"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:31:48 -0400, DSK said:

Dave wrote:
So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the
past,
and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Yeah right, Dave. Attack that straw man. What did I say, or
do you even know?

Hardly a straw man. The very point you were disputing.

In my initial message I summarized the four generals who wrote the piece.
Here's the full quote:

"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to
a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in the future to
meet the nation's current and future threats. Many senior officers and
bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring
conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and
World
War II war-fighting strategies which proved practically useless against
lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetrical warfare."

Iraq:

1. Largest tank battle since WWII.

2. Largest movement of military equipment ever.

Lighter, more mobile? Got some news for you. That transformation occured
way before Rumsfeld.

3. The Crusader was a transformational weapon designed to keep up with the
Abrams and be air transportable. Read he
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/crusader.htm

It's a far cry from any WWII weapons sytem and is not a weapon of the past.

4. What WWII war-fighting strategies proved useless? Maybe if they looked
more closely at WWII things would be different today. It took over two
months after the flag was raised on Iwo Jima to secure the island. Lots and
lots of asymetric warfare there. What about the impending invasion of Japan?
One can argue that the current situation in Iraq is from a failure to apply
lessons learned in WWII. Things went better in WWII because civilian
populations were bombed, no regard was given to collateral damage. The Iraq
War will take longer than WWII.

Maybe North Korea.

The last Marine Amphibious assualt was in Korea, over 50 years ago.

If the reduction of 5,000 men wasn't so drastic how come it did not occur?

hmmm?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:22:48 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

Did you know that the Rumsfield/Bush agenda was to REDUCE the size of the
beloved Marine Corps?

Yes. From 180,000 to 175,000 over a period of 5 years. A drastic
reduction.
Where do you figure we'll have to make a beach assault against Al Queda
over
the next 5 years?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:02:03 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

If the reduction of 5,000 men wasn't so drastic how come it did not occur?

Ever hear the phrase "squealing like a stuck pig?

My understanding is that the troop reduction would have come out of very
specialized units and the operational cost was much, much greater than the
monetary savings.

I'm sure if the 5,000 men was of no consequence, the Marines would have
obeyed.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:45:52 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

My understanding is that the troop reduction would have come out of very
specialized units and the operational cost was much, much greater than the
monetary savings.

I'm sure if the 5,000 men was of no consequence, the Marines would have
obeyed.

Dream on. In government nobody likes to see the size of his empire
reduced,
and regardless of the size the subject of the reduction will find any
excuse
to avoid it.

That contradicts Rumsfeld own words (testimony to Congress) regarding Marine
Troop strength:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...ony2-16-05.pdf

Read his own words. Is Rumsfeld lying?

hmmmm?

I can't help thinking about the old comic dialog:

Messenger sez: Sire, the peasants are revolting.

King replies: Yes, I quite agree!

"Dave" wrote
"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in the future to
meet the nation's current and future threats. ....

I'm disappointed if that is their only beef and I suspect that the above quote
is spin designed to turn attention away from the dual blunders of attacking
Saddam to begin with, instead of concentrating on the real threat, and then
sending too few resources to subdue the country once Saddam's forces were
beaten.

Saddam was never a threat to the USA, he had no WMDs and had NO part in the 9/11
or other attacks on us. His support for terrorism was limited to support for
Palistinians attacking Israel. OTOH, he was a bulwark against the real threat -
Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. Attacking him was the equivalent of attacking
Stalin while trying to beat Hitler in the middle of WW2!

Worse, by sending only enough troops to topple Saddam, but not enough to control
the country thereafter, Rummy has effectively turned Iraq over to the real
enemy - the Islamic jihahists - and fostered their goal of world domination.

Modernizing the military to suit new weapons, technology and threats has nothing
to do with it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:50:25 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

That contradicts Rumsfeld own words (testimony to Congress) regarding
Marine
Troop strength:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...ony2-16-05.pdf

You mean that part where he says:

"Under the Emergency Authority the Marines have _temporarily_ increased
strength by nearly 3,000 above their base of 175,000?"

Seems to me a temporary increase is fully consistent with returning to
that
number over 5 years, no?

Where does the 5 year number come from?

That increase was done by calling up reservists to fill specialty billets.

It's more than 3,000 if you read the whole thing.

So now, if 5,000 is such a trivial number why wasn't it reduced, especially
in light of the fact it's reservists doing the job?

"Dave" wrote
"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in the future to
meet the nation's current and future threats. ....


That's a crock

Vito wrote:
I'm disappointed if that is their only beef and I suspect that the above quote
is spin designed to turn attention away from the dual blunders of attacking
Saddam to begin with, instead of concentrating on the real threat, and then
sending too few resources to subdue the country once Saddam's forces were
beaten.


Of course it is.

I heard one of the generals on the radio the other day. He
gave quite a good summary of Rumsfeld's mismanagement of the
war in Iraq, and didn't mention anything at all about
downsizing, the Crusader artillery (you'd think George W.
would *love* this item, just on the name alone), or World War 2.

DSK

A:
My understanding is that the troop reduction would have come out of very
specialized units and the operational cost was much, much greater than
the
monetary savings.

I'm sure if the 5,000 men was of no consequence, the Marines would have
obeyed.



B:
Dream on. In government nobody likes to see the size of his empire
reduced,
and regardless of the size the subject of the reduction will find any
excuse
to avoid it.



C:
That contradicts Rumsfeld own words (testimony to Congress) regarding
Marine
Troop strength:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...ony2-16-05.pdf

Read his own words. Is Rumsfeld lying?

B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.

So is Rumsfeld throwing up any excuse to avoid troop reduction? Or is B,
which generally may be true, not true applied to this specific case? If B
is true applied to this case then A and C are false. If A and C are true,
then B is false.

Real Conservatives in government automatically make B false.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones
that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or
that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not
attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later
be attacked for neglecting my constituents ``interests,'' I shall reply that
I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I
am doing the very best I can. "

Bushbots have done to the word "Conservative" what FDR did to the word
"Liberal".

Amen!

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:39:45 -0400, DSK wrote:



Well, he got the idea from the "New American Century" guys who were
unabashed imperialists back in the 1990s. One of the things they hate
Clinton for is that they told him to invade Iraq and he wouldn't listen.

Rumsfeld was a member of the PNAC way back in the 90s. His signature is
on that letter to President Clinton.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm