NationStates Jolt Archive

You have no doubt heard about what has been happening, soldiers complaining they have limited supplies, bad supplies and the army is over all dicsucusted, with Rumsfeld in particular, this is the really pathetic part, Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want or wish you had."

You have got to be kidding me, yeah, they wish they had an army who would supply them, why dont you? Is it the money do you not want to give the money to the army? Is it too much to ask to armor their vehicles or give them better quality armor, or is it too much money? Too much spent on big chamagne bottles, giving it back to people, thats the problem, the Bush administration has found a shortage in money to fund their little Iraq adventure, maybe this is where the tax money they dont have would come in handy. This is what pisses me off, they act like they know but they dont know, at all.

Perhaps this is why we bash Bush, perhaps this is why.

You have no doubt heard about what has been happening, soldiers complaining they have limited supplies, bad supplies and the army is over all dicsucusted, with Rumsfeld in particular, this is the really pathetic part, Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want or wish you had."

You have got to be kidding me, yeah, they wish they had an army who would supply them, why dont you? Is it the money do you not want to give the money to the army? Is it too much to ask to armor their vehicles or give them better quality armor, or is it too much money? Too much spent on big chamagne bottles, giving it back to people, thats the problem, the Bush administration has found a shortage in money to fund their little Iraq adventure, maybe this is where the tax money they dont have would come in handy. This is what pisses me off, they act like they know but they dont know, at all.

Perhaps this is why we bash Bush, perhaps this is why.

Well, perhaps the budget is approved by Congress, not by the President. He can ask for a lot of money, and they didn't give it to him up front. He has to go ask after the fact.

Did everyone over the past few years vote for every thing that we needed? Body armor? Armored vehicles? It takes years to ramp up production and make those things.

So did the party that's making the complaint (we may assume that Democrats are the "loyal" opposition) vote Yes for body armor? Hmm? Eh?

I think not. I think not. So there's plenty of blame to go around.

Did everyone over the past few years vote for every thing that we needed? Body armor? Armored vehicles?

Unfortunately, the votes don't occur like that.

It takes years to ramp up production and make those things.

Body armor can be bought very easily off the internet (as many soliders' families did). I doubt we're in short supply.

"You go to war with the army you have not the army you want or wish you had."

That I could not belive. I had to listen to the segment again...

Ok Donny that statement is ok when we invaded but how long ago was that?

Unfortunately, the votes don't occur like that.



Body armor can be bought very easily off the internet (as many soliders' families did). I doubt we're in short supply.

The last part is interesting. Just talked a supplier over at Lightfighter.

They can count on one hand how many people bought the Interceptor body armor from them (and they are a major supplier).

There has been enough body armor over there for everyone since April.

As to whether trucks are armored enough, no one ever foresaw that you would need to - the original idea behind trucks is that they would never be attacked under these conditions.

They are the only vehicles having armor bolted onto them. Armored Humvees were already in the production pipe, but not enough funds were put in several years ago to produce any more than a trickle.

Wonder who didn't want to pay for armored Humvees?

Let's ask Kerry.

BTW, I suggest that you try to buy Interceptor Body Armor off the Internet.

The guys at lightfighter said that they would report you to the police if you tried.

It's not as easy to buy something in that short supply over the Internet.

Of course the troops are going to grumble about something. I'd be worried if they didn't. Supply trucks aren't meant to be shot at, which is why we're having this sort of problem. Escorts aren't enough, they need bullet proof glass/doors. Trust me, the army will handle this problem.

Oh, and that question that the trooper asked.... a reporter got him to ask it.
www.drudgereport.com

The media wonders why less people trust them. It's because they seem to be gleeful that the war isn't going perfect, which begs one to ask: does the media really want us to win the war? or do they want another Vietnam so they can have tons of stories and act like heroes because "they stopped the war."

America needs to wake up to the fact that this war is somewhat like Vietnam: the media is opposed to the war and will do whatever they can to get us out of Iraq and have the Bush administration buried, no matter what. That's the ONLY thing that resembles Vietnam. God Bless our Troops.

Body armor isnt that hard to produce, we could get the amount, its just that dubya and rummy dont feel like it. You see, they have access to about 150,000,000 people, why should a few thousand lives matter to them? They dont personally know any of the families, they dont go to all the funerals, Bush has never been in a war before, how would he know what the armys needs are? It basically boils down too, he doesnt give a shit, none of them do, I warned you, the democrats warned you, the scary part is, the worst is yet to come.

Of course the troops are going to grumble about something. I'd be worried if they didn't. Supply trucks aren't meant to be shot at, which is why we're having this sort of problem. Escorts aren't enough, they need bullet proof glass/doors. Trust me, the army will handle this problem.

Oh, and that question that the trooper asked.... a reporter got him to ask it.
www.drudgereport.com

The media wonders why less people trust them. It's because they seem to be gleeful that the war isn't going perfect, which begs one to ask: does the media really want us to win the war? or do they want another Vietnam so they can have tons of stories and act like heroes because "they stopped the war."

America needs to wake up to the fact that this war is somewhat like Vietnam: the media is opposed to the war and will do whatever they can to get us out of Iraq and have the Bush administration buried, no matter what. That's the ONLY thing that resembles Vietnam. God Bless our Troops.

Yeah god bless our troops indeed, especially since Bush and the other Republicans wont. Maybe we should say god help our troops, you cant think that the army will and/or the government will clean this up, they have had almost two years, thats how long we've been in Iraq, Ive seen little results. You cant say that a news media wants the US army to lose just because they arent warmongers, like Fox. Did you ever consider that maybe they want the troops outta there, or for the government to help them, that is what they should do. Even though most news medias arent biased, I can only think of Fox News, leaning toward the elephants.

Body armor isnt that hard to produce, we could get the amount, its just that dubya and rummy dont feel like it. You see, they have access to about 150,000,000 people, why should a few thousand lives matter to them? They dont personally know any of the families, they dont go to all the funerals, Bush has never been in a war before, how would he know what the armys needs are? It basically boils down too, he doesnt give a shit, none of them do, I warned you, the democrats warned you, the scary part is, the worst is yet to come.

BS. Who approves the Pentagon budget? Bush? Rumsfeld? Or the Senate and House?

I'll be sure to tell the folks over at lightfighter that you can easily produce Interceptor Body Armor.

I guess I'm one of those demoralized soldiers you've been wanting to meet for so long so you could hear the "truth" about Iraq.

Unfortunately, I went for the first Gulf War, and VOLUNTEERED to go back for this one.

Just so I could kill some Muslims.

And it was joyous, absolute fun. And I didn't meet anyone else in the unit who wasn't having the time of their lives.

BS. Who approves the Pentagon budget? Bush? Rumsfeld? Or the Senate and House?

I'll be sure to tell the folks over at lightfighter that you can easily produce Interceptor Body Armor.

they all have a majority of Republicans, you dont know what you're talking about, WE NEED MONEY! THE BUSHIES HAVE YET TO REALISE THAT! STOP GIVING IT BACK! OR WE ARE DOOMED!

they all have a majority of Republicans, you dont know what you're talking about, WE NEED MONEY! THE BUSHIES HAVE YET TO REALISE THAT! STOP GIVING IT BACK! OR WE ARE DOOMED!

a 2/3 majority? Because that's what they would need to do anything they wanted.

Or have you never read the Constitution?

Too bad that during the Clinton years, the Army shrank by a factor of 6. If he hadn't shrank it, none of those National Guard or Reserves would be over there now in your "backdraft", and everyone would have been fully equipped.

It took eight years to draw that down. And you expect Bush and Rumsfeld to bring that back up to its original strength overnight?

Without a 2/3 majority in each house?

[QUOTE=My Gun Not Yours]
Just so I could kill some Muslims.
QUOTE]
You are so ignorant, not all Muslims are terrorists, oh or "turrishtsh" It just goes to show that Republicans are uninformed. I have to go, if you want to bash me some more, Bball8266@hotmail.com

No, I only shot the ones that shot at me first.
And after I thought that they felt they were doing well, I killed them.

I suppose you would have stood there and shouted your solidarity with them.

Too bad they don't understand English, because they would have killed you, too.

Just so I could kill some Muslims.


You are a sick sick monkey.


I wonder... is there anyway to re-sensitize a soldier to killing after they have become such disgusting animals? I'm only talking about the soldiers who think/talk like Gun here.

You have no doubt heard about what has been happening, soldiers complaining they have limited supplies, bad supplies and the army is over all dicsucusted, with Rumsfeld in particular, this is the really pathetic part, Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want or wish you had."

You have got to be kidding me, yeah, they wish they had an army who would supply them, why dont you? Is it the money do you not want to give the money to the army? Is it too much to ask to armor their vehicles or give them better quality armor, or is it too much money? Too much spent on big chamagne bottles, giving it back to people, thats the problem, the Bush administration has found a shortage in money to fund their little Iraq adventure, maybe this is where the tax money they dont have would come in handy. This is what pisses me off, they act like they know but they dont know, at all.

Perhaps this is why we bash Bush, perhaps this is why.

He can't possibly be as stupid as he sounds.
I blame stubborn arrogance.
The worst part was he used that bullshit line on troops who are fully aware (probably moreso than Rummy himself) of the situation in Iraq.
It's basically like saying:

yeah you COULD have seatbelts in cars, but if you get in a really bad accident you still could die.
right.
I guess seatbelts don't save lives then.
to clear this up all he had to say was: don't worry, kids the check's in the mail. Instead he says: tough shit.Suck it up.
brilliant.
great morale booster, buddy.

You have no doubt heard about what has been happening, soldiers complaining they have limited supplies, bad supplies and the army is over all dicsucusted, with Rumsfeld in particular, this is the really pathetic part, Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want or wish you had."

You have got to be kidding me, yeah, they wish they had an army who would supply them, why dont you? Is it the money do you not want to give the money to the army? Is it too much to ask to armor their vehicles or give them better quality armor, or is it too much money? Too much spent on big chamagne bottles, giving it back to people, thats the problem, the Bush administration has found a shortage in money to fund their little Iraq adventure, maybe this is where the tax money they dont have would come in handy. This is what pisses me off, they act like they know but they dont know, at all.

Perhaps this is why we bash Bush, perhaps this is why.
Guess what I served under the Clinton andmin. who slashed defense spending and cut troop strength for social spending so that when the miltary was actaully needed for a real world mission (ie:the war on terror and yes that includes Iraq) instead of some UN lead fiasco such as Kosovo we were out of armour and weaponry. Have you ever served? Do you have any idea what you are talking about ? You may not like this adminstration but they are the most military friendly admin in 12yrs. Do the troops need more you are darn right they do but it is tough to give it to them when we spend all of our money on other countries and a social welfare system that causes more harm then it does good. The tax cut has actaully been a boon to the military because it has increased the amount of money available to the people who in turn spend more and create more....But I will not go into a economics lesson here.....You are way off base here buddy....

I think the issue is sending troops off to a needless war without proper equipment. Iraq was such a threat, that Bush had to force the intelligence agencies to come up with iffy and false information to convince congress of a need for war.

Its stupid to say that they weren't prepared for insurgents or roadside bombs.

Have they not been paying attention to the way the world works lately?

Yeah, they really care about our troops huh? Very supportive indeed.

I guess I'm one of those demoralized soldiers you've been wanting to meet for so long so you could hear the "truth" about Iraq.

Unfortunately, I went for the first Gulf War, and VOLUNTEERED to go back for this one.

Just so I could kill some Muslims.

And it was joyous, absolute fun. And I didn't meet anyone else in the unit who wasn't having the time of their lives.

What do you call Iraqis?

You are a sick sick monkey.


I wonder... is there anyway to re-sensitize a soldier to killing after they have become such disgusting animals? I'm only talking about the soldiers who think/talk like Gun here.
Wow so much for tolerance...No you aren't anti-military are you? How are the soldiers supposed to feel when terrorists try to kill them? How should the American people feel when MUSLIM TERRORISTS kill 3,685 innocent cicvilians in one attack. YEah there may be a bit of vengence in his message but so be it. It has come down to an us or them issue...

Guess what I served under the Clinton andmin. who slashed defense spending and cut troop strength for social spending so that when the miltary was actaully needed for a real world mission (ie:the war on terror and yes that includes Iraq) instead of some UN lead fiasco such as Kosovo we were out of armour and weaponry. Have you ever served? Do you have any idea what you are talking about ? You may not like this adminstration but they are the most military friendly admin in 12yrs. Do the troops need more you are darn right they do but it is tough to give it to them when we spend all of our money on other countries and a social welfare system that causes more harm then it does good. The tax cut has actaully been a boon to the military because it has increased the amount of money available to the people who in turn spend more and create more....But I will not go into a economics lesson here.....You are way off base here buddy....

well I did serve in the USAF for 4 years and I'm gonna flat out say this is BULLSHIT. Those kids were hanging off his every word and he just basically told them tough shit. The military may only represent about 1.5 million voters, but someday those people who got fucked over like this will come home and tell people what the government really considers as support for our troops and the votes for the democrats will increase exponentially. I don't wanna see that happen but someone's gonna have to tell rumsfeld to ethier shut up or at least think before he opens his goddamn mouth.

