Is Rumsfeld an idiot?

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2002-10-30 04:16am

Not sure of this is the right forum, but:

Is Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense for the United States, an idiot?

For those of you not familiar with his views:
What he wants to do is make America's military into "a smaller, more efficent force, able to combat our modern enemies." Translation: turn the US military into a frail and anemic shadow of its former glory.
The fiasco started when he lobbied for the discontinuation of the Crusader program, which is a technologically advanced piece of warfare technology. The Crusader is a self-propelled howitzer with extreme accuracy due to its excellent computer systems. It is capable of firing two rounds, each at a different trajectory, and making them hit the exact same spot at the exact same time. That's quite a feat.

Rumsfeld's arguments against the Crusader:
- Its an outdated, obsolete piece of junk
- Its way too expensive
- Its too bulky and unwieldy

Only one of those arguments has any merit, the fact that its expensive. The first one is your typical political shit made up by your typical political dumbass, and the third one, while true, is a necessary evil for artillery weapons.

Then he goes and says in political-ese that we basically don't need artillery if its going to be so unwieldy. For those of you not tactically and strategically educated, artillery is a vital element in any military, even back in the days of the Roman Empire.

So I ask for your vote, Yes or No.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-10-30 02:02pm

He doesn't buy into completly submitting in to the Big Green Mother Army routine. Welcome to the 21 century. Look at the M1A1 Abram. Its our main battle tank and is one the smallest in its class. Yet, our armored cav units are among the most feared. They have a small, high speed( for a tank anyway) vehicle and are very skilled with it.

While I don't dismiss the need for artillery, I agree that the Crusader isn't nessacery and is just another toy for the BGMA cult to show off. These are the same guys who are constantly trying to cut off SOCOM (Special Operations Command). This is the same line of thought that had us pump thousands upon housands of troops into Viet Nam.

The Clinton Syndicate...er administration is responsible for nearly emmasuclating (sp?) the military. Rummsfield is merely taking it another direction. Focus more on stealth and skill rather than brute force. Don't get me wrong, muscle has its place, but SpecOps are taking an increasing role in modern warfare.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-10-30 03:07pm

When told by the Pentagon that the minimum force able to decapitate Iraq was in the range of several hundred thousand, Rumpsfelt's response was to stick his fingers in his ears and order the Pentagon to find some way to sieze Iraq with less than half that many troops. Overruling operations planners in their own fields of expertese is the act of a very dangerous idiot.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-30 03:52pm

- Its too bulky and unwieldy

You think this is not an issue ? A weapon is useless if it can not be deployed quickly which the Crusader would not have been able to.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-30 04:00pm

Enlightenment wrote:When told by the Pentagon that the minimum force able to decapitate Iraq was in the range of several hundred thousand, Rumpsfelt's response was to stick his fingers in his ears and order the Pentagon to find some way to sieze Iraq with less than half that many troops. Overruling operations planners in their own fields of expertese is the act of a very dangerous idiot.

He's just been watching too much Star Trek. That's how they demonstrate "leadership" in Star Trek; the captain asks how long it will take, the subordinate says "8 hours", the captain barks "I want it in 4", and everyone looks admiringly at his demonstration of Superior Command Skills.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-10-30 04:01pm

Enlightenment wrote:When told by the Pentagon that the minimum force able to decapitate Iraq was in the range of several hundred thousand, Rumpsfelt's response was to stick his fingers in his ears and order the Pentagon to find some way to sieze Iraq with less than half that many troops. Overruling operations planners in their own fields of expertese is the act of a very dangerous idiot.

Or it is the act of a man who is stuck planning an operation that may or may not have popular backing? The American people have become a little soft and we were spoiled by Desert Storm. We don't like the images of body bags. Rumsfeld has to plan a capaign that will complete his boss' objectives while not costing a lot of American lives. Its called politics and it sucks.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-30 04:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Enlightenment wrote:When told by the Pentagon that the minimum force able to decapitate Iraq was in the range of several hundred thousand, Rumpsfelt's response was to stick his fingers in his ears and order the Pentagon to find some way to sieze Iraq with less than half that many troops. Overruling operations planners in their own fields of expertese is the act of a very dangerous idiot.
He's just been watching too much Star Trek. That's how they demonstrate "leadership" in Star Trek; the captain asks how long it will take, the subordinate says "8 hours", the captain barks "I want it in 4", and everyone looks admiringly at his demonstration of Superior Command Skills.

