Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows
 

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?ex=1294203600&en=b13c10bd70ee9190&ei=50 88&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss:681ee]Link to Article[/url:681ee]


hake:

...and you think the government doesn't want these kids to live and are purposely holding back armor supplies? I think it'd be a lot cheaper if the military just gave more armor than to take the increasing pressure of the rising death list.

Wouldn't surprise me but I doubt they are stupid enough to purposely hold back supplies.

it's not about withholding supplies, it's about the product not working effectively. The article is saying that the armor isn't good enough because it doesn't cover some parts of the torso.

i think it has more to do with the military not being fully prepared or underestimating the resistance they would face in iraq. i dont think they are ready to own up to it and even though it seems reasonable to just issue more armor to all our troops, getting equiptment that wasnt prepared takes a long time. its just like at work. you see something broken and you tell your manager. nothing gets done until someone loses a finger or something. even then sometimes it doesnt help.

They have armor, the article is saying the design of it is just not good enough.

The fact that some people actually believe the US goverment witholds supplies from troops purposely to get them killed is rediculous.

[quote="TK-423":27ca2]The fact that some people actually believe the US goverment witholds supplies from troops purposely to get them killed is rediculous.[/quote:27ca2]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IT IS SPELLED RIDICULOUS!

and yeah, it is pretty silly to think that the government wants to fail in iraq.

its a good thing Clinton didnt cut back on military spending so the next guy wouldnt inherate this problem ............................................... oh wait..................................

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":e4b11]its a good thing Clinton didnt cut back on military spending so the next guy wouldnt inherate this problem ............................................... oh wait..................................[/quote:e4b11]

well with clinton you wouldn't need the armor for iraq...as he wouldn't of been stupid enough to attack them.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":ee7e1]its a good thing Clinton didnt cut back on military spending so the next guy wouldnt inherate this problem ............................................... oh wait..................................[/quote:ee7e1]

Give me a break...The Republicans cut military pay earlier in Bush's presidency. And most of the money in the defense budget goes towards technology not the actual solider.

PS: When Bush cut taxes he's pretty much cutting Military pay since taxes are what the soldiers are payed with.

[quote=Stammer]Give me a break...The Republicans cut military pay earlier in Bush's presidency. And most of the money in the defense budget goes towards technology not the actual solider.

PS: When Bush cut taxes he's pretty much cutting Military pay since taxes are what the soldiers are payed with.[/quote:3833a]


nope, no break. Clinton did more damage to the military than anyone else I can think of. President Bush has been playing catchup ever since



PS Pyro.... he was too big a pussy to do anything except get blow jobs in the Oral Office

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":d6dcf][quote=Stammer]Give me a break...The Republicans cut military pay earlier in Bush's presidency. And most of the money in the defense budget goes towards technology not the actual solider.

PS: When Bush cut taxes he's pretty much cutting Military pay since taxes are what the soldiers are payed with.[/quote:d6dcf]



nope, no break. Clinton did more damage to the military than anyone else I can think of. President Bush has been playing catchup ever since



PS Pyro.... he was too big a pussy to do anything except get blow jobs in the Oral Office[/quote:d6dcf]

I woulnd't turn down a blowjob...especially from that hottie monica rolleyes:

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":806c0][quote=Stammer]Give me a break...The Republicans cut military pay earlier in Bush's presidency. And most of the money in the defense budget goes towards technology not the actual solider.

PS: When Bush cut taxes he's pretty much cutting Military pay since taxes are what the soldiers are payed with.[/quote:806c0]


nope, no break. Clinton did more damage to the military than anyone else I can think of. President Bush has been playing catchup ever since



PS Pyro.... he was too big a pussy to do anything except get blow jobs in the Oral Office[/quote:806c0]

How did he damage the military?