Wow so much for tolerance...No you aren't anti-military are you? How are the soldiers supposed to feel when terrorists try to kill them? How should the American people feel when MUSLIM TERRORISTS kill 3,685 innocent cicvilians in one attack. YEah there may be a bit of vengence in his message but so be it. It has come down to an us or them issue...

Yes, they were Muslim terrorists but not every Muslim is a terrorist. He said he wanted to kill some Muslims. There's a difference.

Clinton had a republican majority in Congress 6 of his 8 years. The other 2 were simply split evenly. In order to cut military budget, Clinton had to pass these bills through a republican dominated Congress. SO therefore both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for the size of the military. God you people are so ignorant.

Stop letting partisanship get in the way of the truth. Maybe if everyone opened their eyes they'd realize republicans and democrats would rather see their party lead the country into a depression than see an opposing party lead it to salvation. As long as they control the country, they're happy. Seriously, they've set up the laws to make it insanely difficult for any non-republican or democrat to be in the White House, much less Congress. This way they don't have to focus on issues, just being re-elected.

Did anyone else find it absurd that no one took a stand on the assault weapons ban? No one said anything either way out of fear of losing an election. They wouldn't say "assault weapons need to be banned" out of fear that the NRA would take votes away from them. They wouldn't say "We need to allow Americans to have assault weapons" because then the other side of the spectrum wouldn't vote them.

The most important thing on the agenda of almost every single politician is to be re-elected. They don't want to save the world. They want to control the country and force the country to follow their views even if it means the country will fall into a great depression. All that matters is they get their 2,4, or 6 more years and very little else.

No, I only shot the ones that shot at me first.
And after I thought that they felt they were doing well, I killed them.

I suppose you would have stood there and shouted your solidarity with them.

Too bad they don't understand English, because they would have killed you, too.

haha inhis face!!

Wow so much for tolerance...No you aren't anti-military are you? How are the soldiers supposed to feel when terrorists try to kill them? How should the American people feel when MUSLIM TERRORISTS kill 3,685 innocent cicvilians in one attack. YEah there may be a bit of vengence in his message but so be it. It has come down to an us or them issue...

No I'm not anti-military. I support a strong military that gets used WHEN NEEDED.

Why should I be tolerant of someone who wants to kill someone because of their religious beleifs?

And he went to Iraq to kill Iraqi Muslims because of an attack on America that Iraq had nothing to do with? Hows that for borderline-retardation?

Rumsfield's strategy was a stunning success, actually: the entire Iraqi military was defeated in a matter of days by a relatively small force relying heavily on stand-off weapons and tactics. Even the Republican Gaurd were humbled by the small forces the US deployed. The occupation that failed was the "disaster," and this was only really true in small areas where conditions were difficult and resistance was strong. Our recent and overwhelmingly thorough victory in Fallujah is also getting insufficient attention inspite of the news hyping the preperations.

Since WWII, armor had progressively become less and less useful for ground combat (even today, durability in aircraft is a very nice trait to have, and the A-10 Warthog has been celebrated for its ability to stay aloft.) Anti-aircraft which are man portable and can eat through composite concrete fortifications had been procured by the Germans during this time, and are now available (illegally) to civilians. A marijuana farmer here recently got caught with weapons of this type, so you can bet it is available to terrorists. Will body armor stop this? Heck, do you believe an armored humvee can maintain sustained fire from something like that?

It really is no suprise body armor and armored humvees arent being supplied: they may stop a few AK-47 rounds but it still wont do shit against a car bomb, in spite of what reporters have claimed.

Armor is a waste of money, and politicians dont really want to say this since the concept angers the public. However, it isnt only efficiency which creates this reality, it is also the simple fact that the stuff hardly ever works. This is even truer in urban warfare, where we cant blow everything up and send in tanks which take up both lanes of Iraqi roads and need to be transported in pairs --- --- --- on gigantic cargolifters which can carry months, if not years worth of ammunition and medical supplies.

We dont have any significant short term interest in improving our armor, in fact, our long term goals for armor seem to amount to three things:
Flexible, lightweight airframes, so that the airfoil can be changed in flight, allowing feul efficient gliding and agile manuevers without compromising speed.
Active camoflage via means of LED meshes or color-changing programmable nanorobotic paints.
Cold plasma moderately-far-future use in protecting delicate sattilites from lasers and PBWs, and for creating next gen stealth aircraft which cannot be picked up by active electromagnetic sensors, like Radar.

I dont see anything relevant to protecting our humvees from barrels of explosives and car bombs which can disable our tanks.

Seeing as we do not, and will not have the technology to emphasize on classical tactics, Rumsfield's policies are certainly not foolish. We were not quite ready to engage in small-force geurilla tactics though, both due to training deficiencies and poor equipment for urban environments (supplying shotguns would be dandy.)

The people that were ready for Rumsfield's doctrines were the PMCs who had been veterans of African peace-keeping, but for political reasons these are generally not hired despite being more ethical choices and more effective in small-squad tactics. Of course, we must bring up conspiracies about Cheny and Haliburton everytime we decide on the possibility of hiring a PMC organization (and yes, Kellog Brown & Root is affiliated with Haliburton, but thats quite irrevelant.) However, we would rather bitch about our soldiers dying and complain about all the poor being "economically coerced" into the military, rather than hire those evil corporate militaries full of paid, very competent, very efficient mercenaries [crowd gasp] which the UN told us were going to take over the world.

Putting two and two together, Rumsfield has been making all the right choices, but the military itself has not yet been privatized to the degree that people would consider the more agressive tactics acceptable. In the future these will be considered the best tactics, especially as humans become less and less necessary in killing humans. And I cannot think of a logical objection towards a "faster, cheaper, better," policy when it is executed correctly, but I have heard several illogical ones, often in regards to our ability to defeat another technologicall advanced power (the old "it takes a tank to kill a tank" mentality which has been so thoroughly discredited by the 6 day war and almost every subsequent military engagement.)

The simple fact is, if you are so concerned about soldiers dying, rather than wasting money on armor which wont protect them, hire private-sector replacements, who will do the job better, cheaper, and with less people. The US excels at bombing things to dust and deploying gigantic numbers of cannon fodder (which suffer heavy casualties, not all that far from what North Korea and the Soviets did in the last century.) Urban occupation and policing is not something which US soldiers have had much experience with and not something we were properly prepared for. When we do it we often kill civilians and generally make a lot of bad impressions, and the terrorists also generally know where we are. That annoying war media also tags along and throws in their "backseat driver" comments, often as foolish as many of the people protesting the lack of armor. The Rumsfield doctrine itself has no problems, but the military organization and American culture contain obstacles which keep it from being completed.

Rumsfield's strategy was a stunning success, actually: the entire Iraqi military was defeated in a matter of days by a relatively small force relying heavily on stand-off weapons and tactics. Even the Republican Gaurd were humbled by the small forces the US deployed. The occupation that failed was the "disaster," and this was only really true in small areas where conditions were difficult and resistance was strong. Our recent and overwhelmingly thorough victory in Fallujah is also getting insufficient attention inspite of the news hyping the preperations.

Since WWII, armor had progressively become less and less useful for ground combat (even today, durability in aircraft is a very nice trait to have, and the A-10 Warthog has been celebrated for its ability to stay aloft.) Anti-aircraft which are man portable and can eat through composite concrete fortifications had been procured by the Germans during this time, and are now available (illegally) to civilians. A marijuana farmer here recently got caught with weapons of this type, so you can bet it is available to terrorists. Will body armor stop this? Heck, do you believe an armored humvee can maintain sustained fire from something like that?

It really is no suprise body armor and armored humvees arent being supplied: they may stop a few AK-47 rounds but it still wont do shit against a car bomb, in spite of what reporters have claimed.

Armor is a waste of money, and politicians dont really want to say this since the concept angers the public. However, it isnt only efficiency which creates this reality, it is also the simple fact that the stuff hardly ever works. This is even truer in urban warfare, where we cant blow everything up and send in tanks which take up both lanes of Iraqi roads and need to be transported in pairs --- --- --- on gigantic cargolifters which can carry months, if not years worth of ammunition and medical supplies.

We dont have any significant short term interest in improving our armor, in fact, our long term goals for armor seem to amount to three things:
Flexible, lightweight airframes, so that the airfoil can be changed in flight, allowing feul efficient gliding and agile manuevers without compromising speed.
Active camoflage via means of LED meshes or color-changing programmable nanorobotic paints.
Cold plasma moderately-far-future use in protecting delicate sattilites from lasers and PBWs, and for creating next gen stealth aircraft which cannot be picked up by active electromagnetic sensors, like Radar.

I dont see anything relevant to protecting our humvees from barrels of explosives and car bombs which can disable our tanks.

Seeing as we do not, and will not have the technology to emphasize on classical tactics, Rumsfield's policies are certainly not foolish. We were not quite ready to engage in small-force geurilla tactics though, both due to training deficiencies and poor equipment for urban environments (supplying shotguns would be dandy.)

The people that were ready for Rumsfield's doctrines were the PMCs who had been veterans of African peace-keeping, but for political reasons these are generally not hired despite being more ethical choices and more effective in small-squad tactics. Of course, we must bring up conspiracies about Cheny and Haliburton everytime we decide on the possibility of hiring a PMC organization (and yes, Kellog Brown & Root is affiliated with Haliburton, but thats quite irrevelant.) However, we would rather bitch about our soldiers dying and complain about all the poor being "economically coerced" into the military, rather than hire those evil corporate militaries full of paid, very competent, very efficient mercenaries [crowd gasp] which the UN told us were going to take over the world.

Putting two and two together, Rumsfield has been making all the right choices, but the military itself has not yet been privatized to the degree that people would consider the more agressive tactics acceptable. In the future these will be considered the best tactics, especially as humans become less and less necessary in killing humans. And I cannot think of a logical objection towards a "faster, cheaper, better," policy when it is executed correctly, but I have heard several illogical ones, often in regards to our ability to defeat another technologicall advanced power (the old "it takes a tank to kill a tank" mentality which has been so thoroughly discredited by the 6 day war and almost every subsequent military engagement.)

The simple fact is, if you are so concerned about soldiers dying, rather than wasting money on armor which wont protect them, hire private-sector replacements, who will do the job better, cheaper, and with less people. The US excels at bombing things to dust and deploying gigantic numbers of cannon fodder (which suffer heavy casualties, not all that far from what North Korea and the Soviets did in the last century.) Urban occupation and policing is not something which US soldiers have had much experience with and not something we were properly prepared for. When we do it we often kill civilians and generally make a lot of bad impressions, and the terrorists also generally know where we are. That annoying war media also tags along and throws in their "backseat driver" comments, often as foolish as many of the people protesting the lack of armor. The Rumsfield doctrine itself has no problems, but the military organization and American culture contain obstacles which keep it from being completed.

saying armor s not worth it is like saying seatbelts arn't worth it:
sure they don't work ALL the time, but when they do it can be the difference between life and death..it's really really bad politics for a administration official speaking to troops about to go into a combat zone to say basically fuck it.don't get shot

Bush's speach to the Troops at the Army Navy game!

...Today, as I look out over this sea of young, freshly scrubbed military faces, hanging on my every word like I'm a God on Earth, I can't help but think how weird it is to know that by the end of my second term, fully one in five of you will probably have been killed in Iraq or Iran or wherever. So you can believe me when I say how thankful I am that well over 90% of you continue to blindly support my plans, no matter how many folks drown in that Middle Eastern quicksand I ordered you into.

Hell, I could order you people to invade Switzerland to liberate the chocolate, and you'd still be shouting that "Hoo-Ha" thing. Why? Because the military conditions you to have a hard-on for glory. You want proud war stories like grandpa had about Dubya Dubya Two, not creepy war crime secrets like crazy Uncle Charlie had about the 'Nam. Which makes sense, because while you may be physically tough as nails, it's a known fact that military egos are more fragile than Michael Jackson's nose.

You know what else cracks me up? You college-hungry, patriotically sentimental grunts are so committed to a three year-old lie that even I don't believe, that you still swear your allegiance to a Commander In Chief who used Daddy's connects to squirm out of combat, who respected the military so much he went AWOL while serving in a champagne unit of pampered flyboys in Alabama, who came into office sneering at the concept of nation-building to the point that he cut all funding for such training, and who doesn't even comprehend that a soldier is fundamentally trained to kill and survive, not perform the lethal police work that this war has turned into. It's a good thing, however, that you boys understand the chain of command and don't shirk your orders.

So keep fighting, and keep believing that we're in Iraq to spread FREEDOM® and stop September 11th retroactively. Cuz busters, you can wrestle with the ugly truth in ten years or so, when you realize you sold your youth down the river Styx just so that a bunch of brainiacs at the Pentagon can test this thesis: the domino theory can work in reverse, and spread "democracy," which is just another word for "meaningless short term geopolitical gains through awesomely kick-ass mega-violence!"

