok, we'll take that out of funding somewhere else."

But land-based troops don't have that luxury. There's a pretty tight limit to the amount of money those poor bastards have available, and my heart really goes out to them. Worst case is the Marines, who have been doing so much with so little for so long that they could do anything with nothing forever. If you've ever lived with Marines for a while, you'll know exactly what I mean. Everything they have is old, broken, run-down, and worn out, because they just don't have funding for new stuff.

My point is that you're arguing for The Perfect Vehicle -- fast, light, and so heavily armored that it'll absorb RPG hits, with enough weaponry available to ... oh wait, you've made no arguments for having weapons on our armored vehicles. Anyway, the media has done an excellent job of persuading the public that they want it both ways -- fast/light and heavily armored, as well as fantastically expensive, with precision engineering, and new, but with none of the costs associated with developing that kind of dream machine.

So if you want the military to have better equipment, you need to vote for people who will increase military spending. Or join the military -- we're desperate for good people! If you must play armchair quarterback, at least give the guys with the resources, background, and information necessary to make decisions like that some slight benefit of the doubt.


My $.02, as an admittedly biased warfighter,

Dan

No, just trying to help others not have to slog through it. the thread does read better though, here it is:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/193438-abortion-vs-innocents-killed-war.html

Those screen captures a lot of work? really? that was 3 minutes. Here's a lot of work:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/152355-project-73-911-r-rs-week-3-a.html

You have a similar debate technique as mule. When the argument doesn't go your way, attack the other side with inconsequential smears and move the conversation off message.

Nice.

I don't have a receipt, can I still take him back?

Dan, very good points, but it's on the table that the money is there, the Pentagon just isn't spending it.

Yeah, right, on-ramp. You two are like Bevis & Butthead; huh huh huh . . .he's like Hitler . . .huh huh huh .. .

You guys . . .too thick to address the point, so out comes the "Hitler". G-Nineyas:rolleyes:

Well?

yeah, I already answered this.

quote:Originally posted by island911
Ask Bill Clinton . . . or Monica.

Man, you are just being a liberal media TOOL . . so was the guy who asked the question.

So let me ask you this, Shaun; how much armour is ENOUGH armour, for a HumVee?



I counselled you earlier on using too many rolleyes, be careful with them.

How much armor is enough? Why that much the military deems is enough AFTER first evaluating a situation, developing a spec, testing that spec, putting that spec into the field, evaluating results against that spec and developing a new solution.

Island, all of this has been done. The Army has a solution. The Pentagon just didn't fund it.

Now was the soldier a tool or the reporter? You ask yourself, why did this soldier agree to ask the question? Why did the crowd of soldiers get excited about it? Why did Rumsfeld not have an answer.

You can call people tools all day long, it won't save lives. That soldier is a hero for stepping up to the plate. Rumsfeld is a traitor to this country for not supplying known critical equipment to his own troops. Tool indeed.

Brilliant Island. It would appear that you just confirmed Shaun's theory on your debate technique.
So let's be honest, who is the real troll here?

You just don't get the subtlety or context, G9 Girl.

I am not supporting Rummys response. I am pointing out the lack of critical tinking on the part of those who want to argue over HumVee armourment levels. It's a Red Herring. (if you know what that is . . IN CONTEXT of an argument.)

(sigh)Go ahead, change the subject to how I'm Hitler . . .then follow-up with how my debate technique, "smears and move the conversation off message." (that was sarcasm, btw.)

Staylo, go back and read who threw-out "Hitler"

yes, you are very smart. I defer to you. SmileWavy

I have read it, but I’m not drinking the Kool-aid.
Hey, I actually enjoy watching you throw out irrelevant off topic insults to support your persona as a keyboard bully.
Every circus needs a clown, you go girl! :rolleyes:

Wow, more; avoid the topic/ attack the person. Brilliant.

By all means, the question was a setup. But again, the setup pales in comparison to the question itself. In other words, the question posed a "scoop."

Hummers as a much a target as anything or anyone else. Put all the armor in the world on one, and it won't be any less a target. With the insurgents, it's timing and luck when they can kill a Hummer.

The larger picture that this points to is a lack of preparation for this war; a lack of study of the enemy and the potential of peripheral instigators spilling over the border. There aren't enough troops there, equipment and the morale is falling quickly. As I might have said, the soldier who asked the question is a Nat'l Guardsman, who have, on a whole, been poorly-equipped for this battle. They've been made to be seen as the poor step child to the other soldiers in the war.

How the hell are you supposed to armour humvees when Halliburton's margins are only 800%? Get real people!

wait, I did what?? :confused:

ah, ok. just got to page 2, saw your fancy screen shots.

Anyway, Its funny that lefties won't rest until every one of our soldiers are "safe", yet they celebrate the 1000th casualty, every attack is met with criticism and deep thought about how it's going to make us less safe. They want to bring our troops home, but they don't seem to be willing to fight for a victory.

I realize that democrats don't understand the concept of actually WINNING a war, so they should really just shut up and let the adults handle it.

If you want each of our soldiers in a titanium bubble of safety, it can be arranged... But then quit b!tching about the cost of war.