Saying it is difficult to be a patriot makes you think of that? Are you having difficulties? I'm sorry.

Flintstone; don't go there.. this is NOT about patriotism.. you are falling into the liberal trap by talking this way.. this is about ignorance..

here is my response to this topic:

I think you should be ashamed of yourself.. your little depiction is one of ignorance. How ignorant it is to think that the military is any different than any other organization; or city for that matter having to deal with us stupid humans. And you ignorantly blame Rumsfeld for this because its easy for your puny brain to calculate.

Rumsfeld is one of the most intelligent people I have come across. He is an amazing man and will go down in history as someone very incorrectly misunderstood.. the libs are going to try to figure a way out for years.. and when the war finally ends they will take credit for it.. and if they just let Mr. Rumsfeld do his job it probably would have ended sooner. Not ONE of you libs has been able to come up with a way out.. not ONE.. you are very good at hindsight however.. congrats.. you must do really well in the stock market.

But until then, ignorant people will listen to some of the stupid people from our military who would be fired if it were corporate america and post stupid ignoramous posts like this.

You people need to wake up and quit taking the easy way out of this by blaming a particular person.. this war was about oil; the oil we need; and the fact that the America had to stop playing games with the malfunctioning alliance called the United Nations who asked Sadam to comply 2 more times then we asked Hitler to comply.

Guys; get educated and stop blaming the wrong people.

And Flinstone.. don't use the P word.. its also the easy way out.. these guys are not unpatriotic.. thats not fair to imply.. stand your ground for the right reasons.

LOL.

Proof that the neo-cons have not entirely run out their supplies of KooLAiD. ;)

I am not one to gang up on Rummy. Well before 9/11 and Iraq he had ideas about reforming the military that were not winning him any friends. What could have happened we will never know..

But plenty of old photos of him have come up now that President Ford has passed away. Ol' Don as a younger man looks like a first class a$s kisser and brown-nose. Cheney too.

Shucks...I never meant to imply they were not patriotic
I figure it is a given.
It has to be that...they cannot possibly be that stupid.

They ain't dead yet, just looking for another wagon to ride on.

Folks in this administration seem to be comfortable substituting their judgement for that of industry experts. Scientists, for example. So it makes sense that Rummy would think he knows military stuff better than the military pros. All those wonderful hi-tech weapons he championed......I guess they're better for the military than stuff like armor.

On a related note, I've learned why field commanders are still so deeply in love with artillery. it's because once that projectile has left the end of the barrel, there is no technology on the planet that can stop it from hitting its target. But rummy likes missiles, and so that's probably better.

Amazing how someone with no military experience or expertise can critique a person that served in or worked at very high levels of the military for most of his life for "substituting their judgement for that of industry experts" You are doing exactly what you wrongfully accuse Rumsfeld of doing...and I hate to break it to you, but Rumsfeld is a military expert and does know "military stuff."

Field commanders only "love" artillery when it has greater range or accuracy than the enemy's artillery. A missile always has greater range and accuracy.

I have military experience and 'expertise': and i think Rumsfeld is a moron.

Rumsfeld was a reserve naval aviator(briefly at that), he knows SHIIT about modern ground combat in my estimation. The man has probably never even once dug a foxhole, performed a bound and overwatch, or walked point on a patrol, so no, he is NOT uniquely well qualified to fill the position he was charged with.

As far as missiles vs arty, arty has several massive advantages over missiles, and vice versa.(i say this having called literally hundreds of tube-arty/mortar missions at Fort Sill while supporting the operations of the USAFAC and having observed numerous MLRS live shoots)
Missiles and tube-arty are NOT interchangeable fires though, which your boy Rumnamara seemed to have a real hard time understanding. Precision oft times cannot replace mass, which is a key failing in Rumnamara's FAILED concept of transformation.

Of course the worst of both worlds are munitions like the USN ERGM, that try to be missiles and shells(and fail at both), while costing an arm and a leg on top of it. LAM/PAM strikes me as a particularly stupid idea too, especially in it's envisioned naval roles.

You want to debate Iraq, tranformation, and Rumsfeld line by line- i'm game.

Or as our illustrious leader would say, "bring it on."

Cause in my military estimation he was a stone cold combative, over-bearing, meddling, and intrusive idiot.

I don’t believe you are being fair to Rumsfeld. One does not have to be in the Army of pull KP or dig a fox hole to have military experience or knowledge. Some of us in the other services have picked up a thing or two over the years too. Obviously a naval officer would not do the things you mention…just as an Army sniper likely would not fly a lot of aircraft, etc. Rumsfeld spent much of his life involved with the military. He had 4 yrs NROTC, 3 years active duty, 18 years drilling reserve retiring as an O-6, 7 years as SecDef (served twice), 7 years as a US Representative, 2 years as US ambassador to NATO (basically a military alliance), White House Chief of Staff...etc.

Ok...so tell me...If I have missiles that have twice the range and much better accuracy than your artillery...what value is your artillery....other than what I already mentioned (cost)? I don't even need to be in the same country as you. Your artillery would all be destroyed before you were ever in range.

As far as mass being preferable to precision fires....when has that been proved true in any recent conflict? War games at Ft Sill don't count.

Interesting dicotomy:

To pat, the government and in particular the current administration has done nothing right.

To fint, the administration has, for all intents and purposes, performed brilliantly and has handled everything with skill and grace.

Anyone think the truth is somewhere in between these two extremes?

You exaggerate my position. There have been mistakes as in any war. Unfortunately the posters here leave little choice but to defend the administration...because what is usually posted here regarding it is either an outright lie or absolutely wrong. If/when you guys actually accurately identify and describe an actual mistake...I will not argue...unfortunately, like almost all armchair quarterbacks...the observations and recommendations are laughable. Foe example...the attacks on Rumsfeld's knowledge and experience is silly. ..and usually comes from people with little or none themselves. Like him or not personally...the man is very smart and one of the most qualified civilians to ever lead a Service or DoD. Get it right and you will get no argument from me.

Here's the deal, M21Snipe, fintstone is an Air Force guy, 100%. Now, I was one too, long ago, for 4 years. However, for whatever reason, I decided to join the Army and spend an additional 20+ years mucking about in the tulies in GP mediums or less. He's "not of the spear" if you know what I mean.

fint...

Please enlighten me....When have you critized the administration?

No. Pat is right.

They are BOTH right......

All of the time..........

(Could not resist!!)

Every time you have made a legitimate, correct assessment of something the administration has done wrong I have agreed or at least did not make an argument to the contrary. It is just so rare that you do so that it makes it equally rare for me to have to agree.

And I have pointed out things I would have preferred that had been done differently? I would think that was a right protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "Correctness" when it comes to politics and religion are not totally objective. What is "correct" to one may not be to another, and neither party is "wrong".

Actually I agree with almost everything you post...and rarely argue a point you have made...unless your argument is directed at me...I really don't understand you preoccupation with insulting me...and then finding it odd that I respond.

Insults? To question your motivations? I would think your hide would be a tad thinker than that!!

BTW...Happy New Year!!