And so, my assembled killbots, today it's my honor to do or say nothing that might pop the artificial bubble that constitutes military reality, and kick off this monster pep rally, which will leave everyone with just the kind of sky-high morale that's needed to ensure that Operation Iraqi Freedom continues to be such a catastrophic success!

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/120404.asp

[QUOTE=My Gun Not Yours]
Just so I could kill some Muslims.
QUOTE]
You are so ignorant, not all Muslims are terrorists, oh or "turrishtsh" It just goes to show that Republicans are uninformed. I have to go, if you want to bash me some more, Bball8266@hotmail.com

Is it the point?
Fight with one of them, and you'll have to fight them all.
Making distinctions serves no operational purpose.

can the pacifists please leave this thread.
this is grownups talking now.

You have no doubt heard about what has been happening, soldiers complaining they have limited supplies, bad supplies and the army is over all dicsucusted, with Rumsfeld in particular, this is the really pathetic part, Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want or wish you had."

You have got to be kidding me, yeah, they wish they had an army who would supply them, why dont you? Is it the money do you not want to give the money to the army? Is it too much to ask to armor their vehicles or give them better quality armor, or is it too much money? Too much spent on big chamagne bottles, giving it back to people, thats the problem, the Bush administration has found a shortage in money to fund their little Iraq adventure, maybe this is where the tax money they dont have would come in handy. This is what pisses me off, they act like they know but they dont know, at all.

Perhaps this is why we bash Bush, perhaps this is why.
1. There is no shortage of body armor. The questions about armor concerned vehicular armor, particularly for Humvees. It takes much longer to increase production for vehicular armor than for body armor, and limited suppies are allocated based on "threat level" for each type and use of vehicle.

2. After eight years of neglect under the Democrats, the military has effectively had to recreate civilian sources for military supplies and equipment. This also takes considerable time.

3. War doesn't usually wait on the voting population to decide that it's time to elect people who are comitted to a strong military instead of head-in-the-sand peacenicks who think the UN is going to solve all of our problems and the US no longer needs a military. This is what Sec. Def. Rumsfield meant by "going to war with the army you have." What he should have said was "going to war with the degraded army your Democratic predecessors left you with as a result of their stupidity."

4. What pisses you off is your inability to comprehend complex military, political and economic issues.

Well, perhaps the budget is approved by Congress, not by the President. He can ask for a lot of money, and they didn't give it to him up front. He has to go ask after the fact.

Did everyone over the past few years vote for every thing that we needed? Body armor? Armored vehicles? It takes years to ramp up production and make those things.

So did the party that's making the complaint (we may assume that Democrats are the "loyal" opposition) vote Yes for body armor? Hmm? Eh?

I think not. I think not. So there's plenty of blame to go around.

THE US MILITARY SPENDS MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER. TONS MORE. HOW ABOUT IT SHOULD ALL GET ACCOUNTED FOR AND USED FOR IMMEDIATE NEEDS, LIKE FUNDING THIS CRAP-ASS WAR NO ONE WANTED. WE'RE THERE, SO HOW ABOUT WE FUND IT INSTEAD OF SPENDING THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON USELESS SHIT. DON'T BLAME CONGRESS. GOD KNOWS WE SPEND MORE MONEY ON MILITARY THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

Wow so much for tolerance...No you aren't anti-military are you? How are the soldiers supposed to feel when terrorists try to kill them? How should the American people feel when MUSLIM TERRORISTS kill 3,685 innocent cicvilians in one attack. YEah there may be a bit of vengence in his message but so be it. It has come down to an us or them issue...

Hey. Guess what. YOU'RE STUPID. Please look at the facts. Iraqis were not involved in September 11. Saddam Hussein wasn't even involved. What makes them terrorists? The fact that they didn't want their land invaded, their children slaughtered, their homes destroyed? God forbid! How arrogant they are! Terrorist scum for sure!

What the hell is wrong with you? That's like blaming Spain for something Italy did, just because they look and act similar.

saying armor s not worth it is like saying seatbelts arn't worth it:
sure they don't work ALL the time, but when they do it can be the difference between life and death..it's really really bad politics for a administration official speaking to troops about to go into a combat zone to say basically fuck it.don't get shot

That analogy is downright idiotic.

Seatbelts save lives. Armor blocks the weakest of small arms.

The intensity of an accident determines the effectiveness of the restraint. It may work, it may not, depends on the accident. The accident depends on the conditions, which are not engineered for the purpose of killing the driver.

Armor blocks a couple of small bullets, so they aim at unarmored areas of the body, keep attacking the armor (which will cause severe trauma to the internal organs even if the bullets never penetrate,) or blow the marine up/run him over/shoot at him with a bigger gun. High explosives and rockets laugh at this, as does heavy machine guns. Terrorists have all this at their disposal, and they will actively employ it to negate the armor.

This means the soldiers are in the hot desert sun, unprotected by armor, sweating in the heavy, poorly ventilated armor. Ask any policeman: bulletproof suits are hot, heavy things. But unlike the soldier, the policemen usually only face bad shots weilding black market weapons with more intimidation value than stopping power, so a bulletproof vest is actually worthwhile. The soldier, however, will constantly face bullets which will kill him even with a direct hit on the armor.

This is the shortsightedness I was speaking of.

Hey. Guess what. YOU'RE STUPID. Please look at the facts. Iraqis were not involved in September 11. Saddam Hussein wasn't even involved. What makes them terrorists? The fact that they didn't want their land invaded, their children slaughtered, their homes destroyed? God forbid! How arrogant they are! Terrorist scum for sure!

What the hell is wrong with you? That's like blaming Spain for something Italy did, just because they look and act similar.
That is a gross over-simplification. Most of the so-called insurgents in Iraq are from various other Islamic Jihadist countries. The "insurgency" is funded by Iran and Syria, both of whom have a stake in the outcome of Iraq's putative democracy.

Now ... you were saying???

That is a gross over-simplification. Most of the so-called insurgents in Iraq are from various other Islamic Jihadist countries. The "insurgency" is funded by Iran and Syria, both of whom have a stake in the outcome of Iraq's putative democracy.

Now ... you were saying???

Were most of the fighters foreign to begin with? I think not. Iraq had a standing army. And Iraqis in Fallujah fighting off Americans are indeed Iraqis. Some disgusting things have gone on in Fallujah. However, I'd say the loss of life is definitely greater on the Iraqi side, and it was that way before they even did anything. Especially when they entered THEIR country on FALSE evidence. I personally feel no sympathy for the redneck idiot troops who have the mindset "HUCK YUCK, LET'S GO KILL US SUM TURRISTS!", and who don't even stop to think they might be ruining someone's life. As for the people who didn't want to be over there, I'm sorry, and may God protect you.

2. After eight years of neglect under the Democrats, the military has effectively had to recreate civilian sources for military supplies and equipment. This also takes considerable time.


Hmmm I thought the Republicans dominated congress.....


3. War doesn't usually wait on the voting population to decide that it's time to elect people who are comitted to a strong military instead of head-in-the-sand peacenicks who think the UN is going to solve all of our problems and the US no longer needs a military. This is what Sec. Def. Rumsfield meant by "going to war with the army you have." What he should have said was "going to war with the degraded army your Democratic predecessors left you with as a result of their stupidity."

Again a republican dominated congress.

What do you call Iraqis?

Targets?
No I'm not anti-military. I support a strong military that gets used WHEN NEEDED.

Why should I be tolerant of someone who wants to kill someone because of their religious beleifs?

And he went to Iraq to kill Iraqi Muslims because of an attack on America that Iraq had nothing to do with? Hows that for borderline-retardation?

Why should you be tolerant of Muslims? Their religion teaches to kill non-believers.

That is a gross over-simplification. Most of the so-called insurgents in Iraq are from various other Islamic Jihadist countries. The "insurgency" is funded by Iran and Syria, both of whom have a stake in the outcome of Iraq's putative democracy.

Now ... you were saying???

Are you sure. Don't forget those Fedayeen bastards. It was said they were 15000 strong and there was no way to prove if you got one.

Many went underground.

Not all the fighers are foreigners.....

That is a gross over-simplification. Most of the so-called insurgents in Iraq are from various other Islamic Jihadist countries. The "insurgency" is funded by Iran and Syria, both of whom have a stake in the outcome of Iraq's putative democracy.

Now ... you were saying???


arrgghhh!! If you repeat a lie a million times it is still a lie. Where do you get this information that most of the insurgents are foriengers? Do you know how many foreign fighters were found in Falluja? 15 thats right a whopping 15 out of over 1000+ Iraqi fighters. Did you read the USMC report on falluja?

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,GH_Fallujah_112004-P1,00.html

Repeat the same old mantra that the insurgents are all foriegn fighters if you want, but know that if you do then you are calling the marine corps a bunch of liars.

arrgghhh!! If you repeat a lie a million times it is still a lie. Where do you get this information that most of the insurgents are foriengers? Do you know how many foreign fighters were found in Falluja? 15 thats right a whopping 15 out of over 1000+ Iraqi fighters. Did you read the USMC report on falluja?

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,GH_Fallujah_112004-P1,00.html

Repeat the same old mantra that the insurgents are all foriegn fighters if you want, but know that if you do then you are calling the marine corps a bunch of liars.

A large portion of insurgents were in fact foreigners, but since the primary enemy has been sunni militants, it is amusing to claim that the majority were foreigners. Iran will not likely be supporting the militants there since they are sympathetic to the Shi'ite majority, who are getting the best deal of the democratized Iraq. Al-Qaida has good reason to be involved, as they are enemies of both the Shi'ites and the United States.

There is no suprise that so many foreigners are coming to fight: Saudi Arabian, Pakistani, Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian, South African, Australian, Qatarese, Indian, British, German, American, French, Mozambiquean, Malaysian, Indonesian, Lybia, Syria, Chinese, Mongolian, Russian, Georgian, and Spanish populations, among others, have some degree of internal infrastructure to recruit and train these terrorists, which generally involves a mixture of brainwashing and mobilization of the new assets to countries where they will be somewhat well protected, often the U.A.E.

And foreigners coming to fight against forces trying to contain an uprising is nothing new: Look what happened at the WTO meeting in Seattle. People flew into SeaTac from all over the world just to fight off the police and vandalize the city.

Well, perhaps the budget is approved by Congress, not by the President. He can ask for a lot of money, and they didn't give it to him up front. He has to go ask after the fact.

As a non-American, I feel that I _might_ be able to say something _without_ "party politics" playing a part.....

One thing to point out, is that while the _senate_ and the _president_ approves of the military budget, it is the _pentagon_ that decides where that money is spent.

So the decision not to uparmour HMMMV's is the _pentagon's_ - not the president/senate.

Targets?


Why should you be tolerant of Muslims? Their religion teaches to kill non-believers.

You are an idiot. Plain and simple. You obviously know nothing about Islam, because if you did, you wouldn't be saying such utter garbage. Islam teaches to be peaceful, and not to slay anyone unless to defend your home, your land, or your religion. Don't speak of things you don't know. Read the Bible. Read all the violence in the Bible. I am about to give up on this, because there are so many stupid people in this world. Also, look in the Bible. You'll see it says not to eat pork, to prostrate when you pray, to wash yourself before you pray, etc. It's funny how Christians got lazy, and don't even know what their own book says. The Bible is much more violent in terms of verses than the Qur'an. But you wouldn't know that, because you don't know anything except what you're told.

A large portion of insurgents were in fact foreigners, but since the primary enemy has been sunni militants, it is amusing to claim that the majority were foreigners. Iran will not likely be supporting the militants there since they are sympathetic to the Shi'ite majority, who are getting the best deal of the democratized Iraq. Al-Qaida has good reason to be involved, as they are enemies of both the Shi'ites and the United States.

There is no suprise that so many foreigners are coming to fight: Saudi Arabian, Pakistani, Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian, South African, Australian, Qatarese, Indian, British, German, American, French, Mozambiquean, Malaysian, Indonesian, Lybia, Syria, Chinese, Mongolian, Russian, Georgian, and Spanish populations, among others, have some degree of internal infrastructure to recruit and train these terrorists, which generally involves a mixture of brainwashing and mobilization of the new assets to countries where they will be somewhat well protected, often the U.A.E.

And foreigners coming to fight against forces trying to contain an uprising is nothing new: Look what happened at the WTO meeting in Seattle. People flew into SeaTac from all over the world just to fight off the police and vandalize the city.

Do you have a source for your claims? If a large percent of the insurgents are indeed foriegn fighters how do they melt into the population so easily? How have they been supplied and fed for the last year and a half? And you listed "american" as a nationality of these foreign fighters, whats that? I have never heard of any americans fighting with the insurgents. Where did you get that from?

THE US MILITARY SPENDS MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER. TONS MORE. HOW ABOUT IT SHOULD ALL GET ACCOUNTED FOR AND USED FOR IMMEDIATE NEEDS, LIKE FUNDING THIS CRAP-ASS WAR NO ONE WANTED. WE'RE THERE, SO HOW ABOUT WE FUND IT INSTEAD OF SPENDING THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON USELESS SHIT. DON'T BLAME CONGRESS. GOD KNOWS WE SPEND MORE MONEY ON MILITARY THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

I hate to agree with a post that is all in caps, but it is true, the US spends more on it's military than *all of Europe combined*, US military spending makes about a sixth of the spending of the entire world.

