SkinWalker Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 The New England Journal of Medicine ran a photo essay (Peoples et al, 2004) titled Caring for the Wounded in Iraq — A Photo Essay. It's a fascinating essay, but be warned, some of the photos aren't exactly agreeable if you are in the middle of a spagetti diner. As of today (12 Dec 2004) there were 1,282 servicemen killed in action and 5,201 wounded to a degree that they were not returned to duty (Dept. of Defense, 2004). On NBC's Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert (12/12/04) played a clip of the Rumsfeld Q&A with servicement in Kuwait this week when Specialist Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard posed an embarassing question: SPC Wilson: Now, why do we soldiers have to dig through local land fills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles, and why don't we have those resources readily available to us? Darth Rumsfeld: As you know, you go to war with the Army you have and not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank on a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up. In a combat environment, every little bit of mass you can put between you and the shrapnel from a blast counts. Particularly if it's ballistic armor, so Rumsfeld's answer is nonsensical. The canvas door of a typical M998 HMMWV, or Humvee, is only about the thickness of about 20 sheets of notebook paper. If that. Russert's panel in the second half of the show included military analyst William Arkin, General Wayne Downing, General Barry McCaffrey and General Montgomery Meigs. There seemed to be a general agreement that the United States would be there for about 5 years more. They based that on the logistics and the instability of the region, necessitating a long-term stay. My concerns are several, but two specifically: how is it all going to be paid for ("in blood" aside) and who's going to constitute the military force? We (the United States) seem to be low in both resources. Sources Department of Defense (12/10/04). DefenseLINK Casualty Report 2004 1210 [PDF]. United States. Peoples, George E.; et al (12/9/04). Caring for the Wounded in Iraq — A Photo Essay. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(24):2476-2480 Russert, Tim (12/12/04). Transcript for Dec. 12, 2004 Meet the Press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loopster Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I wonder if the US is going to establish a lasting presence in that country through permanent bases like Ramstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Rumsfeld really does not know what he is talking about. You go to war with the army you have only if are caught by surprise, not in a throughly-planned (yet, ironically, largely ineffective) invasion and occupation of this magnitude. Rumsfeld has no solid ideas on how to lead the occupational forces in turning the situation in Iraq around. Then again, I doubt anyone does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 I heard of thet too. maybie the national deficit is cuasing our army to be underfunded enough thet they have to get armor from local land fills. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 The neo-con-men who are running the US look upon war in the fashion of those to whom it is an abstract, unreal game. They should take a walk through downtown Berlin, to get a taste of what war really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 No. Give them a standard soldier's equipment, put them in squad and make them travel throught the streets of Iraq for a day without escort. It'll be funny to see them after that. Lots of technology these days can make war seem nothing more then a video game. When all you have to do to wipe out a target is pushing a button, send the cruise missile away, and wham, done, it's over, wash your hands and prepare another missile. I miss the old days of honor on the battlefield, where you had to face your enemy. It was horrible but when you think about it, it's better then turning it into America's Army 2.0.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 anyone remember the old quote that bill bicks used to use? It was from a US pilot in the first gulf war, about firing missles into buildings. I think it was "It was very realistic!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad No. Give them a standard soldier's equipment, put them in squad and make them travel throught the streets of Iraq for a day without escort. It'll be funny to see them after that. Lots of technology these days can make war seem nothing more then a video game. When all you have to do to wipe out a target is pushing a button, send the cruise missile away, and wham, done, it's over, wash your hands and prepare another missile. I miss the old days of honor on the battlefield, where you had to face your enemy. It was horrible but when you think about it, it's better then turning it into America's Army 2.0.1 If they have such tecnoligy, why put soldiers out in danger anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Perhaps it's an odd way of thinking, but I'd rather give them a fair fight instead of me playing a real life video game killing real people behind my computer screen. I'd be fine if we had robots fighting robots but now it seems one side toys with the lives of the other side. It's just my particular sense of honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Unfortunately, the armor story has been 'debunked', in that the 'planted question' (known to be from a reporter) was factually incorrect - I don't have the exact number, but it was like 800 out of 830 of the HumVees in the guys division *were* properly outfitted with the full armor prior to the question being asked. Which makes the question seem like a cheap, agenda-serving heckle. Which is why I say unfortunate, as it might undermine the fact that Iraq is a mess. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/12/62712488.shtml According to this, Rumsfeld was well aware of the problem a year ago. http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/04/12/62712679.shtml?Element_ID=62712679 According to this article however, the production of the armor platings and armored Humvees went quite fast. Obviously for some, it's not fast enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Lots of technology these days can make war seem nothing more then a video game. When all you have to do to wipe out a target is pushing a button, send the cruise missile away, and wham, done, it's over, wash your hands and prepare another missile. Only because the cameras stop on impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by wassup Rumsfeld really does not know what he is talking about. You go to war with the army you have only if are caught by surprise, not in a throughly-planned (yet, ironically, largely ineffective) invasion and occupation of this magnitude. Rumsfeld has no solid ideas on how to lead the occupational forces in turning the situation in Iraq around. Then again, I doubt anyone does. You R correct sir, The dark lords comments were especially ironic considering he was an architect of the plan to scale down the number of troops and weapons systems in favor of fewer but more heavily armed and better equipped troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.