Giving a Hummer to the weenies

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:56 pm

Ah yes, the liberally biased news is trying to trick us again. First by coaching some poor schlep dog face into asking Rummy about armor for the Humvee's and then presenting the military as not providing armored Humvee's to patrol the dog patch areas of Iraq. Too bad the esteemed degreed journalists couldn't dig a little beyond their pointy nose'd slanted faces for they may have come up with something like this to balance their Noam Chomski-esque presentation. From the Stars and Stripes:

"Di Rita said that Speer was â??not certain of the specific situation [Wilson] was referring to,â?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:28 pm

Wood, do you see it as a good or bad thing that this little brouhaha has resulted in more armored hummvee's being shipped than would have occurred otherwise?

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:14 pm

Vander wrote:Wood, do you see it as a good or bad thing that this little brouhaha has resulted in more armored hummvee's being shipped than would have occurred otherwise?

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Considering it is only two days since the question was asked, I don't see yet any increase in capacity or deliverence of armored humvees yet.

As the Stars and Stripes article alludes, 3/4 of all the humvees are armored leaving a couple of thousand (my guess) humvees unarmored. I don't see any increase in manufacturing capacity of armor kits due to the low number of vehicles needing armor and the fact the unarmored ones are not used for patrol duties.
As such, I think the attention played by the news organs is much ado about nothing. Correct me if I am wrong.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:26 pm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6694474/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:05 pm

I'll be danged. Even though I am rarely wrong, I'll gladly eat crow on this one.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:24 pm

werd.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:49 pm

woody,
are you seriously gonna back away from the obvious tactic of chastising the source? i thought all you guys live in reality and we are just sheep? am i reading the dbb?

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:27 pm

I just have to say that Rumsfeld got pwned.

"now settle down, i'm old damnit and its early"

what kind of response is that?

and why on earth would you say this to your troops?

"when you go to war, you don't go with the army you wish you had, you go with what you have." (paraphrasing)

how disrespectful to these people putting their lives on the line. my respect for him has now dropped to subterranean levels.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:55 pm

Beowulf wrote:"when you go to war, you don't go with the army you wish you had, you go with what you have." (paraphrasing)

Whats wrong with that? In many cases that is the truth. The government always wants their armed forces to be the best that it can be and for the most part ours is. Even though we have the strongest military in the world that doesn't mean people don't think it could be better.

He might have meant that he wished we had Bush's evil robot army to spare these soldiers their lives and march on any country in the world to steal their resources

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:38 am

"The government always wants their armed forces to be the best that it can be and for the most part ours is. Even though we have the strongest military in the world that doesn't mean people don't think it could be better."

Then why did soldiers have to make such a stink? Sending a soldier into battle without adequate armor is like sending a guy into a gun fight with a knife.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:17 am

Tyranny wrote:
Beowulf wrote:"when you go to war, you don't go with the army you wish you had, you go with what you have." (paraphrasing)
Whats wrong with that?

In a non-discrsionary war (like if we were directly attacked) I would agree with you. But, this is a war we didn't have to fight. We went because we wanted to, not because we had to. Therefore we should have made sure we were damn good and ready. I think in this case it is questionable whethere we were or not.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:21 am

Perhaps we should look at what the humvee was designed for:

"The HMMWV is the world standard in light military trucks. It is lightweight, high performance, four wheel drive, air transportable & droppable, land mobility system. The family includes utility/cargo, shelter carrier, armament carrier, ambulance, TOW missile carrier and scout-reconnaissance configuration. Payload varies by body style ranging from 1920 lbs on the 4 litter ambulance to 5300 lbs on limited availability Expanded Capacity variant, but is generally in the 5/4T range. A basic armor package is standard on the Armament and TOW missile carrier models. A more heavily armored, or Up-Armor HMMWV, is now being produced in limited quantities, primarily for the Scout Platoon application. Special supplemental armor versions have been developed for USMC requirements; unique model numbers designate these configurations."