This would suggest that perhaps the amount of money spent by the US is less of an issue than how the military uses it.

My suggestion (If I was to make a plea before the US Senate) would be to cut down on the numbers of soldiers and divert the salaries that have now been eliminated to training, education, and equipment for soldiers. There would be fewer American soldiers, but the ones that would be there would be really really good.

Cheers
Grantwold.

That analogy is downright idiotic.

Seatbelts save lives. Armor blocks the weakest of small arms.

The intensity of an accident determines the effectiveness of the restraint. It may work, it may not, depends on the accident. The accident depends on the conditions, which are not engineered for the purpose of killing the driver.

Armor blocks a couple of small bullets, so they aim at unarmored areas of the body, keep attacking the armor (which will cause severe trauma to the internal organs even if the bullets never penetrate,) or blow the marine up/run him over/shoot at him with a bigger gun. High explosives and rockets laugh at this, as does heavy machine guns. Terrorists have all this at their disposal, and they will actively employ it to negate the armor.

This means the soldiers are in the hot desert sun, unprotected by armor, sweating in the heavy, poorly ventilated armor. Ask any policeman: bulletproof suits are hot, heavy things. But unlike the soldier, the policemen usually only face bad shots weilding black market weapons with more intimidation value than stopping power, so a bulletproof vest is actually worthwhile. The soldier, however, will constantly face bullets which will kill him even with a direct hit on the armor.

This is the shortsightedness I was speaking of.

What you are saying is wrong.

Interceptor body armor can stop 7.62x39mm at 0m. This is the caliber of a AK-47, the main weapon of the enemy. This means the soldier can survive multiple hits from an enemy's assault weapon to his torso, thus saving his life.

The armor has great protection against fragments and blast effects. There have been tons of soldiers saved from IEDs by wearing their body armor.

Ask ANY soldier if he has a choice of wearing his body armor, he will say "Yes, I do all the time, I want more body armor."

Targets?


Why should you be tolerant of Muslims? Their religion teaches to kill non-believers.

really? show me proof

That is a gross over-simplification. Most of the so-called insurgents in Iraq are from various other Islamic Jihadist countries. The "insurgency" is funded by Iran and Syria, both of whom have a stake in the outcome of Iraq's putative democracy.

Now ... you were saying???
And of course you can back up your assertions???

Hmmm didn't think so.....

NEXT!!!

As a (moderate) Republican, even I can note that what Rumsfeld said was a cop-out. He is the one member of the Cabinet that truly needed to resign. He has the responsibility to facilitate the funds granted by Congress, and not enough of that money is going to troop supplies.

really? show me proof
While I personally agree with being tolerant, and these lines may be taken out of context (and probably are), just for the record:

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

Do you have a source for your claims? If a large percent of the insurgents are indeed foriegn fighters how do they melt into the population so easily? How have they been supplied and fed for the last year and a half? And you listed "american" as a nationality of these foreign fighters, whats that? I have never heard of any americans fighting with the insurgents. Where did you get that from?
Perhaps Class A Cows is a misnomer and he/she meant Class A "BULL"?

Do you have a source for your claims? If a large percent of the insurgents are indeed foriegn fighters how do they melt into the population so easily? How have they been supplied and fed for the last year and a half? And you listed "american" as a nationality of these foreign fighters, whats that? I have never heard of any americans fighting with the insurgents. Where did you get that from?

They in fact, do not melt in. This has made the news, remember that incident where foreign Jihadists took over the commercial district in Fallujah just before the US began seiging it? Also, I do not recall Americans fighting alongside insurgents in Iraq, but they did in fact fight in Operation Enduring Freedom again US forces. And I DO in fact mean US residents by "American," although you could effectively include Canadians I guess. Also, many of these people are not long-term residents of the feeder nations, in the case of the more unlikely seeming feeders at least, or only second or third generation descendants from their originators. Also, these networks have numerous means of transporting supplies, some remniscent of tactics we saw in Vietnam: tunnel networks have been found in strongholds. Other means exploit what basically amounts to covert logistics support via means of smuggling or illegal trade. Also, not all connections can be patrolled at all times, especially since the Iranians wont be too keen to have us on their border stations

While I personally agree with being tolerant, and these lines may be taken out of context (and probably are), just for the record:

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
You really have to love people who take words out of context and exploit them for all they are worth and in the case of the link you provided, there is a classic example of ignorance and intolerance.

To demonstrate my point, let's examine what is stated on the "untitled document" on the web page:

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

"Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191"

NOW look at the WHOLE text of that line:

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Some of you posters are VERY dangerous people indeed and you do your utmost to spread hate and dis-information and that to me is shameful. Rationalize and justify all that you will but your words are hollow and their meaning is empty.

BTW, never mind quoting the KORAN if you believe in religion. Instead, try reading the Bible and see what it says about killing, stealing, and bearing "false witness".

What you are saying is wrong.

Interceptor body armor can stop 7.62x39mm at 0m. This is the caliber of a AK-47, the main weapon of the enemy. This means the soldier can survive multiple hits from an enemy's assault weapon to his torso, thus saving his life.

The armor has great protection against fragments and blast effects. There have been tons of soldiers saved from IEDs by wearing their body armor.

Ask ANY soldier if he has a choice of wearing his body armor, he will say "Yes, I do all the time, I want more body armor."

I specifically mentioned that it will stop AK-47 ammunition. What you do not understand is the significant force which the armor does not stop, this is somewhat like being hit repeatedly by a professional boxer with enhanced strength, and prolonged exposure is definitely not survivable. The soldier suffer broken ribs and internal hemmorage. Besides, the insurgents in Iraq have access to anti-aircraft guns, which were used in an anti-tank role by the soviet union.

The protection is certainly desirable but as I said, it is not worth the cost and politicians are generally not too eager to inform people of this. It will not make a significant diffrence in the amount of fatal casualties, and will be illogical to support logistically for the entire US deployment.

Actually hard body armor stops a good amount of the force of a bullet. The soldier will suffer severe bruising, but there are many instances of people being shot under soft body armor and continuing fighting. It most cases the soldier will survive, and be able to fight. Why are you speaking of "prolonged exposure", most bullets miss their intended targets, and very rarely will an enemy be able to keep a full auto weapon on you.

What is your point about AA guns? It just doesn't make any sense.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp?cp1=1
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/weapons/a/newbodyarmor.htm
http://www.ceramicindustry.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2710,100934,00.html

This body is essential to soldiers in Iraq and every troop exposed to attack should receive one.

That analogy is downright idiotic.

Seatbelts save lives. Armor blocks the weakest of small arms.

The intensity of an accident determines the effectiveness of the restraint. It may work, it may not, depends on the accident. The accident depends on the conditions, which are not engineered for the purpose of killing the driver.

Armor blocks a couple of small bullets, so they aim at unarmored areas of the body, keep attacking the armor (which will cause severe trauma to the internal organs even if the bullets never penetrate,) or blow the marine up/run him over/shoot at him with a bigger gun. High explosives and rockets laugh at this, as does heavy machine guns. Terrorists have all this at their disposal, and they will actively employ it to negate the armor.

This means the soldiers are in the hot desert sun, unprotected by armor, sweating in the heavy, poorly ventilated armor. Ask any policeman: bulletproof suits are hot, heavy things. But unlike the soldier, the policemen usually only face bad shots weilding black market weapons with more intimidation value than stopping power, so a bulletproof vest is actually worthwhile. The soldier, however, will constantly face bullets which will kill him even with a direct hit on the armor.

This is the shortsightedness I was speaking of.

you're the bigger idiot for saying armor doesn't matter at all.
And for pretty much condoning what Rummy said now catorgizes you as a fucking retarded.
I don't think you've ever been in the military.
shit I wonder if you've ever seen a gun.
You're just a armchair retard who parrots anything the administration says.
You know it's not really supporting our troops to take a valid justified concern and tear it up with these video game analogies of why body armor on people/vehicles is useless. Hey here's a good one for ya cowman : SHRAPNEL. Oh wait, that's right armor is there for decoration ain't it. I wonder how many people got killed or severly wounded by shrapnel. Everytime a bomb or IED,grenade, RPG explodes I wonder what comes flying out of the blast radius.hmm shrapnel, maybe.

well I did serve in the USAF for 4 years and I'm gonna flat out say this is BULLSHIT. Those kids were hanging off his every word and he just basically told them tough shit. The military may only represent about 1.5 million voters, but someday those people who got fucked over like this will come home and tell people what the government really considers as support for our troops and the votes for the democrats will increase exponentially. I don't wanna see that happen but someone's gonna have to tell rumsfeld to ethier shut up or at least think before he opens his goddamn mouth.
What I said is fact buddy....Clinton with the help of the Dem. controlled Senate cut and cut and cut and deployed and deployed and deployed....Every where that he could for the public relations win....And we the soldiers lost...We lost money,armour,our lives and the respect of many Americans because of the jobs we were sent to do. We lost lives in Somalia because Clinton and his people tied our hands with outrageous rules of engagement that in the end led to the deaths of over 1100 Somalia people because we had to engage or be wiped out.( see BlackHAwk Down....No the movie is not fictionalized) We were ordered to fight an air war over Kosovo from 25000 feet in dense fog that also led to the deaths of many thousands of civilians in Serbia and Kosovo. Then come the financial cuts and the draw downs and the early seperations. The post closings and the turn over US military technology to avowed enemies. We were more defeated by Clinton then by any opponet we have ever faced. I am not trying to flame but you have to call a spade a spade. If you are going to critisize the Bush Admin. then you better spread the blame equally. Yes Rumsfeld's comments sound crass but they are true. 8 yrs of Clinton abuse led to the mess we have now. You can not logically argue that.Note I said logically. Oh by the way I was subjected to the Clinton Admin's "BACKDOOR DRAFT" my term of service was extended by 18 months and I did not whine or whimper. I sucked it up and drove on. Oh and another thing,Rummy is a bit on the less then thoughtful side at times but the troops love him. Ask around. And ask them how they feel about what we are doing.Thanx for the feed back. And THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY.
Sincerely,
A Proud 82nd Airborne Vet

you're the bigger idiot for saying armor doesn't matter at all.
And for pretty much condoning what Rummy said now catorgizes you as a fucking retarded.
I don't think you've ever been in the military.
shit I wonder if you've ever seen a gun.
You're just a armchair retard who parrots anything the administration says.
You know it's not really supporting our troops to take a valid justified concern and tear it up with these video game analogies of why body armor on people/vehicles is useless. Hey here's a good one for ya cowman : SHRAPNEL. Oh wait, that's right armor is there for decoration ain't it. I wonder how many people got killed or severly wounded by shrapnel. Everytime a bomb or IED,grenade, RPG explodes I wonder what comes flying out of the blast radius.hmm shrapnel, maybe.
No shrapnel is not stopped by armour. Shrapnel is like a giant shotgun blast. But I would take some armour over no armour. I gotta give you that.

Actually hard body armor stops a good amount of the force of a bullet. The soldier will suffer severe bruising, but there are many instances of people being shot under soft body armor and continuing fighting. It most cases the soldier will survive, and be able to fight. Why are you speaking of "prolonged exposure", most bullets miss their intended targets, and very rarely will an enemy be able to keep a full auto weapon on you.

What is your point about AA guns? It just doesn't make any sense.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp?cp1=1
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/weapons/a/newbodyarmor.htm
http://www.ceramicindustry.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2710,100934,00.html

This body is essential to soldiers in Iraq and every troop exposed to attack should receive one.
He is refering to the fact that the terrorists and illegal enemy combantants are using weapons against US troops that are banned for that use by the G. Con. rules of war.AA weapons will blow through all but the best armour...

I hate to agree with a post that is all in caps, but it is true, the US spends more on it's military than *all of Europe combined*, US military spending makes about a sixth of the spending of the entire world.

This would suggest that perhaps the amount of money spent by the US is less of an issue than how the military uses it.

My suggestion (If I was to make a plea before the US Senate) would be to cut down on the numbers of soldiers and divert the salaries that have now been eliminated to training, education, and equipment for soldiers. There would be fewer American soldiers, but the ones that would be there would be really really good.

Cheers
Grantwold.
Watch yourself .The ones tha tare there now are already the very best in the world hands down....

Hey. Guess what. YOU'RE STUPID. Please look at the facts. Iraqis were not involved in September 11. Saddam Hussein wasn't even involved. What makes them terrorists? The fact that they didn't want their land invaded, their children slaughtered, their homes destroyed? God forbid! How arrogant they are! Terrorist scum for sure!

What the hell is wrong with you? That's like blaming Spain for something Italy did, just because they look and act similar.
Ok there we go with the personal attacks again..Can you disagree with out being simple in your language.... ANd I am sorry but SADAM HUSSEIN did have his hands in the funding of terrorists orginizations around the world. And their children were being slaughtered and starved by a evil and psychotic dictator. And the people we are fighting in Iraq now are not true representatives of the Iraqi people.

