Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Click here Rumsfeld is responsible for the worst things that have happened in this war, the torture/abuse in the prisons alone should have cost him his job. But now when our troops speak out about the lack of protection and things they need to win this war he doesn't care. This crusty,shriveled up, waste of flesh is sending American kids in harms way without the proper equipment needed to get the job done. And his response was "Soliders fight the war with armour they have, not the armour they want", wtf!!!!! Talk about a smug, arrogant, asshole, Rumsfeld is definitely it. He obviously doesn't have a heart or care about our soliders, what a fucker this guy is. To borrow from oldie, he is an asshat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Click here Rumsfeld is responsible for the worst things that have happened in this war, the torture/abuse in the prisons alone should have cost him his job. But now when our troops speak out about the lack of protection and things they need to win this war he doesn't care. This crusty,shriveled up, waste of flesh is sending American kids in harms way without the proper equipment needed to get the job done. And his response was "Soliders fight the war with armour they have, not the armour they want", wtf!!!!! Talk about a smug, arrogant, asshole, Rumsfeld is definitely it. He obviously doesn't have a heart or care about our soliders, what a fucker this guy is. To borrow from oldie, he is an asshat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First of all, Rumsfeld didn't torture anyone. Secondly, the questions from the soldiers were reasonable, and the answers from Rumsfeld were logical. I'm sure every soldier wishes he had an invisible forcefield to protect him, but that doesn't mean it can be provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 First of all, Rumsfeld didn't torture anyone. Secondly, the questions from the soldiers were reasonable, and the answers from Rumsfeld were logical. I'm sure every soldier wishes he had an invisible forcefield to protect him, but that doesn't mean it can be provided. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No one's asking for an invisible force field, they just want the protection that the best military in the world should give it's soliders. If you had a friend or loved one in Iraq and you had buy them body armour and such for them because the army didn't supply it, you would understand. With all the resources available to our country, our soliders shouldn't want for anything, especially things like bullets and body armour. Rumsfeld is responsible for the torture because he knew about it and he condone it, I wouldn't be surprised if he ordered it. Look at how cold he is in dealing with our soliders, I could only imagine what he would do to the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 No one's asking for an invisible force field, they just want the protection that the best military in the world should give it's soliders. If you had a friend or loved one in Iraq and you had buy them body armour and such for them because the army didn't supply it, you would understand. With all the resources available to our country, our soliders shouldn't want for anything, especially things like bullets and body armour. Rumsfeld is responsible for the torture because he knew about it and he condone it, I wouldn't be surprised if he ordered it. Look at how cold he is in dealing with our soliders, I could only imagine what he would do to the enemy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> hahahahha.. .... sorry ....... can't hold it in!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 When you are in charge of something and it gets fucked up you take the blame, that's why Rumsfeld is to blame for the abuse. Reports are coming out now about how similar torture/abuse was used in the Gitmo prisons in 2002, not a coincedence. Do you really think that PFC was responsible and that they did this without any orders from their CO's?? You can't even take a shit without your CO's approval in the military, let alone abuse prisoners, which btw violates the Geneva convention. But what do we care about the Geneva convention, were the US and were at war!!!!! But the asshole doesn't care about the soliders lives or he wouldn't dismiss thier pleas for help. The mercenaries from Halliburton and KBR have all the body armour they need, but the lowly soliders who get paid a fraction of what the contractors make for doing the same job, go without while they are constantly put in harms way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 When you are in charge of something and it gets fucked up you take the blame, that's why Rumsfeld is to blame for the abuse. Reports are coming out now about how similar torture/abuse was used in the Gitmo prisons in 2002, not a coincedence. Do you really think that PFC was responsible and that they did this without any orders from their CO's?? You can't even take a shit without your CO's approval in the military, let alone abuse prisoners, which btw violates the Geneva convention. But what do we care about the Geneva convention, were the US and were at war!!!!! But the asshole doesn't care about the soliders lives or he wouldn't dismiss thier pleas for help. The mercenaries from Halliburton and KBR have all the body armour they need, but the lowly soliders who get paid a fraction of what the contractors make for doing the same job, go without while they are constantly put in harms way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> man smoov... you have good points on almost all posts, but why do you take such an extremists view on everything political??? when you talk bengals, all i do is nod my head in agreement... its the butt-ass opposite when it comes to politics... saying rummie is to blame, is like saying if someone gets caught stealing from their company, the owner of the company should take the punishment... rummie is at the top obviously and has little to no contact w/ these soldiers besides q and a's (probably not anymore.. j/k!) if anyone is to blame besides the crazy idiots that did those terrible things, are the officers directly ordering these guys... i halfway agree w/ your assessment w/ rummie, but i feel his biggest problem is being blunt and to truthful (i'm sure you disagree smoov, but that my feelings) he says things w/out fully thinking them out... what he said is true, but not what we all wanted to hear... i'd rather hear the truth and hate it, then have false enjoyment from a lie... thats just me though... i like to get hit in the nose w/ things, and then deal w/ them... he rubs off the wrong way to most liberals, and thats why i figured he wouldn't be back... obvioulsy, bush doesn't care about that... i know little about the equipment, but i tend to listen to the military when it comes to that kind of stuff... it sounds like they feel that they are underprotected... i guess that 80 million dollar bill would have came in use... didn't your boy, frances kerry vote against that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Yeah u know john kerry voted against expanded funding for our troops but for some reason u still suported his ass... << and he should be shot to but u dont see me bitchin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 man smoov... you have good points on almost all posts, but why do you take such an extremists view on everything political??? when you talk bengals, all i do is nod my head in agreement... its the butt-ass opposite when it comes to politics... saying rummie is to blame, is like saying if someone gets caught stealing from their company, the owner of the company should take the punishment... rummie is at the top obviously and has little to no contact w/ these soldiers besides q and a's (probably not anymore.. j/k!) if anyone is to blame besides the crazy idiots that did those terrible things, are the officers directly ordering these guys... i halfway agree w/ your assessment w/ rummie, but i feel his biggest problem is being blunt and to truthful (i'm sure you disagree smoov, but that my feelings) he says things w/out fully thinking them out... what he said is true, but not what we all wanted to hear... i'd rather hear the truth and hate it, then have false enjoyment from a lie... thats just me though... i like to get hit in the nose w/ things, and then deal w/ them... he rubs off the wrong way to most liberals, and thats why i figured he wouldn't be back... obvioulsy, bush doesn't care about that... i know little about the equipment, but i tend to listen to the military when it comes to that kind of stuff... it sounds like they feel that they are underprotected... i guess that 80 million dollar bill would have came in use... didn't your boy, frances kerry vote against that... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah but he voted for it 1st!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Liberals honestly believe that Republicans are just cold, heartless, evil people. Rational debate isn't possible with someone who feels that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 man smoov... you have good points on almost all posts, but why do you take such an extremists view on everything political??? when you talk bengals, all i do is nod my head in agreement... its the butt-ass opposite when it comes to politics... saying rummie is to blame, is like saying if someone gets caught stealing from their company, the owner of the company should take the punishment... rummie is at the top obviously and has little to no contact w/ these soldiers besides q and a's (probably not anymore.. j/k!) if anyone is to blame besides the crazy idiots that did those terrible things, are the officers directly ordering these guys... i halfway agree w/ your assessment w/ rummie, but i feel his biggest problem is being blunt and to truthful (i'm sure you disagree smoov, but that my feelings) he says things w/out fully thinking them out... what he said is true, but not what we all wanted to hear... i'd rather hear the truth and hate it, then have false enjoyment from a lie... thats just me though... i like to get hit in the nose w/ things, and then deal w/ them... he rubs off the wrong way to most liberals, and thats why i figured he wouldn't be back... obvioulsy, bush doesn't care about that... i know little about the equipment, but i tend to listen to the military when it comes to that kind of stuff... it sounds like they feel that they are underprotected... i guess that 80 million dollar bill would have came in use... didn't your boy, frances kerry vote against that... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Our differing views of the government comes from our differing backgrounds and up-bringing. The American government lies repeatedly and I don't trust any politician, so that's why I'm so cynical when it comes to believing what they say and having faith in things they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 What's disconcerting to me is that the soldiers are complaining to much. It's their job to fight to the death no matter what protection they have. As crass as it sounds, it's their job to die for their country. Death is their occupation. Soldiers should have a "can do", "get the job done" mentality, not an "I refuse to do it becuase my armor isn't the best " mentality. I really can't see soldiers from WWII whining about the equipment they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 What's disconcerting to me is that the soldiers are complaining to much. It's their job to fight to the death no matter what protection they have. As crass as it sounds, it's their job to die for their country. Death is their occupation. Soldiers should have a "can do", "get the job done" mentality, not an "I refuse to do it becuase my armor isn't the best " mentality. I really can't see soldiers from WWII whining about the equipment they have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm sure there were complaints during all wars,just in this day and age of computers,cell phones 24 hr news we hear of it more. Those blaming Rumsfield should look at the fact the extra funding was voted against. Maybe this time during the second term it will get done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Our differing views of the government comes from our differing backgrounds and up-bringing. The American government lies repeatedly and I don't trust any politician, so that's why I'm so cynical when it comes to believing what they say and having faith in things they do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> that is probably true... i really don't know what to say to that though, b/c your obviously not going to change your opinions on that, at least not now... at least we agree on the bengals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I know Smoove is in that crowd somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I know Smoove is in that crowd somewhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep then go hug a tree and sing kumbaya and shit and have Michael Moore's greats lies film festival afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I have to second Smoove to a degree here.... There is no reason our soldiers in Iraq should be wanting for ANYTHING, least of all adequate vehicle protection, from our govt. We ARE fighting the good fight in Iraq, but we went in a little half-cocked in terms of our troop prepardeness with regards to equipment as well as a direct understanding of what it was we were supposed to do. Take it from someone who's been there-the first time-we rushed our efforts this go 'round. I am no liberal and I certainly voted for Bush, but... Rumsfeld HAS and ALWAYS will be my LEAST favorite member of Bush's cabinet! My Dad, the retired Army General said he and his colleagues had a nickname for him, and it was "El Supremo" This guy is a political hawk who has been in the "machine" since the Nixon era, and looks younger than he really is (not that that matters any) He SCARES me!! he has NO answers for direct questions about matters that directly concern him, he has NO personality, other than the self-assured, smug, reptilian gaze that he casts upon those who DARE question his policies... HE is FAR scarier than Bush could EVER be...and largely because Bush places so much TRUST in him! If a soldier directs a question to the Secretary of Defense (and he did!) and the question is "Sir, why is it that we are digging through Iraqi landfills for scrap metal to armor our vehicles against attack when we should have been provided this protection in the first place..." and his response is "Well, we fight with the Army we have now, not the one we WISHED we have.." There is a problem. Rumsfeld cares not for the soldier. He is the most powerful man in our government and he LITERALLY scares me. And I don't scare easy. I am a soldier. This guy has political ambition stuffed so far up his arse that I beleive he would do anything... I honestly believe that the scariest thing about Rumsfeld is that Bush listens so carefully to his advice. When I heard of the mass exodus of Bush Cabinet members, I crossed my fingers that after Abu Ghraib, Rummy would gracefully fall from view... Instead, Colin Powell, our most honorable ex-general, honest, plain-speaking Sec of State was the one to go.... Scary.... Not good you guys! And I'm Republican! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Yeah i cant buy that.. Funding has to go through the goverment... Talk to the house and senate.. Talk to the libs who would rather spend that money on saving a tree in alaska then saving our troops thats who should be help accountable for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Yeah i cant buy that.. Funding has to go through the goverment... Talk to the house and senate.. Talk to the libs who would rather spend that money on saving a tree in alaska then saving our troops thats who should be help accountable for this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm pretty sure every funding bill that has gone through has been passed. I think some may have had to have revisions, because there were a shitload of riders that had nothing to do w/ the troops or military. I'm a little off this morning, so my memory might not be quite right. I think one of the biggest complaints w/ the famous $85 billion bill was the fact it was a blank check. meh....i need to go home and sleep..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What about all that money found in Iraq, it had to be over a billion in cash, couldn't they use it to buy the proper equipment the soliders deserve for risking their lives for our country? We can print our on money, the money is there, the politicians should do the decent thing(for once) and protect our soliders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What about all that money found in Iraq, it had to be over a billion in cash, couldn't they use it to buy the proper equipment the soliders deserve for risking their lives for our country? We can print our on money, the money is there, the politicians should do the decent thing(for once) and protect our soliders. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> deficit? dollar vs. euro? we're already shit up a creek w/ both problems... I honestly don't know anything about the billions they found... wouldn't they have to use that for the iraqi people though? if we took that, it would be the equivalent of selling their oil and taking the money... we all can agree, thats not a smart idea... especially the liberals taht pound these facts at republicans all the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mongoloido Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I must be on crack, but I think this thread is blaming conservatives for a lack of military spending... Only an idiot would make such a claim, so I know I must have misread the argument. Logic would point to Clinton era, massive military budget cuts over both terms as a likely culprit of our military's current plight. The articles I remember reading during the Clinton era called for the lowest (adjusted) weapons and equipment budget since the Korean War..... I guess that can't have anything to do with now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What about all that money found in Iraq, it had to be over a billion in cash, couldn't they use it to buy the proper equipment the soliders deserve for risking their lives for our country? We can print our on money, the money is there, the politicians should do the decent thing(for once) and protect our soliders. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We can print our on money, the money is there, the politicians should do the decent thing(for once) and protect our soliders.<<< THAT IS FUCKIN RETARTED MAN... We can print our own money yes but the more me print the less our money is valued basic econ man..... If we just printed off money to pay for shit our money wouldnt be worth the paper its printed on... And the billions of dollars we have found go to the iraqy people. Also LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE OPOSED TO TAKING MONEY FOUND IN A FORIEGN COUNTRY TO SPEND ON OUR TROOPS. so go talk to ur party on that one man.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I must be on crack, but I think this thread is blaming conservatives for a lack of military spending... Only an idiot would make such a claim, so I know I must have misread the argument. Logic would point to Clinton era, massive military budget cuts over both terms as a likely culprit of our military's current plight. The articles I remember reading during the Clinton era called for the lowest (adjusted) weapons and equipment budget since the Korean War..... I guess that can't have anything to do with now though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ohh absolutelynot clintons military budget cuts (while he increase money from taxes coming into the goverment to spend on bogus progams by the way) have nothign to do with our lack of suplies and funding... hmmm alil sarcam here by the way........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I must be on crack, but I think this thread is blaming conservatives for a lack of military spending... Only an idiot would make such a claim, so I know I must have misread the argument. Logic would point to Clinton era, massive military budget cuts over both terms as a likely culprit of our military's current plight. The articles I remember reading during the Clinton era called for the lowest (adjusted) weapons and equipment budget since the Korean War..... I guess that can't have anything to do with now though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clinton hasn't been calling the shots in 4 years, I quess Clinton is the reason why the milk in your frig went bad too. Republican amaze me by blaming everything that this adminstration has fucked up on Clinton, how about taking some responsibility and fix the problem, instead of blaming everything on Clinton. When Bush started planning to go to war he could have bought the necessary equipment then, he has had the opportunity. Maybe if Rumsfeld was shot he would understand the concerns the soliders have and he wouldn't give such a smart ass answer when a solider lodges such a serious concern. For solider to ask Rumsfeld that question took huge pair of balls, he shouldn't have dismissed and basically told that his life is meaningless to Rumsfeld. If Bush would have stuck to the plan and let Powell handle the post-invasion phase of the operation we wouldn't have these problems, but W drove away the honest man he had in his inner circle. Heaven help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I think the money has been appropriated but is it all being spent properly? We should have anticipated guerrilla-style insurgent attacks from RPG's and small-arms fire once the urban phase of the war began. It doesn't take a fucking genius to figure that an armored Humvee is far less likely to produce casualties against such weapons than an unarmored one. My cousin is over there, and he initially didn't have an armored HMVV but does now, and says it is MUCH safer. He had a buddy in a nearby unit whose HMVV was hit directly by an RPG and it didn't hurt or kill any of the 4 soldiers inside. In fact, it didn't disable the vehicle! Clinton and his military spending cuts are indeed being felt still, but that is no excuse for the lack of equpiment, PARTICULARLY personal body armor and Armor-plated HMVV's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.