As you can see the humvee was designed for a variety of uses. As a scout vehicle, speed would be an asset. Since armor adds a weight factor that would be detrimental to speed, no armor would be installed on a scout platform. Same would go for the ambulance variant. In the Iraq theater, once major conflict was over and the policing began, the scout variant would be used for patrol duty as it was immediatly available even though it was un-armored. So Rumsfeld statement of going to war with the army you have does not indicate poor planning as the left would dearly like to portray. Using equipment for purposes other than what it was intended for is a commonality with all armies fighting in all wars through recorded history. As wars progress, equipment changes to suit the situation. Tank crews in vietnam would wield on extra machine guns onto the tanks body and bullet proof visors were factory added to the tank commanders opening as many commanders were being killed as they rode hatch open. I can not fault Rumsfeld for the comment he made in the least.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:30 am

Next Woodchip will tell us that the liberal media that "coached" the poor hapless soldier also coached every other guy in the room to let out a loud cheer when the question was asked.

When I heard this story on the radio earlier yesterday I could already picture what the result would be in this forum. And sure enough here is the thread i envisioned in my mind's eye. Woodchip takes a dump in the ethics forum, other members do nothing but step around it.

I'm going to say what should have been the first reply to the steaming pile that is this post...only a moron would believe it. The whole concept is rediculous. and a huge STFU.

The predictable lameness of this forum is a shame. You're all a bunch of fags for not calling utter and complete BS on this.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:11 am

I agree with you Palzon. I thought the accusations brought forth by Chip were so ludicrous as to warrant no response.

Could it be that the rest of us are just not going to bite on Chips bait any longer?

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:59 am

Palzon wrote:The predictable lameness of this forum is a shame. You're all a bunch of fags for not calling utter and complete BS on this.

hmmm...
i never sucked a dick before.

i attempted to call BS with my tiny post poking fun at the circle jerk crowd 'round here. maybe that just wasn't good enough for you palzon.

but i hear ya... when lothar introduced himself to me at the chicago lan he said something to the effect of "you post in my forum" and i responded by saying "i used to a lot. but then i thought to myself: 'where am i going with this?'"

because it never really changes. you try to make a point (however misguided it may be) and get a cute little nickname and a lecture pointing out how your source is biased and your writing is terrible and your momma is so fatâ?¦. all of this coming from people who will never admit they may be wrong or, apparently, live their life reading internet blogs and automatically accept a certain political view as 'correct' and the opposing view as 'incorrect' in the process letting public representatives of their view slide on huge mistakes.

itâ??s hogwash. we all know it. it comes down to who is willing to â??researchâ?? (meaning: not leave your frigginâ?? house for 2 months so you can find every last article on the exact coordinates of where bill clinton shot his load) and who is willing to waste their time so they can be the internet master of the universe.

personally, i think itâ??s cool that woodchip ate crow. that means something to me. not because i want to see his demiseâ?¦ but because it makes him human and i can relate to that.

iâ??m so sorry i failed you.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:43 pm

I'm guilty. I saw Woodchips slant and just ignored it and if it had been a lefty spinning I'd have called BS on it. I'm just not as compelled to unload on conservatives no matter how much I try to be fair and balanced. I just sluff it off like listening to Rush Limbaugh, I know he's spinning but I enjoy the humor and sometimes he's dead on target.

I thought the reporter did a good job. That's what the press is supposed to do, expose stuff like that.
Giving the soldier the question is no big deal as long as it's based on fact. Is it true that most soldiers are digging for armor or just a few out of thousands? Addressing that part of the question would have made a better report but at least the answer to that is more likely to suface since the whole issue was raised.

I think Rumsfelds answer regarding going to war with the army you have was dead on. The government is inefficient at best and it's no surprise to me, nor should it be to any soldier, that there is equipment in the wrong place at the wrong time.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:48 pm

TheCops wrote: personally, i think itâ??s cool that woodchip ate crow. that means something to me. not because i want to see his demiseâ?¦ but because it makes him human and i can relate to that.

Reports of my demise have only been written up in the liberal press. Believe them not.

Now on to the usual educated response by Palzy. First off the question by the soldier was orchestrated by a ball-less news reporter who couldn't ask the question himself in a forum where reporters could grill Rumsfeld directly. No, the jack in the box degreed reporter decided to find a willing dupe to carry his water. What might be interesting is to find out if any of the troopers would have asked this question all on their own. What you fail to grasp Palzy, is that the reporter in question seemingly lacks a ounce of personal integrity. What you fail to grasp is one of the reasons liberally biased news organs are failing is they no longer try to report news. They try to create it. This reporter is no better than Jason Blair. Why is this a fabricated issue?
From Vanders source:

"With a revised contract, the Army will get the 8,100 fully armored Humvees it had ordered two months early â?? in March instead of May"