Were most of the fighters foreign to begin with? I think not. Iraq had a standing army. And Iraqis in Fallujah fighting off Americans are indeed Iraqis. Some disgusting things have gone on in Fallujah. However, I'd say the loss of life is definitely greater on the Iraqi side, and it was that way before they even did anything. Especially when they entered THEIR country on FALSE evidence. I personally feel no sympathy for the redneck idiot troops who have the mindset "HUCK YUCK, LET'S GO KILL US SUM TURRISTS!", and who don't even stop to think they might be ruining someone's life. As for the people who didn't want to be over there, I'm sorry, and may God protect you.
Did you have any sympathy for the poor innocent civilians killed on Sept. 11th 2001 or was your sympathy reserved for the terrorists?

Watch yourself .The ones tha tare there now are already the very best in the world hands down.... They just aren't adequately trained for urban policing, but then I guess no one is these days.... Except the British with experience in fighting in Ireland...............

I have no clue why you'd all be talking about AA weapons, those things are pretty big, hard to move, and hard to hide. RPGs are a much more likely threat on a day to day basis, IEDs more so. Nothing can stop a big cannon aimed directly at you, but why not stop all the smaller stuff that is encountered on a far more regular basis?

My suggestion to the army? Stop wasting money on Strykers and field the old M113s. We have thousands of them lying around, and they have armor that is just as good, with the capacity to easily be upgraded. They are also easily transported by C-130. Adding armor to humvees(which adversely affects their suspension/handling, and the uparmored versions aren't designed to counter mines, just rpgs.....)makes no sense when we already have a huge supply of armored vehicles in stock. The Stryker is a perfect example of the military industrial complex profitting off unnecessary systems.

Also, Peardon, don't hextuple post.

What I said is fact buddy....Clinton with the help of the Dem. controlled Senate cut and cut and cut and deployed and deployed and deployed....Every where that he could for the public relations win....And we the soldiers lost...We lost money,armour,our lives and the respect of many Americans because of the jobs we were sent to do. We lost lives in Somalia because Clinton and his people tied our hands with outrageous rules of engagement that in the end led to the deaths of over 1100 Somalia people because we had to engage or be wiped out.( see BlackHAwk Down....No the movie is not fictionalized) We were ordered to fight an air war over Kosovo from 25000 feet in dense fog that also led to the deaths of many thousands of civilians in Serbia and Kosovo. Then come the financial cuts and the draw downs and the early seperations. The post closings and the turn over US military technology to avowed enemies. We were more defeated by Clinton then by any opponet we have ever faced. I am not trying to flame but you have to call a spade a spade. If you are going to critisize the Bush Admin. then you better spread the blame equally. Yes Rumsfeld's comments sound crass but they are true. 8 yrs of Clinton abuse led to the mess we have now. You can not logically argue that.Note I said logically. Oh by the way I was subjected to the Clinton Admin's "BACKDOOR DRAFT" my term of service was extended by 18 months and I did not whine or whimper. I sucked it up and drove on. Oh and another thing,Rummy is a bit on the less then thoughtful side at times but the troops love him. Ask around. And ask them how they feel about what we are doing.Thanx for the feed back. And THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY.
Sincerely,
A Proud 82nd Airborne Vet

I wonder how many people say:"hey my contract says 8 years, but I'm only signing up for 4?"
I remember all the older people in uniform never had a good thing to say about clinton.There were a lot of bases that were gonna be shut down (like Aviano, my first one which fortunately didn't) .Since Bush was in office we had a unprecedented pay raise ( I was making a little over 1500 a month as a E-4 with no dependants). But I think that anything that protects a person (at least somewhat) from getting killed or seriously wounded is good.
Personally I think if the liberals are really up in arms as they say they are they should try and get some kind of charity started to buy these kids armor and/or to help try and provide at least some of the costs involved with "up-armoring" these vehicles. It sounds kinda like nonsense, but as long as the government would accept the money we raised or the things we bought I think it could work and it's better than a fat bloated beuracracy that can't get off it's ass to vote for a spending bill for armored vehicles. I don't know. It could work.It definately could work.

Wow so much for tolerance...No you aren't anti-military are you? How are the soldiers supposed to feel when terrorists try to kill them? How should the American people feel when MUSLIM TERRORISTS kill 3,685 innocent cicvilians in one attack. YEah there may be a bit of vengence in his message but so be it. It has come down to an us or them issue...

I would suspect that the issue isnt so much that you are shooting and killing people, but rather that you are claiming to have enjoyed killing people so much that you signed up to do it all over again soley for the pleasure and joy that you claim to derive from killing human beings. Perhaps you are exagerating and dont intend your comments to be taken so literally. However if your comments are in earnest then you are indeed a sick puppy. There are times when it is necessary to take life, however I cant imagine any occasion where it is necessary to enjoy taking life.

You have no doubt heard about what has been happening, soldiers complaining they have limited supplies, bad supplies and the army is over all dicsucusted, with Rumsfeld in particular, this is the really pathetic part, Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want or wish you had."

You have got to be kidding me, yeah, they wish they had an army who would supply them, why dont you? Is it the money do you not want to give the money to the army? Is it too much to ask to armor their vehicles or give them better quality armor, or is it too much money? Too much spent on big chamagne bottles, giving it back to people, thats the problem, the Bush administration has found a shortage in money to fund their little Iraq adventure, maybe this is where the tax money they dont have would come in handy. This is what pisses me off, they act like they know but they dont know, at all.

Perhaps this is why we bash Bush, perhaps this is why.
Yeah, bash Bush on the cuts made from the PREVIOUS ADMINISTATION...
Bush Sr did a slight cutback but Clinton took it further.

Yes...cuts made by a republican congress. You guys are aware that the congress by far has the most control over the money issue right?

No shrapnel is not stopped by armour. Shrapnel is like a giant shotgun blast. But I would take some armour over no armour. I gotta give you that.

Then you know nothing about body armor or weaponry.

When paratroopers started wearing flak jackets in WWII it was to protect against shrapnel, from 20mm and 88mm AA guns. The flak jackets issued to soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam wars protected against artillery, mortars, and grenades.

The helmet in WWII prevented some 50,000 casulties. Now take that helmet protection and put in around a soldier's torso. How much casualty prevention is that? I read an article a while back how there hasn't been much torso wounds in this war because of body armor, most wounds have been the legs and arms. They are developing body armor flexible to be worn there too.

Interceptor body armor is essential to the troop's survival in Iraq. It should be given to any exposed to attack.

My absolute favorite Rumsfeld moment out of that press conference was when Sgt. Wilson asked for armor, and described how his unit would scavenge scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass from junkyards in order to shore up their vehicles. Rummy replied that "armor won't solve all your problems. It doesn't matter how much armor you've got, a vehicle can still be blown up." That might not be word-for-word, so don't crucify me if you've got a paper at hand, the gist is accurate.

Who the hell does Rumsfeld think he is? Here's a soldier in the field describing what his unit needs and the Secretary comes back and tells him he doesn't understand the issue? Get the hell out. Sure, a vehicle will never be 100% bullet- or RPG-proof, but I think Wilson has a right to ask for the best protection available and not to get bureaucratic issue-dodging in return.

can the pacifists please leave this thread.
this is grownups talking now.

but apparantly not grownup grammar.

Pacifism is just a childish thing. Good thing we are grown up and believe in violence as a way to solve problems.

Our soldiers have been able to survive very grievous injuries, which would certainly have killed them in any other war, because of armor. If a truck is hit by an RPG or whatnot, then armor will deflect much of the blast and reduce the injury to the soldiers inside.

No (realistic) amount of armor can make anything totally impervious, but every milimeter of armor makes it that much more likely that the attack will be survivable.

This is obvious, basic. The soldiers themselves know this reality better than you or I, because they are living it. When Rumsfeld contradicted them to their faces, when they knew they were right and he was wrong, what does that do to morale? Low morale reduces the effectiveness of any army, and that gets people killed. Rumsfeld should resign immediately for this criminally negligent act of misleadership. But he will not, and that is proof of his cowardice.

Yeah god bless our troops indeed, especially since Bush and the other Republicans wont. Maybe we should say god help our troops, you cant think that the army will and/or the government will clean this up, they have had almost two years, thats how long we've been in Iraq, Ive seen little results. You cant say that a news media wants the US army to lose just because they arent warmongers, like Fox. Did you ever consider that maybe they want the troops outta there, or for the government to help them, that is what they should do. Even though most news medias arent biased, I can only think of Fox News, leaning toward the elephants.

You mean there's a beauracracy in the military too? In the gov't? Say it ain't so! Why do people think everything runs smoothly in the military, when it's an arm of the gov't?

Fod God's sake, did we pacify Germany after only 3 years? No, it took time. Quite being so damn impatient. Our military's primary purpose is to break things and destroy, second is to secure/occupy an area. Trying to secure a country the size of California isn't exactly easy and pouring troops into the area isn't the solution. We need special forces and local police security, which is on the way as quick as we can get it there.

And the fact that you think there is no bias in the news other than Fox just shows your political tilt. To say that CBS, CNN and NBC aren't biased is just naive. The only difference is that Fox is open about their pundits being biased on THEIR OWN SHOWS. Look at O'Reilly and the people invited on Brit Hume's Special Report. It's obvious which way they tilt: Juan Williams to the left, Fred Barnes to the right, etc. Are there more people there that go to the right? Of course, all the other networks don't want anything to do w/people who are more conservative than liberal. And before you say MSNBC has Joe Scarborough, he's prob the only conservative there. Other than that, 90% of the media (print media too) is to the left.

Yes, most of the mainstream media does want us out of Iraq but you should already know that leaving Iraq now would be a disaster for our troops and the people of Iraq. It would be easy for a dictator to sweep in and set up his own gov't. And to think that our gov't isn't helping our troops is just stupid. Troops griping about not enough armor? Turns out that troop aren't riding in the convoy trucks, it's the reporters which is why that reporter planted the question to that soldier.

The last part is interesting. Just talked a supplier over at Lightfighter.

They can count on one hand how many people bought the Interceptor body armor from them (and they are a major supplier).

And yet, as you point out, are not the *only* supplier. The guys at "Something Awful" managed to raise enough money for 200 sets of body armor (not too bad considering how much it costs) and send it over with a few of their guys who were getting sent. Needless to say, the soldiers who have been taking armor off of dead bodies were very thankful.

There has been enough body armor over there for everyone since April.

I'm going to trust the accounts I have from someone who has been there, thank you very much.

They are the only vehicles having armor bolted onto them. Armored Humvees were already in the production pipe, but not enough funds were put in several years ago to produce any more than a trickle.

Guess the army needed one more of the big toys, instead of armor for their men and women.

Wonder who didn't want to pay for armored Humvees?

Let's ask Kerry.

Some people should really research things before spouting talking points...

Guess what I served under the Clinton andmin. who slashed defense spending and cut troop strength for social spending so that when the miltary was actaully needed for a real world mission (ie:the war on terror and yes that includes Iraq) instead of some UN lead fiasco such as Kosovo we were out of armour and weaponry. Have you ever served? Do you have any idea what you are talking about ? You may not like this adminstration but they are the most military friendly admin in 12yrs. Do the troops need more you are darn right they do but it is tough to give it to them when we spend all of our money on other countries and a social welfare system that causes more harm then it does good. The tax cut has actaully been a boon to the military because it has increased the amount of money available to the people who in turn spend more and create more....But I will not go into a economics lesson here.....You are way off base here buddy....

*One* less super-fighter jet would have bought every man and woman in Iraq proper body armor. *ONE*

Apparently the military wants their toys much, much more than they care about their troops.

Did you have any sympathy for the poor innocent civilians killed on Sept. 11th 2001 or was your sympathy reserved for the terrorists?

Of course I have sympathy for the innocents. However, considering not one single Iraqi was involved, you're point isn't valid. You're one of those idiots pulling a "you're not a patriot" game. Just shut up. You know as well as anyone else that Iraq and Sept. 11 are two different things. If anything, we should be going after Saudi Arabia. But no. They are our "friends". Can you say "Bush/Saudi alliance"? I can. How bout you learn to.

Ok there we go with the personal attacks again..Can you disagree with out being simple in your language.... ANd I am sorry but SADAM HUSSEIN did have his hands in the funding of terrorists orginizations around the world. And their children were being slaughtered and starved by a evil and psychotic dictator. And the people we are fighting in Iraq now are not true representatives of the Iraqi people.

Starved? Are you stupid? Seriously, are you? It's true Saddam went after some Kurds, and some Shi'ites before. But apparently you haven't visited the majority of Iraq. He was not oppressive in the way you're thinking. Don't get me wrong, he was an awful man, but the Iraqi people had considerable Civil Freedoms. As long as they didn't mess with the political structure, they led relatively normal lives. You should probably talk to actual Iraqis. It's now that people are starving to death, and children are being slaughtered. Get a clue, and stop imagining crap that you see on Christian Children's fund commercials. Iraq was never featured in them.

