ExiledInIllinois Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Well since you work in defense, tell me about the lack of armour for Humvees and the like. A lot of folks say they support the miltary, yet there seems to be little outrage over the fact that our soldiers went into a hostile theatre without proper equipment. Now it's my understanding (from sources like the NY Times and PBS) that there is a philosophical battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the brass at the Pentagon. Rumsfeld seems to be pushing for a "quick strike" style of Army. Smaller, lighter, smarter, etc. But that vision doesn't mesh with the reality on the ground in Iraq. Also, was there a miscalculation, either by the White House, or military planners, about how the Iraq invasion would play out after the fall of Saddam? I could go on forever with questions. I'm really curious to get your take, since you are on the inside. In a nutshell, I feel that the entire Iraq campaign was started for the wrong reasons, not planned for the aftermath, and now we're in deep with young men and women losing their lives. But that's my opinion. I want to get your side. PTR 345111[/snapback] I want to know if the "away game" is working? Only "experts" need to reply.
Campy Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I want to know if the "away game" is working? 345114[/snapback] To what does "away game" refer?
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I want to know if the "away game" is working? Only "experts" need to reply. 345114[/snapback] So far, pretty well.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 My comments? Well since you work in defense, tell me about the lack of armour for Humvees and the like. A lot of folks say they support the miltary, yet there seems to be little outrage over the fact that our soldiers went into a hostile theatre without proper equipment. Outside my lane, but a short answer is that they didn't. At no time in our history has every single vehicle in theater been armored. And, the current inventory of equipment dates to an earlier era, based on "Cold War" realities, not "Asymetrical Warfare" realities. As it turns out, the HUMVEE has become the workhorse for a lot of activities, so a requirement grew for an increased number of armored ones. Also, as the primary threat right now is IED's, it's a moot point anyway. You can't armor a HUMVEE to the point that running over a couple hundred pounds of explosives is survivable Now it's my understanding (from sources like the NY Times and PBS) that there is a philosophical battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the brass at the Pentagon. Rumsfeld seems to be pushing for a "quick strike" style of Army. Smaller, lighter, smarter, etc. But that vision doesn't mesh with the reality on the ground in Iraq. No, it's not a rumor. The DOD is completely restructuring itself to meet the realities and challenges of the 21st Century. Most of the documentation, such as the Transformational Planning Guidance, can be found through Google. You have to realize that it takes several YEARS to reorganize things. It's not done on a whim. Also, was there a miscalculation, either by the White House, or military planners, about how the Iraq invasion would play out after the fall of Saddam? JUST MY OPINION: I don't think we went in with enough people. I could go on forever with questions. I'm really curious to get your take, since you are on the inside. In a nutshell, I feel that the entire Iraq campaign was started for the wrong reasons, No, it wasn't-but whatever.not planned for the aftermath, and now we're in deep with young men and women losing their lives. But that's my opinion. I want to get your side. PTR 345111[/snapback]
PromoTheRobot Posted May 26, 2005 Author Posted May 26, 2005 My comments? 345214[/snapback] Thanks for the insight. Let me address the whole Gitmo gulag thing, since that's what got this started. I'm not a bleeding heart for the terrorists, like some have accused me of being. What I thought was the USA always played by the rules, so that if we called someone out, we had the moral authority to do so. If we treat our captives humanely, while our enemies commit unspeakable acts such as beheadings, then we have the right to call them out, and the world would stand behind us. However, if we torture our captives, then how can we call the other side wrong? Respect is earned not just through might, but through a resolve to use that might in a just manner. The problem with perceptions in the USA, is we see what the radicals do, and assume that they represent the whole of the Arab world. In truth, most Iraqis are torn. Yes, the USA freed them from Saddam, but now their country is occupied by coalition troops and radical terrorist groups, and they are caught in the middle. For every step forward in gaining their trust, like the elections we helped bring about, we get set back by events like Abu Grahib (sic) I hope that explains things some. I'd like to get your take as well. PTR
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 If we treat our captives humanely, while our enemies commit unspeakable acts such as beheadings, then we have the right to call them out, and the world would stand behind us. This is where you go wrong, Promo. Being nice gets us nowhere, it never has and it never will. We try to do the right thing and we still get castigated. It's time for the gloves to come off, IMO.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I lifted this from another thread...it's more or less applicable here. What I personally think is happening, ...JMO, is that the conventions and the rules of land warfare were written for another time and another set of wars. 21st century warfare is incredibly more complex, and currently is more global than either of the two world wars. Just because people don't see it (past things like Iraq) doesn't mean it's not happening. What this means, to me-(the bizarre big picture guy) is that it is time to replace certain rules, guidelines, conventions, etc-with a set of policies that more reflect the times and situation we now live in. That has been happening "under the table" for quite sometime-often, to the benefit of all concerned-including our enemies. The problems are, as usual perceptions as advanced by a mass media looking for a buck-not truth, and too many politicians and hanger onners willing to exploit it. The simple fact of the matter is that for the most part, people are doing things a certain way for certain reasons with specific goals in mind. There are abuses, probably plenty. But, look up a few sites on prison rape, and see how conditions in American prisons-manned by union guards allow far more attrocities on a daily basis than anything going on within the military system. It's not a flavor of the week media subject, so it doesn't exist. You expect a machine the size of the US government to be perfect, and perfect by who's rules? I hazzard to guess the VA Beach PD has had it's moments. but an entire National system has to always be perfect TO EVERYBODY in this polarized land to be worth a crap. I'm sorry in a way, but for the most part I'm not. I do wish that America, as a people would just back up, take a deep breath, stay away from the TV for one friggen week and think about what is truly important to them, and those they love. Then think about the impediments that those who are trying to provide that for them have to face...every...single...friggen....day.