If you read the article you will see that the armor company will boost production by a hundred units a month. Now I'm going to do the math so you Palzon and your parrot Dedman can understand this.
Dec.,Jan., Feb, and March involves three to three and a half months. At 550 units per month that means there are 1500 to 1800 units out of the original 8100 units left to be processed. This means approx. 6500 units have already been sent out. Tie this in to my source that unarmored humvees are only used in non-combat use and now you can understand why the question in my view was a plant only to try and make Rumsfeld look bad.
So true to form Palzy, you stick your tongue out but forget where it's hanging when you clamp your jaws shut. You got some credible reasoning here to refute me then post it. Otherwise don't yell when no K.Y. jelly is used when I ram it to you.
Oh and Dedman, I might just have to tell Mrs. Dedman who you are hanging with

Whadda think Cops? Time for a casket a little premature?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:48 pm

dedman wrote:Therefore we should have made sure we were damn good and ready. I think in this case it is questionable whethere we were or not.

We were more then ready. In fact we were over-prepared for Saddam and the Iraqi military. Most people seem to ignore the fact that we took care of Saddam's army and took him prisoner quicker then anyone thought possible.

What we weren't prepared for was everybody and their brother filtering in from the surrounding countries to fight the 'infidels' with suicide bombings and guerilla warfare. It hasn't stopped us from achieving our goals in the long run, but ultimately it just keeps our troops in that region longer and costs more lives and resources just to be sure that the new government can sustain and protect itself.

It's sad that so many have died but, like I've said before, compared to what we sent over there and what we have we've kept the body count EXTREMELY low. Especially considering all the urban warfare taking place.

As far as what Paly said. Nobody really eats up what Woody posts here because he posts so much of the same stuff we've all come to expect. I lean a little to the right in some areas and a lot to the right in others and even I have to give out a big

everytime I see woodchip has posted another snipe towards the left. If it's BS it's BS but you can't deny the fact that Woody has a point. The military isn't exactly clueless on what they need and don't need.

In the scheme of things this isn't really a big enough deal to warrant even a post though. *biatch slaps woody*

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:52 pm

Palzon, of course the first post was batsh!t crazy. It's woodchip! Perhaps after years of reading his posts, my bullsh!t threshhold has risen to what you might consider an unacceptable level, oh well. Maybe you should grace us with your presence and opinions more often.

sheepdog · Post by **sheepdog** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:46 pm

Woodchip is a right wing polemicist, and as such is riding high on the wave of republican success. I don't begrudge him his moment. The headiness of the time made him toss caution to the wind.

See now this little "event" really demonstrated some character. Vander, you continue to impress me with succinct posts that show your in depth knowledge of current events. My husband and guys in general amaze me with their stubborn ability to watch the bloody news and read the paper day in and day out, but I'm particularly amazed by the guys who aren't on board with whatever regime is currently running the show. Me, most of the time the closest I get to the news is watching West Wing and pretending that Jeb Bartlett really is the president.

Meat, you're a classy guy.

Woodchip, you feeling the love from your conservative compadres? Now here's something that I think is true of women: when we have grouped up on something and one of our comrades makes a mistake and gets attacked for it, at the very least we stfu if we are too cowardly to defend our bud on the basis of pure loyalty. However, it would be completely taboo to step up and say yeah, "She facked up." "I was wrong not to slap her down, but I was laughin and besides I was hoping she would get away with it like so many other people do."

Anyway...
Palzon has always had these vicous bastard episodes. I've been on the recieving end more than once. Sorry Woodchip. You are a nice guy and you contribute a lot to the DBB. Thanks for that.

CORD · Post by **CORD** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:10 am

In our town is a company named Protech Armor, they manufacture body armor and armor for the military, including armored glass kits for the HumVee. They have been waiting since Sept. for the purchase orders to make the glass kits and armored visors for their helmets. If these people knew about the lack of armor protection as far back as Sept, why haven't our military leaders acknowledged the problem until questioned by a soldier (who was fronting for a pansy-arsed reporter)?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:01 am

Y'know, Chip, there are only two things that seperate you from our dearly departed Rican.

1. You are on the complete opposite end of the political spectrum.
2. You don't explode and start typing in ALL CAPS

when you don't get your way.

But the zeal is the same. There's no denying it.

Giving a Hummer to the weenies

Giving a Hummer to the weenies

Re: Giving a Hummer to the weenies

Re: Giving a Hummer to the weenies

Re: Giving a Hummer to the weenies