Obviously Saddam killed many people. I am by no means justifying what he did. But the way you present things, you make it seem like the majority of Iraqis lived horrible depressing lives when that just wasn't the case when Saddam was in power. It's the case now. Things have just gotten bad for everyone now, not just the 1% of the population that rubbed Saddam the wrong way.

They are the only vehicles having armor bolted onto them. Armored Humvees were already in the production pipe, but not enough funds were put in several years ago to produce any more than a trickle.

Wonder who didn't want to pay for armored Humvees?

Let's ask Kerry.

The argument that the bush administration needed more money after the fact and after the region had turned into a flaming pile of dogshit. Then congress didn't give them the money can be debated on a seperate forum. Paying for the initial pricetag that Rummy put out was allowed by congress, Kerry included. Colin Powell's doctrine said that the US should always use overwhelming force to invade another nation, but Rumsfeld didn't like that. He was in favor of sending as few troops as possible, for as cheap as possible. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is CW from the White House. The fact is that in the FIRST vote on how much this war would cost, the Bush administration was, at the very least inaccurate, and at the worst, very stingy. It takes a lot for an American soldier to stand up and go against the administration that sent him or her to war, we have now seen the breaking point. This was screwed up not by the democrats in the House and Senate, but by Rumsfeld and the Bush administration's inaccurate assertion of what was needed. Maybe this will send a message, when your generals tell you they need more, you give it to them.

Tempestuous topic ....
#11 - You probably don't belong armchairing this scenario, get out on the field and prove your manhood. Seems like this forum's a bit too mature for your visceral nature.
#21 - Just how many scenarios do you think you'll be put into, honestly, where the easiest and most pervasive group psychology WON'T be "us and them"? Really?
#58 - It's already being mentioned a few times here but for posterity, the REPUBLICANS LED the CONGRESS 6 to 8 of Clinton's years in office. Someone mentioned Somalia and BlackHawkDown ... what years were those again?
#63 - read #77. Again. Get it through your head else prove an ignoramous. 9/11 DID NOT INVOLVE IRAQ. End of f*cking story.
#72 - Ouch.
_end of line_

Well, perhaps the budget is approved by Congress, not by the President. He can ask for a lot of money, and they didn't give it to him up front. He has to go ask after the fact.

Did everyone over the past few years vote for every thing that we needed? Body armor? Armored vehicles? It takes years to ramp up production and make those things.

So did the party that's making the complaint (we may assume that Democrats are the "loyal" opposition) vote Yes for body armor? Hmm? Eh?

I think not. I think not. So there's plenty of blame to go around.

There is plenty of balme to go around, but that's not the point here. The point is that Rumsfeld doesn't give a damn, even though the fucker probably found some loophole way out of Vietnam. He (and Bush and CO.) so willingly put other people's lives at risk, while they never served their country in that way.

But now that the election is over, Rummy can say whatever he fucking wants to while he and Dick Cheney sit there and decied how to slice the pie.

Quick note on Cheney: I wish everyone's first name were connotative of their personality like his is.

I find it telling that the thread was started by someone who isn't willing to serve. And, probably unwilling to spend money on helping the troops.

If it had been by someone who actually cared, I suppose it would matter.

I find it telling that the thread was started by someone who isn't willing to serve. And, probably unwilling to spend money on helping the troops.

If it had been by someone who actually cared, I suppose it would matter.

Then try me. I care. If you kill the messenger, the message still exists. You cannot deny that the lack of fully available armor in Iraq practically rates as a crime. Refusing to armor humvees for over a year now in occupation is a travesty.

You gonna tell me now that my voice doesn't count? C'mon deny the truth a little longer; its ALMOST funny. This administration screwed up in its management of funding and supplies for our troops; regardless of you meger defense that one man who just lost the presidential election voted against a bill that passed anyway. A bill that was loaded with pork and just happened to include body armor funding.

You can tell me now how many bills with such provisons for armoring troops and vehicles have been proposed since then by republican legislators right? You can tell me how many times the President has called for increased allocation of armor to our troops in Iraq right? How many opportunities has this administration had for increasing the supply of body armor and vehicle armor, and how many have they seized upon?

The numbers are not in your favor. Regardless of your previous service to this nation, you are not acting in the interests of our troops now; they need this armor, and defending those who have repeatedly not given them what they need will not help bring our troops home alive. Surely you understand this.

Then try me. I care. If you kill the messenger, the message still exists. You cannot deny that the lack of fully available armor in Iraq practically rates as a crime. Refusing to armor humvees for over a year now in occupation is a travesty.

You gonna tell me now that my voice doesn't count? C'mon deny the truth a little longer; its ALMOST funny. This administration screwed up in its management of funding and supplies for our troops; regardless of you meger defense that one man who just lost the presidential election voted against a bill that passed anyway. A bill that was loaded with pork and just happened to include body armor funding.

You can tell me now how many bills with such provisons for armoring troops and vehicles have been proposed since then by republican legislators right? You can tell me how many times the President has called for increased allocation of armor to our troops in Iraq right? How many opportunities has this administration had for increasing the supply of body armor and vehicle armor, and how many have they seized upon?

The numbers are not in your favor. Regardless of your previous service to this nation, you are not acting in the interests of our troops now; they need this armor, and defending those who have repeatedly not given them what they need will not help bring our troops home alive. Surely you understand this.

Body armor is not an issue, and apparently has not been an issue since April. So that problem no longer exists.

Uparmored Hummers could probably be built at a faster pace - but that doesn't address the problem of trucks (which is what the complaints were about).

The trucks were never designed to be armored in the first place. And putting armor on a truck increases its weight drastically and radically shortens its life, its range, its acceleration, its top speed, and its ability to turn. In short, just tacking armor on a truck is a bad idea - and you need to design a truck from the ground up to do the job.

It would probably have been a good idea to pull the M113 armored personnel carrier out of mothballs - there are several hundred thousand of these available. But, although they have much more armor than you could ever bolt onto any truck, and are resistant to rifle fire, they, like any armored truck, are transparent to IEDs and RPG fire.

Which is the main threat that truckers face. Huge roadside bombs and RPG rockets designed to put holes in tanks.

If you look beyond the initial AP story, you'll see comments by Marines on Rumsfeld's comments. They don't see his comments as outrageous, and feel that the Army guys were whining - after all, Marines get equipment well AFTER the last guys in the Army get theirs - and the Marines were not complaining.

When I was sent there I guess I could have complained that when some Iraqis shot at me, I wasn't in a tank. I was on foot, and all I had was a bolt action rifle. But I did the best I could with what I was given. And they died and I am alive. Despite the fact that I was not wearing ANY body armor.

and the marines are far more conditioned than the army, more elite group, and arnt reserves being pulled out of the us and forced to stay longer than normal because they are running short on grunts

and the marines are far more conditioned than the army, more elite group, and arnt reserves being pulled out of the us and forced to stay longer than normal because they are running short on grunts

The complaints you hear are from non-combat troops within the Army.

They did not expect to be shot at, due to the nature of their work. Truck drivers, mechanics, cooks, and other support troops have an innate fear of combat.

But combat doesn't have rules, and neither does the enemy. It's not a matter of running short on grunts - we need drivers to run supplies around.

In other wars, we had the same complaints from non-combat troops - and some were indeed killed. But in other wars, the technology to armor troops and vehicles was not feasible. So they didn't complain about the lack of armor - they just complained about being shot at.

Point of fact - if you're a soldier, you're going to get shot at. Period. It's not a secret, and you shouldn't be surprised.

One of the reasons that Pvt. Lynch and her maintenance unit were ambushed and eliminated as a unit was that the majority of them did not view "how to use a GPS to find you way" and "how to clean your weapons" as a priority - they thought they were mechanics and tow truck drivers.

Out of all those mechanics in her unit, only a few had working weapons. Not because of Rumsfeld, but because (unlike combat troops) they NEVER cleaned their weapons, which were rusted shut. Most didn't know how to shoot. And their commanding officer got them lost in a bad area because he couldn't figure out how to use his GPS.

So I can give you a good rifle and ammunition. I can give you body armor. I can give you a GPS (very modern stuff!), but if you're unwilling to accept that your job may involve combat, you're going to be a very expensive corpse.

I think that's what Rumsfeld way saying. You have to fight with what you have. Even if all of those trucks were armored, you could still blow one up with a single RPG rocket. So you'll have to think of a smarter way to get from one place to another.

Yay! Now you're actually blaming the troops for the Pentagon's mistakes! Congradulations sir, you've just commited an cardnial sin in American politics. If you were on TV you'd be tarred and feathered by the media within 20min of your saying this. Your callous attitude towards the lives of your fellow soldiers makes me dispair at the possibility of a reasonable coversation, but I'll try anyway.

Simply put; saying that soldiers sign up for the single purpose of being shot at and killed, regardless of their job or duty, may in some strange way be true. I personally believe that it is a soldier's duty to stay alive unless their death is the ONLY way to serve their country remaining to them, and I work every day with that goal in mind. Do you think that this is a bad idea?

Do you believe that soldiers who sign up at age 18 to become tank mechanics should do so with the willingness to get killed in easily preventable cirumstances? Or do you believe as I do that a soldier signs up at age 18 for ANY job with the express purpose of living, that being shot and killed is the last thing that they would disire?

Army or Marines, it does not matter. Those who want to die are simply suicidal. Those who fight to live, and to keep alive those arounds them are soldiers. Do you disagree with this? Do you believe that soldiers should WANT to die in combat? That death is somehow good for soldiers?

However, EVEN assuming that soldiers exist only to die, the point is that there is a difference between expending soldiers and wasting them. Just as a soldier who fires a thousand rounds to tag 2 targets is more wasteful than one who fires a mere 30, an officer who who wastes the lives of a thousand soldiers when better tactics and use of available resources could have limited those numbers is wasteful. Do you dispute this point?

Donald Rumsfeld has through a combination of poor management of resources and poor leadership choices led to many wasteful deaths, deaths that could and should have been avoided; easily. Do you dispute this point?

What are you arguing for? I am completely at a loss. You seem for all the world to argue that soldiers SHOULD die. That the outcome that you desire is for Soldiers in the US army to die, when they could live. I get this impression because you actually say that the Army is in the wrong for wanting to live and that the marines who wished to die when they COULD live were right.

"If you look beyond the initial AP story, you'll see comments by Marines on Rumsfeld's comments. They don't see his comments as outrageous, and feel that the Army guys were whining - after all, Marines get equipment well AFTER the last guys in the Army get theirs - and the Marines were not complaining."

So Marines are correct for their willingness to suffer and die in silence? This is acceptable or good in your opinion? I'm afraid I want my Marine friends in Iraq to come home alive too much for me to agree with you easily on this point. I must insist that you explain yourself.

No, they're not going to "suffer and die in silence".

You evidently believe that if you're driving around in an unarmored truck, it's a death sentence.

And evidently, the Marines do not believe that. Evidently, non-combat troops in the Army believe that, but combat troops do not.

The pattern here is that people inexperienced in combat believe that to drive around on the streets of Iraq is a death sentence in an unarmored truck.

So far, it's more dangerous to hang out in Southeast Washington, D.C., in the poorer neighborhoods, on a percentage basis, for 30 days and nights, than it is to stay in Iraq for a year. Dead and wounded by shooting.

BTW, owning even a BB gun is illegal in D.C.

I've been shot at more times than I can count. With rifles, machineguns, and RPGs. And I've never been hit. And I wasn't wearing body armor. And I wasn't facing certain death by any stretch of the imagination.

Combat troops generally know that you choose where and when to fight in order to avoid casualties. Non-combat types don't think in those terms.

Ever wonder why we had such a lopsided body count in Fallujah? It wasn't the body armor, babe. If I have sensors overhead that can see you through the roof of your house, and I get that information before I come round the corner, you can have all the weapons you like, and I could be stark naked, and you'll be dead in any case.

Got some great video of action in Fallujah sent to me by friends. It wasn't fair to the jihadis who fought back. They never had the remotest of chances of stopping the US from taking the town.

I find it telling that the thread was started by someone who isn't willing to serve. And, probably unwilling to spend money on helping the troops.

If it had been by someone who actually cared, I suppose it would matter.
All you can do with these people is laugh at them. They are pathetic.

No, they're not going to "suffer and die in silence".

You evidently believe that if you're driving around in an unarmored truck, it's a death sentence.

And evidently, the Marines do not believe that. Evidently, non-combat troops in the Army believe that, but combat troops do not.

The pattern here is that people inexperienced in combat believe that to drive around on the streets of Iraq is a death sentence in an unarmored truck.

So far, it's more dangerous to hang out in Southeast Washington, D.C., in the poorer neighborhoods, on a percentage basis, for 30 days and nights, than it is to stay in Iraq for a year. Dead and wounded by shooting.

BTW, owning even a BB gun is illegal in D.C.

I've been shot at more times than I can count. With rifles, machineguns, and RPGs. And I've never been hit. And I wasn't wearing body armor. And I wasn't facing certain death by any stretch of the imagination.

Combat troops generally know that you choose where and when to fight in order to avoid casualties. Non-combat types don't think in those terms.