Yes Clinton was a huge pussy...I forgot creating a 5 trillion surplus and having a booming economy is for pencil pushing faggots, real men bomb sovereign nations by lying to their people and then going in with fledgling alliances with nations who's people don't even want to be there. Lets not forget it also takes real men to take bribes and rip people off with the help of scumbag lobbyists. Yes these last six years have been fucking peachy, yet Clinton's 8 years some how were like a mini-rapture, GOD FORBID HE GET HEAD IN THE WHITHOUSE LETS WASTE 2 YEARS OF HIS PRESIDENCY WITH THIS BULLSHIT! You call Liberals pussies look who cries over somthing thats none of your business.

Oh and Stackem how has Bush played catch up? Killing 2000 American soldiers isn't much of a catch up.

to equate the death toll to getting our military back to where it should be is stupid



PS Clinton did all that? I thought he walked into it

Don't forget that Clinton bombed Bosnia and Iraq during his presidency. He also sent troops to Somalia, but left at the slightest trouble (even though the people there were still in a terrible situation)

If we had magic, that could have saved hundreds of lives as well, however magic does not cost money, it takes leprechaun gold.

By the way, its a war ... So you can bet on casulties. This is not a little game, where you can respawn.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":44d2e][quote=Stammer]Give me a break...The Republicans cut military pay earlier in Bush's presidency. And most of the money in the defense budget goes towards technology not the actual solider.

PS: When Bush cut taxes he's pretty much cutting Military pay since taxes are what the soldiers are payed with.[/quote:44d2e]


nope, no break. Clinton did more damage to the military than anyone else I can think of. President Bush has been playing catchup ever since



PS Pyro.... he was too big a pussy to do anything except get blow jobs in the Oral Office[/quote:44d2e]



President Clinton established more foreign bases and deployed more troops around the world more then any other President....... oOo: . He also had the office after the Soviet collaspe, there was (in my mind still), no need for a military build up. Instead he built a strong economy, a properous America.........

how are people still blaming clinton for whats going on with our military? he hasnt been president for 5 years? it was clintons military that helped defeat the taliban, its bush's military that is in iraq. if bush is such a big gun spender, how come he hasnt found osama bin laden? how come he hasnt caught mullah omar or anyone else at the top of the most wanted list? for someone who's such a great man who takes risk and isnt afraid to go against popular opinion, he isnt very resourceful with a well financed military isnt he?

You try to find one person in the entire world..

[url=http://www.theimagehosting.com:e90b4][img]http://images6.theimagehosting.com/Wheres%20Waldo.jpg[/img][/url:e90b4]

They aren't [looking] for him anymore.

U.S. defense spending had declined from a Cold War high of around $375 billion in 1988 to around $265 billion in 1997, during the Clinton administration. It wasn't until Clinton's impending impeachment hearings in '99 that he agreed to increase defense spending by $124 billion over 7 years.

That's not to say that this is Clinton's fault. However, its common knowledge that Democrats prefer to spend more money on domestic programs than defense spending. Also, economies tend to be cyclical. To give Clinton all the credit for a booming economy during his administration may be overstating his influence.

If you've read or seen movies about wars, you realize that wars are fought with what you have now. To say that more lives could have been saved if body armor was improved or performed better, shouldn't be breaking news. That's like saying that more enemy soldiers could be killed if our weapons were more accurate. No shit!

President Bush went into Somolia, Clinton partially ran on withdrawing from the conflict, so he acheived his agenda on that issue.

Wikipedia says they sent forces in Dec. 1992. That means they went in before Clinton was inaugurated, after he was elected.

yeah, more armor = slower+more tired troops... in 100 degree weather. fuck hilary that stupid commie bitch

[quote="newt.":ff35a]yeah, more armor = slower+more tired troops... in 100 degree weather. fuck hilary that stupid commie bitch[/quote:ff35a]

No armor = far more dead soldiers.

but they have armor.


This issue is dumb, if we had better tanks, less soldiers would be killed. If we had better rifles, less soldiers would be killed. If we had better sunscreen, less soldiers would get burned. This isn't an issue of not having enough, it's an issue of the current design not covering enough, it's a design flaw that will be fixed, just like all other designs get improved upon once weaknesses are detected.