So I guess it takes public embarassment.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20041212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_armored_humvees

Kerry brought this up during the election and he was brushed aside. Is this what it takes for action from this administration? They have to publically get caught in a lie?

Go to war with the army you have my ass.

Do we have to do this again? I'll search for the numbers tomorrow but, since March of '03 and now we have gone from just around 450 up armored vehicles to over 18,000 now. I will vilify my statement with numbers tomorrow. Damn though Neehai, we have covered this ground over and over.

Sigh. I will try to explain this to Neehai the slow just so understanding might occur here....tho I doubt it.

First, armor for non-combat vehicles has not been a priority or even considered prior to this latest evolution...

Second, the amount of armor for support vehicles has increased with each additional vehicle sent to and into Iraq. Such an evolution in upgrading a non-combat piece of equipment on a theater-wide basis has NEVER occured before. Never.

Third, there are multiple levels of armor for support vehicles - categorized by type, amoount and location of installation. Vehicles that are already in Iraq are encouraged to armor up using available parts, add-on kits and scrounging from disabled vehicles and junkyards. Vehicles in theater but not in Iraq and vehicles being sent to Iraq from the States are being fitted with add-on kits prior to being sent into Iraq. New construciton vehicles are being armored up during manufacture.

Kerry did not have a thing to do with any of this. Nothing. He did not suggest it - he did vote to fund i, then he voted to cancel the funds for it.

So.. Neelow... get your facts straight and get off your soapbox.

Actually if you read the article, we're at under 7000 uparmored Hummers.



Of course it wasn't a priority. Rumsfeld wasn't the one getting his ass shot at.



Ya.... that would be because in previous military action.... if we didn't have sufficient equipment (like armor) we BUILT IT BEFORE WE FREAKIN INVADED ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!!!!

You're telling me the country that ramped up for WWII has somehow lost the ability to produce enough armored vehicles for a military action in a mid-sized third world country BEFORE we invade?



Vehicles are being upgraded NOW... Now that there's a stink being made about it. Prior to Rummy being called on the carpet like a damn fourth grader by one of his own troops, (and his embedded journalist coach) it just wasn't a priority. (See the previous response about the lack of Rumsfeld's ass getting shot at.)

The administration is trying to blame this on AMC.... but they've been saying for some time now that they could produce a bunch more uparmored vehicles.... they've just been waiting to be told to do so. The orders haven't been placed.



Kerry voted for the Democratic version of the bill, which actually paid for stuff, including armor. Without running up huge deficits. Of course Bush's rich base voters would have to give up their enormous tax cuts.... but we'd have had the money to pay as we go. This was apparently too Clintonesque.... and the bill got buried. He lodged a protest vote against a bill he knew was going to pass anyway, regardless of what he did. This was the Republican authored version of the bill that didn't pay for squat... it just bought it. On credit. And kept the tax cuts.

Bush keeping his tax cuts is apparently more important than our soldiers' lives. Some fucking priorities there.

I'll join the criticism (to a reasonable point, no I will not call for anyone's impeachment) of the administration for not having these ready early enough, but actually it'd be more accurate to say that "Bush" (actually Republicans) favored the soldier's lives over lowering or maintaining national debt. Saying it you way you did makes it sound like a tax cut was chosen over military equipment... taxes were left out of the equation.

Except that if they'd dropped the damn tax cuts.... we could have had both.

Yup. That's a different topic entirely though and I'm not even sure who I'm in agreement with on it.

A few comments:

1. The most inteliigent thing I've heard regarding this matter is, (paraphrasing) "Saying that 'we fight with the army we have' was fine at the beginning of the war. But two years later we should have assessed our needs and gotten our troops what we need."

2. Even the armored Humvees are no match for an IUD exploding underneath, though the armor does increase rider survival rate.

3. Why aren't we using the armored vehicles we have stockpiled? Oh, gee, there wouldn't be FAT government contracts to the maker of HUMV, would there?

