More on the Humvee scandal

[taranaki]

Some more info on the Humvee armor issues in Iraq.

This, from April this year

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731185/

This, the President's contribution to Mr Rumsfeld's embarassing incident

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/

This, from the manufacturers of Humvees,disputing some of Rumsfeld's claims

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...0_armor10.html

and this, an interesting page on the up-armored model now being shipped to Iraq.

http://www.defense-update.com/featur...red-humvee.htm


Clearly,the US government recognises the problem and is making substantial inroads into resolving it.This is not some pack of part-time crybabies looking for something to complain about.

What is not discussed however, is the reason that so many of these machines are still being shipped to Iraq, and so many others are being modified in the field.After all, it's 18 months since President Bush announced the bulk of the fighting too be over, and only a matter of weeks until the alleged 'free elections' in which Iraqis can choose between the various Pentagon-approved puppets to run their country by proxy...Surely under such conditions,and after sledgehammering the alleged insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, the US should be looking at winding its operations down, not keeping troops on call-back and increasing their armoured logistics capabilities? All the facts in this scandal point to two things.

1/ the Pentagon grossly underestimated the number of people who would not be delighted to be 'liberated' by Uncle Sam.

2/Even after the 'elections',Iraq will still be controlled by the US military for the forseeable future.

Clearly, it's not just a handful of diehard terrorists attacking the American occupying forces.We're well now into a second phase where the alleged 'insurgents' are supposedly arriving en masse from other muslim nations.Despite the supposed 'liberation' of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, there seems to be little Iraqi resistance to the alleged 'insurgents'.Could it be that the Iraqis just don't want the American occupatiion to continue?

[Flatrater]

Did you read this part?

In a related development, it was revealed Thursday that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla., published on its Web site an e-mail attributed to reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press, which states that Pitts worked with the soldier because he was not allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.

Who is concerned about the armor? Is it the solider or is it the media trying to get shit stirred? It appears the solider was coached in his questions.



And then you have this little tidbit.

"What we also can't lose sight of is that the Humvee was a vehicle that was not designed to afford armor protection, nor were most of our trucks, he said. "The only (factory-armored) Humvees -- the high-end ones -- we had were for our military police forces."

And this one too!

The original vehicle offers excellent road and cross-country mobility. It was designed in a variety of configurations; primarily for utility, logistical and scout missions. Where active combat role was considered, the Humvee was selected for its excellent cross country and road, air and helicopter mobility and load capacity. It was never intended to perform as armored combat vehicles. Such specification precluded armor protection, in order to maintain its low empty weight and thus high mobility standard.

[lazysmurff]

i dont think the media orchistrated the loud cheers as mentioned in the original article. nor do i think the media just found some soldier to ask a question. I think its a bit more likely they were dong interviews, and helped coach a soldier in how to ask a question he might have already had.

we'll never know.

but you, as so many people here do, avoided the more serious point. allow me to remind you:

it's 18 months since President Bush announced the bulk of the fighting too be over, and only a matter of weeks until the alleged 'free elections' in which Iraqis can choose between the various Pentagon-approved puppets to run their country by proxy...Surely under such conditions,and after sledgehammering the alleged insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, the US should be looking at winding its operations down, not keeping troops on call-back and increasing their armoured logistics capabilities? All the facts in this scandal point to two things.

1/ the Pentagon grossly underestimated the number of people who would not be delighted to be 'liberated' by Uncle Sam.

2/Even after the 'elections',Iraq will still be controlled by the US military for the forseeable future.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Did you read this part?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a related development, it was revealed Thursday that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla., published on its Web site an e-mail attributed to reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press, which states that Pitts worked with the soldier because he was not allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is concerned about the armor? Is it the solider or is it the media trying to get shit stirred? It appears the solider was coached in his questions.


And then you have this little tidbit.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What we also can't lose sight of is that the Humvee was a vehicle that was not designed to afford armor protection, nor were most of our trucks, he said. "The only (factory-armored) Humvees -- the high-end ones -- we had were for our military police forces."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And this one too!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original vehicle offers excellent road and cross-country mobility. It was designed in a variety of configurations; primarily for utility, logistical and scout missions. Where active combat role was considered, the Humvee was selected for its excellent cross country and road, air and helicopter mobility and load capacity. It was never intended to perform as armored combat vehicles. Such specification precluded armor protection, in order to maintain its low empty weight and thus high mobility standard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read it all.

point one.
The reporter worked with the Marine in question to put a question to Rumsfeld because Rumsfeld declined to accept questions from the journalists.Seems strange that one of America's leading politicians will allow the press to put their necks on the line as 'embeddeds',as long as they don't ask any awkward questions.As to the question itself, clearly there was a lot of support from the assembled Marines for the question.If you are going to diss one of your C in C's closest buddies, you had better have a good and valid question for him, or you'd end up getting your ass kicked.The queestion was fair and relevant, and representative of the the fighting men in the room.The reporter couldn't have channelled it through the Marine if the problem didn't exist.Pretending that the manner in which the question was asked is more important than the answer to the question is a diversionary tactic.