I think he knows we can't do it. He just has no choice, he and cheney have to push it forward wether we can or not. I worry about what those two fuckers are gonna do to the country.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2002-10-30 05:48pm

Bush is the idiot. Rumsfeild just has to deal with him.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-10-30 08:36pm

ElBlanco wrote:
The Clinton Syndicate...er administration is responsible for nearly emmasuclating (sp?) the military.

No, his administration was responsible for cutting down on wasteful military spending.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2002-10-30 08:41pm

Ultra wrote:
ElBlanco wrote:
The Clinton Syndicate...er administration is responsible for nearly emmasuclating (sp?) the military.
No, his administration was responsible for cutting down on wasteful military spending.

ROFL LMAO......ummm yea WHAT kind of Wasteful Spending?
Cyaround,
Jason

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-30 08:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Enlightenment wrote:When told by the Pentagon that the minimum force able to decapitate Iraq was in the range of several hundred thousand, Rumpsfelt's response was to stick his fingers in his ears and order the Pentagon to find some way to sieze Iraq with less than half that many troops. Overruling operations planners in their own fields of expertese is the act of a very dangerous idiot.
He's just been watching too much Star Trek. That's how they demonstrate "leadership" in Star Trek; the captain asks how long it will take, the subordinate says "8 hours", the captain barks "I want it in 4", and everyone looks admiringly at his demonstration of Superior Command Skills.

Haha, no matter how technology you have you still need troops too garrison. Oh, I guess during Desert Storm they only had 12 America n Commandoes on the Battlefeild and the whole Coailition was drunk

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2002-10-30 09:59pm

Quote:
- Its too bulky and unwieldy

You think this is not an issue ? A weapon is useless if it can not be deployed quickly which the Crusader would not have been able to.

I do think its an issue, and we're getting better at it every war. Artillery units are by nature slow and very vulnerable. In the American Civil War, cannons had to be limbered up and towed around by horses. By World War I, we could drive them around with trucks, increasing their speed. In World War II, the Nazis gave them their own engines and even some armor, making them even more maneuverable. The Crusader is the latest and greatest SPG (self-propelled gun), so can deploy faster than most current artillery units. If slower artillery units are still in use, what makes the Crusader worse?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-30 10:06pm

The Crusader is the latest and greatest SPG (self-propelled gun), so can deploy faster than most current artillery units. If slower artillery units are still in use, what makes the Crusader worse?

Dont confuse battlefield mobility with deployability. The Crusader needs to be transported by ships just like all other heavy armor. Sure you can use C-5s but there are not enough of them to move the kind of numbers you want.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-10-30 10:07pm

What can mobile artillery do that airstrikes can't? All I can think of is sutained fire and even that can be compensated for. It certainly isn't more powerful or more accurate.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-30 10:35pm

ElBlanco wrote:What can mobile artillery do that airstrikes can't? All I can think of is sutained fire and even that can be compensated for. It certainly isn't more powerful or more accurate.

Shell are a lot harder to stop than aircraft. Over a contested battefield having native fire support can make all the difference. And it takes time to get aircraft to the front, time the grunts may not have.

And a shells are lot cheaper than panes.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-10-30 10:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:
ElBlanco wrote:What can mobile artillery do that airstrikes can't? All I can think of is sutained fire and even that can be compensated for. It certainly isn't more powerful or more accurate.
Shell are a lot harder to stop than aircraft. Over a contested battefield having native fire support can make all the difference. And it takes time to get aircraft to the front, time the grunts may not have.

And a shells are lot cheaper than panes.

Cruise missiles. They're preferred over artillery shells.

I doubt we'll see a single artillery shell fired if we go to war against Iraq.