4. Kerry indeed proposed a bill to pay for these. In fact, it was proposed before the famous "82 billion" bill. It called to pay for these by repealing Bush's tax cuts. It was nixed because Bush needs to give his business buddies the tax cuts. (including reduction in capitol gains tax - beneficial to real estate sellers and the cause of a lot of the housing price glut that is causing American homebuyers to take out HUGE mortgages, dividend tax - which benefits larger stock investors, and the famous $100,000 tax break on vehicles > 6k pounds, corporate taxes - including penalties on certain polluters)

It is abominable that Kerry was crucified over the 82 billion when essentially he voted for the bill that provided more armor, just a different way to pay for it - hence the "I voted for it before I voted against it" - and then that now Bush is playing dumb, "I'd be asking those questions too", and Rumsfeld is trying to justify it.

Maybe Rumsfeld will go bye bye too... we could only hope

Wow, I just heard on the TV --

a spokesperson for one of the two armor-producers said they are producing 900 kits a month - 50% capacity. "I guess Mr. Rumsfeld was misinformed"

you people are sad
I give a fuck who get's the blame as long as the production and installation is increasing.
fuck kerry and bush and fuck you all for these goddamn incessant partisan rants
love ya mean it

Because these people will make the same mistakes again. It wasn't until they were blamed that the emphasis to rise production has gone up.

Edit: no, that's no way a sufficient response to Lektor.

Lektor, people have been saying for MONTHS that there hasn't been enough armor. For Christmas LAST year, parents were buying their kids body armor and sending it overseas. This has been an issue brought up over and over again, and the Bush administration has hid behind Rumsfeld's explanation of "physics". Only now, that a soldier directly confronted Rumsfeld, and his statements shown to be a lie, does this needed upgrading of armor happen.

Meanwhile, to Bush, all it seems to be to him was a campaign issue for them to smear Kerry. It's clear Bush & Co cares more about staying in power than they do about the safety about our brave men and women serving. And seeing as how I'm 24 and any other conflict will spur a draft, I have an additional, personal interest that soldiers are protected, not to mention the people I know overseas - national guardsmen who reportedly have less armor than the army and are at the same risk of ambush.

So please don't play self-righteous on us, here. This is a life and death issue where Bush & Co dropped the ball big time and it's killing troops.

I should have known you would be the one to call me self righteous. That's all right I earned my self righteousness playing that life and death game in 2003 all the way to Baghdad. My point is does it really matter if we go back and forth on whose fault it is ? Are we going to impeach over it ? I think not, the dems will just continue to bring it up each time the death toll rises in an attempt to raise their floundering party. Bush will still take all the heat because he is the CEO. You are all right and Rummy should be gone. I have been hoping for that since he was nominated the first term. He is a miserable Sec Def.

I am out of my beloved military due to medical reasons spurred on from the war and miss it terribly. I am the biggest fan you will ever find for the military and always will be. I regret that you are fearful of a draft at AGE 24. It may happen and I hope it does. It would do some of the youth today alot of good to perform service for their country instead of being all pompous with their Ivy League papyrus.
Good Day

I'm not misinformed at all. I'm sorry that the facts are too tough for you to swallow, but when the Secretary of Defense lies to troops when they ask for more armor I find it notable.

Rumsfeld called is a matter of "physics" not a matter of money. So you can take that argument and place in the pile with the other lies. The companies that manufacture the aremored vehicles are not operating at capacity.

I mean come on. We live in a country that is losing manufacturing jobs weekly and we can't afford to manufacture armor for a war? That's just silly. There is no defensible reason why we aren't manufacturing this equipment at capacity two years into this conflict.

Furthermore, we have National Guard soldiers that have substandard benefits in a combat zone and we are giving them substandard equipment to do their jobs. Then the Secretary of Defense lies about it to their faces.

So to answer your question, yes we do have to do this again. We have to do it again and again and again until this administration stops passing the buck and starts taking responsibility.


Almost 6,000. Not quite the 18,000 you claim.

As for you Korg, you can call me Neelow, Neebelow, Neeunder or whatever gets you through the day. I have my facts straight. Two years into a war this administration was willing to spend money on a Presiential Yacht but not on adequate equipment to fight a war. On top of that they lied and gave the excuse that it wasn't an issue of money but an issue of physics.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aMGdbQCSwiRg&refer=home


No shit. We also declared an end to "major combat operations" about a year and a half ago. People are still getting blown up. What's your point?

I stand corrected on the numbers but refuse to recant the rest of my statements. Nice to see you here again Neehai where have you been ?

Every newsource I go to has vastly differing numbers. Who is correct ? This is indeed sad.