Ever wonder why we had such a lopsided body count in Fallujah? It wasn't the body armor, babe. If I have sensors overhead that can see you through the roof of your house, and I get that information before I come round the corner, you can have all the weapons you like, and I could be stark naked, and you'll be dead in any case.

Got some great video of action in Fallujah sent to me by friends. It wasn't fair to the jihadis who fought back. They never had the remotest of chances of stopping the US from taking the town.

So non-combat soldiers are dying in Iraq...Not combat soldiers. Well, that's a relief. Here I was thinking that gross mistakes on the part of the uppermost military commanders was getting our troops killed. Wait...

So the fact that Non-combat soldiers are dying doesn't matter to you? Spare me the manly talk about gadgets, I don't get an 6' erection talking about my new sensor suite or sattilite comm array, I'm talking about how to save lives here; something that the upper command structure has been failing to do; and you support them?

Nice work, trying to draw out some anti-gun rhetoric from me by mentioning DC; I question your example; it seems incorrect or fabricated, but I am a supporter of gun rights in the US.

I frankly applaud the US Marines ability to do more with less, and when they get more, they do more with it! However, if they are not the ones dying foolishly, what are they doing in this conversation? The point is that troops ARE dying who SHOULDN'T be.

I don't care how baddass you think you are if your own fellows are dying in unarmored trucks 50 miles away. In fact, that speaks rather poorly of you don't you think? You're stoking your own ego when your comrades are dying?

I'm not impressed by talk of manly killing, I'm not impressed with talk of surviving the odds, I am impressed by the ability to keep the odds as good as possible for people so they don't have to be John Rambo to stand a chance of making it home intact!

Combat troops are doing well; fine and dandy. Now why can't we keep our own non combat troops from getting cut to pieces!?

Combat troops are doing well; fine and dandy. Now why can't we keep our own non combat troops from getting cut to pieces!?

They are *not* being cut to pieces. BTW, most casualties amongst non-combat troops is due to accidents. You read that right.

Simple idea to improve combat survivability - but difficult to do.

1. It's not possible to armor a transport truck to the level required to protect it against a large mine or RPG rocket. I repeat, not possible. Armoring them to the level where they stop small arms fire - possible. But you can't bolt armor on as an afterthought. You have to design the truck to do it in the first place. It takes years to design and deploy a truck in the tens of thousands. So start now.

2. The body armor problem was solved in April. If they don't have body armor, it is not a SecDef problem - they have a problem with their supply sergeant.

3. Until the new truck comes into play, there needs to be an education of sorts for non-combat troops. We already issue them the same small arms as the combat troops; the same body armor; the same radios; the same night vision gear. Non-combat troops need to go through the same combat training as the combat troops. This means sending every supply pogue through Infantry AIT or its equivalent (4 to 5 weeks training per person) so they get the idea that they are there to kill people, not get killed.

4. We should never have drawn down the active duty force after the first Gulf War. If we still had the same size active duty force, no reservists or National Guard troops would have been called for this action - because our active duty military was six times larger than it is now. Thus, we wouldn't have had a "backdraft" and the complaints from National Guard and Reserve troops who don't want to really do anything except get paid for wearing a uniform on the weekends.

5. I would have one day off to have an explicit reading of the Contract before starting any war. This is to ensure that idiots who can't read can have the short, simple Contract explained to them.

6. Shoot the first deserter or soldier who won't follow orders out of fear. Everyone else will STFU. Worked in WW II, and that was with a Democrat President (the God of Democrats) signing the orders.

oh brilliant! shit, why go on suicide supply runs when you can just say no and get shot without ever having to go

oh brilliant! shit, why go on suicide supply runs when you can just say no and get shot without ever having to go

Worked for FDR. If it's a core Democrat policy, it might be good enough for me.

oh brilliant! shit, why go on suicide supply runs when you can just say no and get shot without ever having to go

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it...

oh brilliant! shit, why go on suicide supply runs when you can just say no and get shot without ever having to go
This is not a situation where people are just going around shooting soldiers. These people refused to follow orders, and endangered the soldiers doing the actual fighting. They had the same armour as the soldiers in other supply units, in other wars. You make a mockery of informed discussion.

This is not a situation where people are just going around shooting soldiers. These people refused to follow orders, and endangered the soldiers doing the actual fighting. They had the same armour as the soldiers in other supply units, in other wars. You make a mockery of informed discussion.
you are suggesting shooting dissenters and I am making a mockery of informed discussion?

anyone with half a brain want to explain this

Rumsfeld has consistently made every wrong move that couldve been made in the execution of this unnecessary war from Day One

you are suggesting shooting dissenters and I am making a mockery of informed discussion?

anyone with half a brain want to explain this
Yeah, anyone with half a brain want to explain to the man wiht no brain that not following orders gets people killed? :rolleyes:

Yeah, anyone with half a brain want to explain to the man wiht no brain that not following orders gets people killed? :rolleyes:
and another right wing dipshit withou the ability to reason gets ignored

and another right wing dipshit withou the ability to reason gets ignored
and another leftwing dipshit resorts to personal attacks when he realizes he is completly foolish.

Yeah, anyone with half a brain want to explain to the man wiht no brain that not following orders gets people killed? :rolleyes:

I believe we have established that following orders gets people killed; thus its choosing between evils; the evil that gets you killed, and the evil that gets someone else killed.

Who could prevent such a tragic situation? Oh yeah, Rummy.

Face facts people; you are left with the following choice; defend Rumsefled or insist that US soldiers should try to live. You are choosing between those who want US troops to die and those who want US troops to live.

Military minds and Peaceniks can agree on this one; US troops should not have to die without reason. The only ones left are those so callous, so criminal in their intent that they actually WANT US troops to be killed in Iraq.

Choose wisely.

6. Shoot the first deserter or soldier who won't follow orders out of fear. Everyone else will STFU. Worked in WW II, and that was with a Democrat President (the God of Democrats) signing the orders.

You are advocating summary excecution of troops on base complaining that they are being sent to die without reason or cause.

You are killing them out of vanity. Not out of need. That crosses the line from military discipline to personal power. This is not WW2, these troops are not civilian conscripts, and the situation is not so bad that a solution is impossible; your example is not valid.

These are professional soldiers stating that the chain of command is in peril and you want to have your authority restored through summary excecution of dissent? I am afraid you either have no command of your senses or you are simply murderous. I cannot talk with you further in good concience if you persist in advocating such measures.

You are advocating summary excecution of troops on base complaining that they are being sent to die without reason or cause.

You are killing them out of vanity. Not out of need. That crosses the line from military discipline to personal power. This is not WW2, these troops are not civilian conscripts, and the situation is not so bad that a solution is impossible; your example is not valid.

These are professional soldiers stating that the chain of command is in peril and you want to have your authority restored through summary excecution of dissent? I am afraid you either have no command of your senses or you are simply murderous. I cannot talk with you further in good concience if you persist in advocating such measures.

If the chain of command is in peril now, it's because journalists set the soldier up who asked the question - that's been documented now. Turns out the soldier didn't have a complaint - the question was written for him by a journalist.

And if you were worried about the chain of command, you should have really worried if Kerry had been elected. There was open talk of sedition amongst many officers, just as there was during the Clinton administration.

You don't hear seditious talk amongst officers during this administration. So maybe just being a Democrat President is enough to shatter morale and the chain of command.

MGNY, was the soldier forced to ask the question?

If not, the fact that a journalist wrote it for him doesn't account for much. If not, the soldier either didn't care to read and think about it beforehand, or agreed with the sentiment, or couldn't see the connotations of the question.

Bad, bad, and bad.

If he was forced...

ZOMG MEDIA CONSPIRACY!1!!!ONE!

MGNY, was the soldier forced to ask the question?

If not, the fact that a journalist wrote it for him doesn't account for much. If not, the soldier either didn't care to read and think about it beforehand, or agreed with the sentiment, or couldn't see the connotations of the question.

Bad, bad, and bad.

If he was forced...

ZOMG MEDIA CONSPIRACY!1!!!ONE!

he wasn't forced. at the time, he thought it was funny. probably not now though.

No conspiracy is necessary when there are stupid people everywhere.

Oh, and here's a quote from the reporter who set up the question - and the real reason that the question was asked:

"I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. "

So the reporter was scared, and didn't want to be driving in an unarmored truck. So HE brought it up. Funny stuff, eh?

Do you have a source for that Gun?

I am sorry to hear you say such things. I try to assume the best about people, and let them prove me wrong. You have shown to me that even those who have tasted combat before can glorify it in their mind to the point where they lose their reason. This is of course assuming you have actually seen combat, you may be just a kid for all I know.

Have fun cheering on the deaths of our soldiers. I will continue to fight for their safety without you. A pity.

Do you have a source for that Gun?
Here's his whole letter home (from the reporter). The whole thing was a pre-arranged setup.

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Staffers

Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.

The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.

Thanks,

Lee

Yeah!!!

Yeah!! Maybe a reporter who was afraid to ride on a truck wanted to coach a couple of soldiers into asking the questions so he would a) get some armor and b) get a big story.

It's the truth, in the reporter's own words.

Please link me to where you got this letter.

I had heard that they interviewed the soldiers girlfriend after the fact and she said they talked the night before and he was telling her about the question he was going to ask and she said it was a question that he was serious about.

Now I ask you this: If this was merely a concern that the reporter had... then why did all of the other soldiers cheer when he asked it?



Here's his whole letter home (from the reporter). The whole thing was a pre-arranged setup.

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Staffers

Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.

The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.

Thanks,

Lee

Also, there is nothing wrong with a reporter helping a soldier frame his question in a way that will get the soldiers concerns across and hopefully retreive the best answer.

Try here and search for it http://www.greene.xtn.net

That's where I read it.

Also, it's faintly moronic to try and uparmor a truck to be resistant to the types of devices that the Iraqis put in the street.

Those bombs are capable of destroying a tank. Note carefully that a tank has about 60 tons of armor - several times the total weight and cargo capacity of a truck. If you made a truck with the protection level of a tank, it would probably be in the region of twice the tonnage of a tank - it might not be able to use most roads, and would probably not move very fast. It still might not be enough protection.

It's not possible to uparmor a truck enough to protect the crews against this type of bomb.

This has been a common problem in every war in which trucks were present.

A reporter obviously took advantage of a few soldiers, talked them up into a frizzle about how dangerous their job was, and made a story about it.

If you're so smart about how to armor a truck to protect against a 122mm shell, why aren't you working in the defense industry? There hasn't been a truck built (and very few fully armored tanks) that can be near one going off without taking severe damage and killing the crew.

That's why the insurgents are using them. Obviously, insurgents would be committing suicide if they attacked in person (as they did fatally in Fallujah). So they put huge shells in the road.

Calling the soldiers who are trying to protect themselves moronic is a bit shortsighted isnt it? They are out there risking their lives to save us from the imaginary monsters in Bush's closet.

Can you stop and think for a second about this? What about if they are not right up on the bomb? Could the armor not be beneficial then? Do you think that the same amount of damage will occur to the soldiers whether or not they have armor on their vehicle? Is the armor they put on ONLY for roadside bombs? I know you probably get told this a lot but one day it may sink in so I will tell you again: The world is not so black and white. Think about that statement, and I bet you can get asomethign otu of it because I know you have some smarts in that brain of yours. You are a genius after all.

Also I never claimed to know anything about armor, but I can make assumptions. I'm sure ALL THOSE SOLDIERS WHO WERE APPLAUDING THE QUESTION (not just a few as you claim) know a lot more about what they need to keep them safe thean either you or I do.

Calling the soldiers who are trying to protect themselves moronic is a bit shortsighted isnt it? They are out there risking their lives to save us from the imaginary monsters in Bush's closet.

Can you stop and think for a second about this? What about if they are not right up on the bomb? Could the armor not be beneficial then? Do you think that the same amount of damage will occur to the soldiers whether or not they have armor on their vehicle? Is the armor they put on ONLY for roadside bombs? I know you probably get told this a lot but one day it may sink in so I will tell you again: The world is not so black and white. Think about that statement, and I bet you can get asomethign otu of it because I know you have some smarts in that brain of yours. You are a genius after all.

Also I never claimed to know anything about armor, but I can make assumptions. I'm sure ALL THOSE SOLDIERS WHO WERE APPLAUDING THE QUESTION (not just a few as you claim) know a lot more about what they need to keep them safe thean either you or I do.

Even if you were 50 meters away from a 122mm HE shell exploding, it has a very good chance of disabling a fully armored tank. As for anything lighter, the shell fragments are going to disassemble the vehicle.

These shells are either right next to the road, or directly under the road. I've been talking to some people who have been teaching Iraqis how to remove them. Some of these Iraqis have simply disintegrated, even though they were wearing heavier body armor than any of our soldiers (bomb disposal armor).

And yes, I know quite a bit about being safe in Iraq. I've been there twice in combat.

Okay being in Iraq twice makes you an expert and therefore it is indisputable that having more armor on their vehicles would never be helpful to them in any situation. I guess this debate is over.

