the army you have
Dec. 12th, 2004 18:34![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhaso when asked by a soldier why they don't have enough armour for their vehicles, rumsfeld blurps: "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
nice try, donald. except that we're not talking about pearl harbor here. you started this war; it wasn't foisted upon you; you decided on the time table, on the number of soldiers to send. you didn't listen to experts who told you otherwise. even if you really were surprised when the welcome in iraq wasn't all flowers, you've had time to get used to it. but did you listen after you'd already been proven wrong? no. the armor issue isn't news -- anyone who, like me, knows how to use google, can easily find references to serious problems that go back more than a year.
furthermore, you claimed that the production lines were running full steam. you're a lying piece of scum. not like i needed more evidence, since you've so kindly provided me with plenty over the last four years, but maybe you should have double-checked that your minions leaned on the people from o'gara-hess & eisenhardt in ohio, who stated that they were currently not producing at full capacity, but had no further orders from the pentagon. army supply depots charged with building armour kits are not working to capacity either. already-armoured vehicles are languishing because they don't fit your idea of smaller, faster, lighter. alternatives to heavy steel (which might actually be extra-useful because of their lighter weight) are not used to capacity.
fucking ideologue shrubtard. resign.
nice try, donald. except that we're not talking about pearl harbor here. you started this war; it wasn't foisted upon you; you decided on the time table, on the number of soldiers to send. you didn't listen to experts who told you otherwise. even if you really were surprised when the welcome in iraq wasn't all flowers, you've had time to get used to it. but did you listen after you'd already been proven wrong? no. the armor issue isn't news -- anyone who, like me, knows how to use google, can easily find references to serious problems that go back more than a year.
furthermore, you claimed that the production lines were running full steam. you're a lying piece of scum. not like i needed more evidence, since you've so kindly provided me with plenty over the last four years, but maybe you should have double-checked that your minions leaned on the people from o'gara-hess & eisenhardt in ohio, who stated that they were currently not producing at full capacity, but had no further orders from the pentagon. army supply depots charged with building armour kits are not working to capacity either. already-armoured vehicles are languishing because they don't fit your idea of smaller, faster, lighter. alternatives to heavy steel (which might actually be extra-useful because of their lighter weight) are not used to capacity.
fucking ideologue shrubtard. resign.
Rumsfeld
on 2004-12-13 12:06 (UTC)The barefaced cheek is both astounding and angry-making, isn't it?