Another interesting read

1. We did not "Ramp up" for WW2 until after Dec 7 thank you very much.
2. Non-combat vehicle armoring is not and should not, in my opinion, be a priority. I could care less what your priorities are. Mine would be - beans, guns and bullets #1, intell support #2, #logistics infrastructure support #3 (possibly #2- but that is a very, very tough choice based on an extremely compex calculus), a very distant ### armoring non-combat vehicles. If you really want to play mind-games and puzzles, you lay out a series and sequence of priorities - for peacetime and for combat AND include a plan on how to shift priorities in acquisition on a moment's notice.... Try it. Ain't as easy as --ooh, we need armor now.. voila, there it is.
3. While I understand the desire for personal armor protection and non-combat vehicle protection by the individual soldiers who would be affected, I have played on the ground in hostile areas... I have shed blood.. Your mileage may vary - your politics/ideology certainly will... I want a good weapon, sufficient bullets and a right to return fire on MY call - not some screwed up rules of engagement that allow mining of roads with impunity by "red forces". Give me a good scout unit linked up with an armored engineer unit that will scout and demine/secure a supply route on a daily basis ad I will be more than happy... that's tactics, not logisitics and not pie-in-the-sky dreaming about how to protect everyone from mad-men with bombs or snipers or stray bullets in a country where weapons are EVERYWHERE.

The facts on the number of armored vehicles "in theater" and "in country" right now are likely to be a combination of different categorization by reporting unit commanders, different sourcing by reporters, and manipulation by biased sources. I could care less what the actual numbers are. It's cost-inefficient to armor up all non-combat vehicles to Level 3... extremely cost inefficient regarless of whether it's been "authorized by Congrees" or not. It's a waste of money better spent on other military needs - and it was probably authorized, not based on need but on political considerations (don't let lil Johnny get killed/wounded and you might get re-elected).

Neehai.. you are about as partisan as they come. Go get a life.

I dont even try to explain things, cause the moment you get your point across to someone, they will just find something else to fucking complain about. Its quiet saddening, and I wont be reading the forums anymore...they depress me because all it is is people bitch about shit and never doing anything. There are some that are very worthwhile and fun, but bitching bout this guy and that...no. You wanna bitch...write in a journal...and quit crying or leave the great country we live in...

PAVE LOW LEADS

Justin,

<<or leave the great country we live in...>>

No, I wouldn't want to do that. I love the great country I live in. Unless you mean - um - oh, I see what you mean, now. You mean America.

another bow to Sir Cellardoor /bow

I don't see a comparison between this and WW2. We entered WW2 because we were attacked and another country declared war on us. That is not the case with Iraq.

This administration has had a blank check. I may not be a military planner but I do know how to go shopping. Order the shit and stop lying about why you haven't. Is this the "it's hard to be President" defense again? Frankly, it's getting a little old. No one claims war is easy. People are claiming that the defense department has had two years to sort this shit out and not lie about it when troops ask questions.

It's fine if you don't think it is a priority, but that has never been stated and as such is not the issue at hand. This was defined as an issue of physics and supply.


I have a life thanks. Now what I am about to say is probably going to be pretty unpopular, but I've had enough of your "I shed blood" shit. It will carry you a bit of distance with me but you are milking it for a little too much lately.

No one claims war is easy and fighting is easy. You pollute the issue with your bullshit. (yes, I call bullshit)

I've been away for a bit. Here and there, doing this and that. You know how it is.

Let's see.. you don't see it so it must be/not be so? Of course.
The administration has a blank check? Right.... a blank check. Good one.
You have a life and you are tired of what I say? Ymm.. I don't believe the first and could care less about the second.
As for polluting the air here.... I didn't start this or any of the numerous "the sky is falling" threads that you have. You did. You are an extremist... you run around like Chicken Little decrying this and that and offering nothing but garbage to those who have a bit more of a clue about life than you apparently have. You may not like that, or that I do have a clue - and can back up 100% of my opinion posts here with facts, experience and documentation. I don't use crap like "media reporting" either. As for you and your issues.... you really DO need to get a life. Hint.. it's not going to be found here in the forums - nor is the solution to your dissatisfaction with real world politics.

Well if that ain't the bong calling the beer stien an inebriate

When I grow up I want to be just like you.