philburger1 Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 At least we can agree on Buffy. 344861[/snapback] Ever see the one with the Evil Willow? That was on of my favorite episodes.
Tux of Borg Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 A part of the problem 345672[/snapback] Look at the link below the article... http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8249 Female staff at Guantanamo sexually abused prisoners 5/25/2005 11:30:00 AM GMT Female interrogators sexually abused Pakistani detainees at Guantanamo Three Pakistani citizens who were released from Guantanamo Bay in September last year said that the U.S. security personnel desecrated the Qur’an and that they were sexually and physically abused by female interrogators. The three prisoners revealed the abuse accusation to a joint interrogation team (JIT) of Pakistani intelligence agencies - Military Intelligence (MI), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Special Investigation Group (SIG) and Sindh Police personnel. The three detainees, Abid Raza, Mohammad Anwar and Mohammad Ilyas, were arrested in Afghanistan by U.S. forces in January 2002 and sent to the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They said that prison staff at Guantanamo, especially the female officers, used tough interrogation methods to obtain information from them. "Women interrogators were particularly indecent with prisoners. They would press their sensitive parts against prisoners' bodies and when a woman interrogator threw menstrual blood on the face of a prisoner, we resorted to a hunger strike," they said. “Hunger strike was the threat which would usually soften them,” they added. A JIT member, who demanded anonymity, said that one of Mohammad Anwar’s testicles had been chopped off and that the other two prisoners were suffering from phobias. He also said that the three men complained of torture and abuse during their detention in Afghanistan and of inhuman conditions during their 28-hour journey from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners also said that U.S. forces interrogated them about Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISI. "Most of their questions were about the ISI. They wanted to know how many of those detained in Guantanamo had been associated with the ISI. They would ask things like what were the networks of the ISI in Afghanistan and Iran, how the agency worked in those countries, and who were working for the ISI in Afghanistan and Iran," they said. Commenting on reports that U.S. forces desecrated the Qur’an, the Pakistanis said that "They would stand on the Qur’an and throw it away, saying the book teaches you terrorism."
erynthered Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 The sad part is, there are people who'll believe this BS. "Women interrogators were particularly indecent with prisoners. They would press their sensitive parts against prisoners' bodies and when a woman interrogator threw menstrual blood on the face of a prisoner, we resorted to a hunger strike," they said. What a crock of sh--
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 The sad part is, there are people who'll believe this BS. What a crock of sh-- 345769[/snapback] I believe it.*** ***Mostly because if we play it up enough, we can get women out of the military.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 The sad part is, there are people who'll believe this BS. What a crock of sh-- 345769[/snapback] Which sensitive parts? And, can I get interogated too?
erynthered Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I believe it.******Mostly because if we play it up enough, we can get women out of the military. 345775[/snapback] Funny, I watched "Canadian Bacon" last night. You're right, If you sell it hard enough most will buy it. Screw it, lets blow up Canada! Its all their fault anyway. M. Moore with a Bills hat on disturbed me though.
GG Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 The sad part is, there are people who'll believe this BS. "Women interrogators were particularly indecent with prisoners. They would press their sensitive parts against prisoners' bodies and when a woman interrogator threw menstrual blood on the face of a prisoner, we resorted to a hunger strike," they said. What a crock of sh-- 345769[/snapback] Sure you're not describing a night at Mons Venus, and not G'itmo?
erynthered Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 What a crock of sh-- 345769[/snapback] Sure you're not describing a night at Mons Venus, and not G'itmo? 345794[/snapback] At least they got the lap dance for free. Not sure about that ride tide thingy thou
Recommended Posts