Point two and three are essentially the same argument.
The Hummer was never designed as a light armoured personnel carrier.However, in their role as occupying forces,LAV's are exactly what the Marines need for transport.The Hummer in its original form is vulnerable to smallarms fire and roadside bombs.There are some 12,000 of them in Iraq, with numbers still rising.the fact that it is neccesary to up-armor these weapons shows two things.....1. There is a significant armed resistance in Iraq that is expected to be ongoing for some time.The Pentagon would not be spending $600,000,000 on up-armoring vehicles already in Iraq if the 'liberated people of Iraq' weren't quite so adept at destroying them.
2.The White House failed to forward plan the operation.Where active combat role was considered, the Humvee was selected for its excellent cross country and road, air and helicopter mobility and load capacity.A key phrase from the paragraph that you threw back at me.Only thing is, this phase was never supposed to be an "active combat role".This was supposed to be where the Iraqis danced in the streets at the removal of Saddam.Nobody in the White House seems to have given much thought to the ongoing effects of occupying a foreign nation after the declaration of a win.The fact that Bush prematurely announced the bulk of the fighting to be over,as evidenced by the ongoing casualties and subsequent up-armoring of the tactical support vehicles,shows that the White House completely underestimated the scale of resistance to their presence.You dont spend $600,000,00 protecting yourself from a small group of insurgents, the opposition to America's presence in Iraq is more numerous and more violent than Bush cares to admit.Any 'elected' government that the White House installs will fail.Bush knows this, that is why the units are being up-armored instead of withdrawn.

[RedLightning]

I understand both sides of the argument. But I do believe they should have more armor. Obviusly not too much that makes them not able to perform their duties but more then they are now.

[Steel]

Armoring totally defeats their purpose. That's what Bradleys are for. Jesus.

[aloharocky]

Originally Posted by Steel

Armoring totally defeats their purpose. That's what Bradleys are for. Jesus.

You've got to remember the people that are doing most of the complaining are people that know absolutely nothing about the military.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

You've got to remember the people that are doing most of the complaining are people that know absolutely nothing about the military.

Yes.

For example, the convoy crew that refused to ride out with the tainted fuel. I mean, they're only in the Army 'fer chrissakes.

[aloharocky]

I never heard that the "tainted fuel" story proved to be true. I think that some different drivers got the convoy through, and the whole incident turned out to be a panic started by one individual. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

You've got to remember the people that are doing most of the complaining are people that know absolutely nothing about the military.

Ooooookaaaaay........so now you are suggesting that the Pentagon can't tell the difference between a Bradley and a Hummer?

Your idea of 'knowing absolutely nothing' only seems to extend to those you disagree with.You've told us that you didn't serve in the Desert, but you speak on the subject like you know it intimately.

[aloharocky]

I wasn't in "the desert," but combat is combat, and they use the same vehicles whatever the locale. No military has armored supply trucks, and Humvees are not meant to be tanks, they were to take the place of the jeep. Tactics must change with the situation, and the Nasty Guard is still in a learning curve. They aren't full-time soldiers, and it is going to take time for them to catch up to speed. But no matter what they do, people are going to get hurt in a war. I don't see why you can't grasp this fact.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

I wasn't in "the desert," but combat is combat, and they use the same vehicles whatever the locale. No military has armored supply trucks, and Humvees are not meant to be tanks, they were to take the place of the jeep. Tactics must change with the situation, and the Nasty Guard is still in a learning curve. They aren't full-time soldiers, and it is going to take time for them to catch up to speed. But no matter what they do, people are going to get hurt in a war. I don't see why you can't grasp this fact.

Dude.

Just because you didn't have armor to stop the ball bearings shot at you in the Civil War, doesn't mean that the soldiers of today have to face the same dangers you do.

Why don't you tell the NFL players to dump their helmets for the leather ones you wore in college or something (I mean, something had to have knocked your head)? Or more poignantly, have the Police Officers of today dump their bulletproof vests...I mean c'mon, the deputies of yesteryear never needed them, right?

[aloharocky]

Show me a supply vehicle that can take a belly hit from a 500 lb. bomb and I'll gladly write my congressman and tell him to buy some. Until you can, I say the solution is to find better ways to detect those that are planting the bombs, and kill them.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

Show me a supply vehicle that can take a belly hit from a 500 lb. bomb and I'll gladly write my congressman and tell him to buy some. Until you can, I say the solution is to find better ways to detect those that are planting the bombs, and kill them.

Or you could ask yourself,why the bombs are being planted, and move the Hummers to a less hostile environment.The fact that supply lines are still being targeted a full year fted Saddam Hussein has been detained should tell the administration something.These insurgents are no longer fighting for their leader,they are fighting for the right to live as Iraqis in threir own country.They don't need a bunch of trigger-happy Americans pushing them around.

On a seperate note,your continued insults towards the National Guard soldies who are risking their lives [so that your President can show everyone how big his dick is] are a fucking disgrace.If you are 100% behind your leader, you should at least be 100% behind those whom he employs to do his dirty work. If you can't even show the decency to support American who are risking their lives to push through something that you claim to believe in, you are just a couch commando.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Steel

Armoring totally defeats their purpose. That's what Bradleys are for. Jesus.

got 12,000 Bradleys sitting on standby?

The Iraqi resistance is not going to go away in a hurry.the fact that these people are op[erating in a multitude of locations and have still have access to large amounts of high explosives indicate that some fresh thinking is required.It's not enough to sit around like a dumbass and say' but they're supply line /National Guard,we don't usually have to armor them'.A significant percentage of the Iraqi community want the US out of their country,and are smart enough to realise that they cannot win a toe-to-toe fight.Thefirefight may be over, but contrary to George's idiotic statements, the bulk of the fighting was not,and is not, over.