My question to Gun is, if our leader says “we are doing everything you can to help the soldiers” then why not just give them the armor. If it makes them feel safe where is the harm? Are you arguing that it's not going to work so don't bother anyway?

Okay being in Iraq twice makes you an expert and therefore it is indisputable that having more armor on their vehicles would never be helpful to them in any situation. I guess this debate is over.

Far more of an expert than you. Or that stupid reporter.

Far more of an expert than you. Or that stupid reporter.

such of an expert in fact that you cannot see at all how more armor can help them in any situation whatsoever, while the soldiers who cheered for the question know knowing comparatively right?

such of an expert in fact that you cannot see at all how more armor can help them in any situation whatsoever.

Not enough to make a difference. I'd be willing to bet money that the subject wasn't heavily on their minds before the reporter coached them into it.

Tell you what, I can drive over and speak to the people in the unit, and find out.

Not enough to make a difference. I'd be willing to bet money that the subject wasn't heavily on their minds before the reporter coached them into it.

Tell you what, I can drive over and speak to the people in the unit, and find out.

no difference even if there were a couple trucks in front of you sheilding you from the shrapnel before your vehicle was hit? Or do they never drive in convoys?

Yes please do drive over and ask them. Please dont wear any body armor as it wont do any good.

no difference even if there were a couple trucks in front of you sheilding you from the shrapnel before your vehicle was hit? Or do they never drive in convoys?

Yes please do drive over and ask them. Please dont wear any body armor as it wond do any good.

I don't wear any. Vehicles in column don't shield each other. And you keep a good spacing so that if one catches fire, you won't.

I think you don't understand that even a heavily armored truck would still effectively be transparent to the shell fragments.

They are heavier than your hand, and moving at around 5,000 feet per second.

It works for most convoys to keep an eye out for this sort of thing (send guys who specialize in this ahead of you - they're called combat engineers). Find and disarm them. It happens every day.

Works far better than your idea of driving over them and watching your truck go back to GM in pieces.

The lack of armor and equipment has been heavy on many soldiers minds as well as loved ones for some time now. In fact you have 15 instances of court martial in the works now for units that have refused to run missions due to lack of equipment to other units that are being court martialed for scavenging off of other vehicles to complete their missions.

is this the ONLY reason they need armor on their vehicles Gun? Does the armor not protect them from anything else... ever?

Like what? If you and your unit know how to provide proper escort, you won't get in an ambush. So few, if any people will be shooting at you.

And everyone, and I mean everyone, has access to the Interceptor Body Armor. No one, and I mean no one, can enter Iraq without it.

Whether or not you wear it all is up to you. Wearing it, you're largely bulletproof against rifle fire and smaller. So why uparmor your truck against small arms? Just to make it a slower target for the rockets which the armor will never protect you against?

Some units here are obviously pathetic in terms of leadership, in terms of organizational ability, in terms of combat tactics, and in terms of intelligence.

I drive around in a civilian car with no armor. Haven't seen me on Al Jazeera having my throat cut, have you?

I would agree though that soldiers are easily coached to the point of being brainwashed. I mean, why are so many fighting a war that makes no sense?

Spc. Jeremiah W. Schmunk, 21. Company C, 1st Battalion, 161st Infantry Regiment, 1st Cavalry, Washington National Guard, Moses Lake, Wash. Died July 8 in Baghdad, Iraq, when his vehicle came under attack by small arms fire. Home: Richland, Wash.

Capt. Christopher S. Cash, 36, and Spc. Daniel A. Desens, 20. National Guard's 1st Battalion, 120th Infantry, Jacksonville, N.C. Both June 24 in Baqubah, Iraq, when their vehicle came under fire by small arms and . Homes: Cash, Winterville, N.C.; Desens, Jacksonville, N.C.

Just a few that could have been saved if they had more armor.

(In response to my original post I'd like to say that I know a lot of what you were saying is probably sarcasm, but it is irresponsible and stupid to joke about stuff like this because you are only helping to solidify those whos views are actually that crazy. By presenting and arguing for such ideas, you aid others who share them, whether you used sarcasm or not.)

I don't know what you're smoking when you say a tank has 60 tons of armor(the Abrams doesn't even weight that much in total) and I REAALLLY want to know how a 122mm HE shell is going to do anything to an armored vehicle at 50 meters. Have you even stopped to consider how impossible that is? An explosion like that would by definition topple all the buildings in the surrounding area and flip cars over several times.

An Abrams uses a 120mm gun, and you don't see it levelling city blocks every time it fires.

There are many ways to protect against mines better than what we have now, nothing as extreme as stopping an artillery shell bomb, but smaller ones easily. And if the soldiers are wearing armor, they stand a greater chance of surviving the shrapnel the vehicle doesn't absorb. As an added bonus, when they are sitting in a vehicle, the armor is less tiring and cumbersome than walking around with it.

I can't, and won't, believe the US military would accept, train, and send into combat anyone so incredibly stupid as you. I don't see how anyone could go through combat and come out so blatantly ignorant of so many things.

i think somebody just got MODED!

Believe it!!! And I'm here to say he's not the only one. That's why I left when my tour was up. I took a look around me one day at the lack of personnel, equipment, and lack of leadership and said "there is no way this battalion could survive a war". Mind you this was back in 2000. I doubt much has changed.

I'm not sure if I should be relieved that it has come out now that the person I was debating is probably just a troll and not actually a dangerous person without compassion for their own comrades in arms; or annoyed that I wasted so much time debating a person who thinks that 120mm shells destroy entire city blocks and that unarmored civilian cars are better defense than a 70 ton tank (with according to him, 60 tons of armor).

Live and learn I suppose. I thought it was odd when they never answered a single question but kept adding odd attacks on left-wing leaders instead.

Driving regular convoys down unsecured routes into ambushes and detonated explosives would kinda indicate that you probably should be using armoured vehicles. Tossing some scrap metal and sandbags on the bottom of a Hummer and praying is probably not the best defence for what is supposed to be the best supplied army in the World. Even those armour ad-on kits for Hummers doesn’t take into account that driving over explosives requires armour on the bottom of the vehicle. As far as driving speed goes, you aren’t going to be gunning it through an urban area with a whole convoy anyways. You’d just be driving into more security risks faster and with less awareness of your surroundings, something in the end that is much more lethal. That and the non-contact vehicle accidents that would quickly pile up. Hitting a mine at 70 km per hour isn’t better than hitting a mine at 40 km per hour.

Everything the US has done in it’s deployment was done to hose the actual troops on the ground being sent over there and the citizens of Iraq. There are US reserve units posted in combat zones who don’t even have enough radios or night vision kit to get by on. While the shortages in kit, supplies, and troops endanger the lives of soldiers, the Pentagon continue to pour bajillions of good money after bad into such projects as the disastrous F-22 and other not very usable aerospace weapons. I noticed the question-answer session with Rumsfeld and the troops in the Middle East wasn’t quite a thing of love for the politician that he was hoping for.

Body armour is heavy and a lot of guys are not going to enjoy wearing it when the weather turns hotter, but it’s a lot better than becoming pink mist. The big problem they have is that the armour is protecting the bodies mass and guys are losing a whole lot of limbs. But short of turning troops into Robocop this is what is going to keep happening.

It’s very nice that the US administration planned the corporate looting of Iraq down to the last paperclip in advance, but they really hung their soldiers out to dry on this tour. The way things look it’s going to get a lot worse before there is any chance it gets any better. Right now it has never sucked so much to be in the Logistics end of the military than it is now in Iraq for the troops posted there.

The Bruce

Bruce, they aren't hitting mines. They are driving near or over "improvised explosive devices". That is, they are having to deal with several large artillery shells laced together.

Each shell is easily 20 times larger and more powerful than any anti-tank mine.

You can armor a light vehicle all you like, and the IED will completely disassemble the vehicle and its occupants.

And if you're driving a fuel tanker, you'll be fried to a crisp after being blown to bits.

Don't bring up the body armor, because everyone has it. And has since April. Nice to see that people who aren't there, can't confirm their facts, and don't really know anything about the military can express their displeasure at certain topics.

So, tell me, how would you armor a fuel truck so that it would be safe to drive over two or three 122mm artillery shells? I'll be waiting for your cogent and accurate answer. In fact, I bet it would be more interesting to hear you rant on television, and then hear your embarassed stammering when you can't find an answer.

I'll give you a big hint: it can't be done. Not even an Abrams tank can do it. That's how we lose tanks over there.

(In response to my original post I'd like to say that I know a lot of what you were saying is probably sarcasm, but it is irresponsible and stupid to joke about stuff like this because you are only helping to solidify those whos views are actually that crazy. By presenting and arguing for such ideas, you aid others who share them, whether you used sarcasm or not.)

I don't know what you're smoking when you say a tank has 60 tons of armor(the Abrams doesn't even weight that much in total) and I REAALLLY want to know how a 122mm HE shell is going to do anything to an armored vehicle at 50 meters. Have you even stopped to consider how impossible that is? An explosion like that would by definition topple all the buildings in the surrounding area and flip cars over several times.

An Abrams uses a 120mm gun, and you don't see it levelling city blocks every time it fires.

There are many ways to protect against mines better than what we have now, nothing as extreme as stopping an artillery shell bomb, but smaller ones easily. And if the soldiers are wearing armor, they stand a greater chance of surviving the shrapnel the vehicle doesn't absorb. As an added bonus, when they are sitting in a vehicle, the armor is less tiring and cumbersome than walking around with it.

I can't, and won't, believe the US military would accept, train, and send into combat anyone so incredibly stupid as you. I don't see how anyone could go through combat and come out so blatantly ignorant of so many things.


I guess you're pretty ignorant yourself. I've seen an Abrams destroyed by 122mm HE shells. Of course, it had the misfortune to drive over several of them together...

I've SEEN it. You haven't. I'm not being "brainwashed". I'm looking at it.

The soldiers here have ALL been issued armor since April. No exceptions. If you're killed not wearing armor, it's because you didn't put it on. You can also get hit where there's no armor - and you can still die from that.

And that happens too. I don't wear it in the heat.

I haven't had any trouble killing Iraqis that shoot at me either, largely because they have (by and large) little or no skill at it.

I think the real point some of you want to make is that you didn't want to come to Iraq in the first place. That's fine. Unfortunately, if you talk to the majority of soldiers here, we're all having a great time. Sure, there are a few who would like to say something to the press, but the majority are not in your camp.

If things were so bad, why did over 70 percent of us vote for Bush?

I've SEEN it. You haven't. I'm not being "brainwashed". I'm looking at it.

But according to you the blast would have been so big you should have been killed. How did you get close enough to see it but not get blasted hmmmmm. Some inconsistencies here.

I haven't had any trouble killing Iraqis that shoot at me either, largely because they have (by and large) little or no skill at it.

Of course, cause women and children weren't trained as well as you were. But knowing they are little to no threat doesn't stop you does it killer.

Unfortunately, if you talk to the majority of soldiers here, we're all having a great time

I do talk to A LOT of FT Lewis soldiers and I have yet to meet a soldier who voluntarily signs up to go. And those who are made to go find ways to get out (want a transfer to a quartermaster unit not realizing that they are deployable too).

I do talk to A LOT of FT Lewis soldiers and I have yet to meet a soldier who voluntarily signs up to go. And those who are made to go find ways to get out (want a transfer to a quartermaster unit not realizing that they are deployable too).

Try talking to an infantryman (MOS is 11B) instead of the supply REMFs who are in the quartermaster corps, and the only ones who could be transferred to such.

Also, I came back as a contractor. Explain why roughly 40,000 guys came back for more.

Also, I came back as a contractor. Explain why roughly 40,000 guys came back for more.
I would say the $80,000 starting non taxable yearly wage but I'm sure you'll deny it even though thousands of others would not agree with you.

Try talking to an infantryman (MOS is 11B) instead of the supply REMFs who are in the quartermaster corps, and the only ones who could be transferred to such.
An 11B can be transferred to a quartermaster unit under medical reasons. I know, there are 2 here now. The welcome center has 7. It's really any MOS but it was fun to find the specific 11B's.

I would say the $80,000 starting non taxable yearly wage but I'm sure you'll deny it even though thousands of others would not agree with you.

An 11B can be transferred to a quartermaster unit under medical reasons. I know, there are 2 here now. The welcome center has 7. It's really any MOS but it was fun to find the specific 11B's.

Try 300,000 dollars. But, I send all my money home to my family.

Makes you wonder why someone who doesn't want to kill people becomes a soldier. That's their job.

Why are these supply convoys not switching up routes more often?

Try 300,000 dollars. But, I send all my money home to my family.

Makes you wonder why someone who doesn't want to kill people becomes a soldier. That's their job.

I said $80,000 STARTING. You don’t comprehend to well do you? And for your info a lot of pacifists join the army. They get to do support jobs. I joined because I love my country. I did my time and saw an opportunity to make more money on the outside so I left. My job was not to kill people. It was to serve my country. Now if you think killing was the job then that's your mental problem not mine. You don't even sound human. Someone do you wrong and not offer a reach around?