Rumsfeld Faces Tough Questions from Troops.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2004-12-09 04:32am

Lord Zentei wrote:They should also have asked him for more backup.

Question for all you millitary guys: how much does a decent suit of combat armour cost anyway?

Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.
How are these armour levels defined, and how much do armour upgrades for a transport cost?

To equip a humvee with lvl 3 the set cost 7800 dollars and can be installed in about 1 day by the unit. Its getting better finally as 80% of humvee are now armored the rest are armoured at a rate of 15 per week but there are still hundreds needed.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 07:07am

HemlockGrey wrote: Not particularly. There are some vocal and usually bigoted idiots, and a lot of people have some legitimite grievances, but nothing I've seen indicates a widespread desire for the Americans to leave the island.

Ok then, thanks for the correction.

Besides, I think retaining Okinawa would be wise in the long run. Why don't we pull out of Germany? It's not like we've got terribly pressing interests there.

What possible benefit would staying in Okinawa have? I think pulling out of both Germany and Okinawa would be wise. It would certainly save the US some money, which could then be funneled into increasing the force size.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-09 07:19am

What possible benefit would staying in Okinawa have? I think pulling out of both Germany and Okinawa would be wise. It would certainly save the US some money, which could then be funneled into increasing the force size.

Thinking in the extremely long term, having a forward base in the Pacific helps to check or react quickly to Chinese designs we don't necessarily approve of.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 07:21am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Thinking in the extremely long term, having a forward base in the Pacific helps to check or react quickly to Chinese designs we don't necessarily approve of.

Thats true, but the USA needs to make some hard choices regarding Iraq. They need to pull extra troops from somewhere, and although being in Okinawa may help them react quickly to China. In the short term it may not be feasible.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-12-09 07:54am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
Thinking in the extremely long term, having a forward base in the Pacific helps to check or react quickly to Chinese designs we don't necessarily approve of.
Thats true, but the USA needs to make some hard choices regarding Iraq. They need to pull extra troops from somewhere, and although being in Okinawa may help them react quickly to China. In the short term it may not be feasible.

Holding onto foreign bases that we don't need at the moment makes some sense in that we negotiated basing rights and leases back at the end of the Second World War, when the US was God Almighty and could get whatever terms it wanted. If we had to renegotiate leases in 2005-2010, things wouldn't be so nice.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-09 08:29am

dragon wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:How are these armour levels defined, and how much do armour upgrades for a transport cost?
To equip a humvee with lvl 3 the set cost 7800 dollars and can be installed in about 1 day by the unit. Its getting better finally as 80% of humvee are now armored the rest are armoured at a rate of 15 per week but there are still hundreds needed.

Really? Upgrading even a thousand humvees would cost only 7.8 million dollars? That's peanuts compared to what has already been spent, for crying out loud. And they have been stuck down there fighting urban engagements for over a year now. I really wonder what is going through Rummy's mind when he and his staff are allocating resources.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-09 09:45am

Stormbringer wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:The Right is totally hypocritical in previously wishing to assume all responsibility for the crushing defeat of Iraq on the basis of their minor military changes since Clinton's term and now wants to blame it on the military they had (an obvious implication toward the previous administration) because they could not be bothered to do even remotely realistic planning.
Except part of it is the military the Bush Administration recieved.

Bullshit. The Clinton Administration's military was more than adequate for its assigned tasks and responsibilities. The Bush Administration chose to foist an enormously manpower-intensive new responsibility onto it without adding the necessary manpower first. They did not have to invade Iraq.

It had a number of documented shortfalls which were only partially made up in the time they had. And one they couldn't really was in the simple number of troops they had; a key factor in Iraq right now.

I do love the way you Bush apologists act as though America actually had no choice but to invade. Here's a hint: if they didn't have the manpower necessary for an occupation, maybe they should have ... oh I dunno ... STAYED THE FUCK HOME?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-12-09 10:03am

Now, now Mike. You are clearly being Anti-American, part of the 'old way of thinking' like 'old Europe' and part of that useless organisation that refuesed to help America in its time of need, you know NATO, and really are being rather unfair in this.

You know and all that, yadda yadda yadda ...

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-09 10:04am

Not to mention that they could have started recruiting for the invasion two years before it took place. If they intended to invade they had ample time to increase the millitary's manpower, and blaming the situation on Clinton is disingenious (I can say all this, and I don't even like Clinton).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-09 10:11am

Lord Zentei wrote:Not to mention that they could have started recruiting for the invasion two years before it took place. If they intended to invade they had ample time to increase the millitary's manpower, and blaming the situation on Clinton is disingenious (I can say all this, and I don't even like Clinton).

"Disingenuous" is an understatement. They're basically saying "Clinton should have anticipated Bush's wild-eyed adventurism, prepared for it, and paid for it in advance so that Bush wouldn't have to".

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-09 10:21am

Darth Wong wrote:"Disingenuous" is an understatement. They're basically saying "Clinton should have anticipated Bush's wild-eyed adventurism, prepared for it, and paid for it in advance so that Bush wouldn't have to".

You can never have too many ironic understatements...