Is Rumsfeld an idiot?
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
- Brother-Captain Gaius
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6859
- Joined: 2002-10-22 12:00am
- Location: \m/
Is Rumsfeld an idiot?
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- Its an outdated, obsolete piece of junk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.
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- Its an outdated, obsolete piece of junk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.
Agitated asshole | (Ex)40K Nut | Metalhead
The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003
"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003
"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
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.
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
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2404
- Joined: 2002-07-04 07:38pm
- Location: Annoying nationalist twits since 1990
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.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
- TrailerParkJawa
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
- Location: San Jose, California
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
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.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.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
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.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.
- Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
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.Darth Wong wrote: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.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.
- Singular Quartet
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 3896
- Joined: 2002-07-04 05:33pm
- Location: This is sky. It is made of FUCKING and LIMIT.
No, his administration was responsible for cutting down on wasteful military spending.ElBlanco wrote:
The Clinton Syndicate...er administration is responsible for nearly emmasuclating (sp?) the military.
"Do you have blacks, too?" —George W. Bush, to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov. 8, 2001
---
"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will." —George W. Bush, speaking about Saddam Hussein, Manchester, N.H., Oct. 5, 2002
---
"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will." —George W. Bush, speaking about Saddam Hussein, Manchester, N.H., Oct. 5, 2002
- Soontir C'boath
- SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
- Posts: 6854
- Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
- Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
- Contact:
ROFL LMAO......ummm yea WHAT kind of Wasteful Spending?Ultra wrote:No, his administration was responsible for cutting down on wasteful military spending.ElBlanco wrote:
The Clinton Syndicate...er administration is responsible for nearly emmasuclating (sp?) the military.
Cyaround,
Jason
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
- Raptor 597
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: 2002-08-01 03:54pm
- Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
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 drunkDarth Wong wrote: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.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.
- Brother-Captain Gaius
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6859
- Joined: 2002-10-22 12:00am
- Location: \m/
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?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.
Agitated asshole | (Ex)40K Nut | Metalhead
The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003
"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003
"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
- TrailerParkJawa
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
- Location: San Jose, California
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.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?
I never looked too deeply into this but....
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
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
Re: I never looked too deeply into this but....
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.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.
And a shells are lot cheaper than panes.
Re: I never looked too deeply into this but....
Cruise missiles. They're preferred over artillery shells.Stormbringer wrote: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.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.
And a shells are lot cheaper than panes.
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.
What's her bust size!?
It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!
It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!
- Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
Re: I never looked too deeply into this but....
Fucking idiots?Shinova wrote:Cruise missiles. They're preferred over artillery shells.Stormbringer wrote: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.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.
And a shells are lot cheaper than panes.
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.
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
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
- Location: San Jose, California
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).
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).
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
- Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
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.Steve wrote:.
Out of all of his Cabinent, Bush's only fug-up was Asscroft. Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, they're all good.
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.
- TrailerParkJawa
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
- Location: San Jose, California
- Uraniun235
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 13772
- Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
- Location: OREGON
- Contact:
Doesn't hurt to mention that Iraq also has the second-largest oil reserve in the mideast.TrailerParkJawa wrote:Thats why they wanna pick on Iraq. Once a country joins the nuclear club, then its hands off. At least IMHO.Pakistan has working nukes. Iraq doesn't.
What's her bust size!?
It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!
It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!
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.Stormbringer wrote: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.Steve wrote:.
Out of all of his Cabinent, Bush's only fug-up was Asscroft. Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, they're all good.
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.
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.