Oh, and Bush and the whole Bush administration are all messed up. Our country is run by a bunch of....I don't know how to describe them.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-30 10:58pm

Shinova wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
ElBlanco wrote:What can mobile artillery do that airstrikes can't? All I can think of is sutained fire and even that can be compensated for. It certainly isn't more powerful or more accurate.
Shell are a lot harder to stop than aircraft. Over a contested battefield having native fire support can make all the difference. And it takes time to get aircraft to the front, time the grunts may not have.

And a shells are lot cheaper than panes.
Cruise missiles. They're preferred over artillery shells.

I doubt we'll see a single artillery shell fired if we go to war against Iraq.

Oh, and Bush and the whole Bush administration are all messed up. Our country is run by a bunch of....I don't know how to describe them.

Fucking idiots?

And a cruise missle is both less effective and more expensive. A cruise missle is a million in change. A shell's nothing against that. And again, cruise missles can't get there as quickly as artillery fire. Artillery is also more effective against mobile targets. A cruise missle can only attack a fixed, or nearly so, target.

Air support and missles can't replace old fasioned artillery. We'll see plenty of it if we fight a full scale war with Iraq and in any other war.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-30 11:05pm

Cruise missles are far more expensive than artillery and generally used to attack different targets.

Artillery and mortars will play a role in Iraq should we go in. No doubt about it.

Post by **Steve** » 2002-10-30 11:10pm

Crusader was too big. And it would take too long to deploy.

155mm howitzers are airmobile, they can be easily driven into combat range by Humvees or other vehicles, or flown in by chopper.

And we already have the Paladin, which at least is lighter.

And Rumsfeld is the guy who has handed dumb reporters their asses on a silver platter on very many occasions, so lighten the fuck up.

Out of all of his Cabinent, Bush's only fug-up was Asscroft. Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, they're all good.

Rumsfeld is going in a good direction. I like it. If we ever have need for gigantic armies again, we can always do things like bring back the reservists and limited draft callups (and the latter would require immense public support, it's far more likely that they'll just issue a really loud call to arms for voluntary enlistments).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-30 11:22pm

Steve wrote:.

Out of all of his Cabinent, Bush's only fug-up was Asscroft. Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, they're all good.

Cheney and Rumsfel are both warmongering idiots. Ass-croft is one step short of a jack booted nazi. Powell and Rice both have the back bone of jelllyfish.

Bush wants a war and the people that should be telling him not are silent. He's going to war for all the wrong reasons and Cheney and Rumsfeld are egging him on. It's dangerous and dumb.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-10-30 11:24pm

Wasn't there also something about an islamic fundamentalist up to be the next president of pakistan or something?

Pakistan has working nukes. Iraq doesn't.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-30 11:30pm

Pakistan has working nukes. Iraq doesn't.

Thats why they wanna pick on Iraq. Once a country joins the nuclear club, then its hands off. At least IMHO.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-10-30 11:39pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Pakistan has working nukes. Iraq doesn't.
Thats why they wanna pick on Iraq. Once a country joins the nuclear club, then its hands off. At least IMHO.

Nukes aren't everything.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-10-30 11:39pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Pakistan has working nukes. Iraq doesn't.
Thats why they wanna pick on Iraq. Once a country joins the nuclear club, then its hands off. At least IMHO.

Doesn't hurt to mention that Iraq also has the second-largest oil reserve in the mideast.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-10-30 11:57pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Steve wrote:.

Out of all of his Cabinent, Bush's only fug-up was Asscroft. Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, they're all good.
Cheney and Rumsfel are both warmongering idiots. Ass-croft is one step short of a jack booted nazi. Powell and Rice both have the back bone of jelllyfish.

Bush wants a war and the people that should be telling him not are silent. He's going to war for all the wrong reasons and Cheney and Rumsfeld are egging him on. It's dangerous and dumb.

Actually Powell has been vocal in his objections to some of the policies. Problem is, if he jumps up and says "NO! Its a bad idea." in front of the media, it makes the adminsistration look weak. When the rumors ofdiffering opinios within the cabinet did emerge, the press was saying that disecnsion (sp?) was tearing apart the adminsitration.

And saying it is about oil or about some moral high ground is very simplistic. If we want more oil, there are a lot easier ways of going about it. And it is obviously a lot more complicated than taking down the bad guy.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS