Warriors and wusses

[Balta1701]

You leftists just love to whine and cry about troops not having body armor but you convieniently leave out the fact that literally thousands of troops who would have died in previous wars are alive thanks to the armor they went to war with.  Additionally I laughed like hell when you posted that story about the side plate armor that hasn't been issued yet.  Many US soldiers, myself included, have made it clear that too much body armor denies them mobility and makes them more likely to be hurt or killed.  Recall your ECON 101 about the law of diminishing returns........it applies here also.

In a war of mobility, yes you're right, having too much armor weighs a soldier down to the point that their effectiveness is reduced. However, Iraq has long since passed that point. Iraq right now is a war of surprise guerrilla attacks on either stationary or moving targets. This is not a war where soldiers are marching across a country and need to keep the weight down. In most cases, this is a war where if there is significant movement needed of the troops, its done in vehicles, and the soldiers wind up not needing significant, long-term supplies. In this case...where soldiers are dying not because of lack of mobility but because of lack of protection...yes, the added armor is necessary and is worth the sacrifice of some mobility. When a significant portion of the casualties happen because of improvised, roadside IED's that hit convoys and tear through the sides of the soldiers, mobility is not the concern.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

In a war of mobility, yes you're right, having too much armor weighs a soldier down to the point that their effectiveness is reduced.  However, Iraq has long since passed that point.  Iraq right now is a war of surprise guerrilla attacks on either stationary or moving targets.  This is not a war where soldiers are marching across a country and need to keep the weight down.  In most cases, this is a war where if there is significant movement needed of the troops, its done in vehicles, and the soldiers wind up not needing significant, long-term supplies.  In this case...where soldiers are dying not because of lack of mobility but because of lack of protection...yes, the added armor is necessary and is worth the sacrifice of some mobility.  When a significant portion of the casualties happen because of improvised, roadside IED's that hit convoys and tear through the sides of the soldiers, mobility is not the concern.

 

 

The answer to that is yes and no. Often times soldiers patrol on foot through towns and cities and they do, in fact, need the added mobility. I run like a racehorse yet after dashing 100 yards with 50lbs of armor and other gear strapped on my body I was pooped!

 

They also, as you said, take most casualties in convoys. Its a tough call to make but in most circumstances soldiers would probably leave armor behind if they thought it was too much weight.

[Balta1701]

The answer to that is yes and no.  Often times soldiers patrol on foot through towns and cities and they do, in fact, need the added mobility.  I run like a racehorse yet after dashing 100 yards with 50lbs of armor and other gear strapped on my body I was pooped!

 

They also, as you said, take most casualties in convoys.  Its a tough call to make but in most circumstances soldiers would probably leave armor behind if they thought it was too much weight.

I'm sure it could also be practical to have different varieties of armor available for different purposes...where if a group actually had to do a foot patrol, those units could go for the lighter armor, and the rest of the forces, the ones being hammered during transit, are able to equip with the heavier stuff. I mean, we've had to buy like 3 different sets of armor now just in this war because the armor just hasn't caught up with the IED capabilities, I'm sure they still have some of the stuff they bought a year ago that's usable.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm sure it could also be practical to have different varieties of armor available for different purposes...where if a group actually had to do a foot patrol, those units could go for the lighter armor, and the rest of the forces, the ones being hammered during transit, are able to equip with the heavier stuff.  I mean, we've had to buy like 3 different sets of armor now just in this war because the armor just hasn't caught up with the IED capabilities, I'm sure they still have some of the stuff they bought a year ago that's usable.

 

 

They're working on making body armor more modular so that soldiers can put it on and take it off depending on the situation. Like anything else, however, it takes time to get it from the drawing board to the battlefield. The interceptor body armor platform has saved a ton of lives and it's just a question now of tweaking it so that it fits more diverse situations.

[Balta1701]

They're working on making body armor more modular so that soldiers can put it on and take it off depending on the situation.  Like anything else, however, it takes time to get it from the drawing board to the battlefield.  The interceptor body armor platform has saved a ton of lives and it's just a question now of tweaking it so that it fits more diverse situations.

On those points I think we're in pretty good agreement. The political question in these matters, however, is a slightly different one from "which armor should they use under certain circumstances", it is instead "has the civilian leadership at the DOD made it possible for the soldiers to have the armor necessary for each circumstance"?

 

At least early in the war, and possibly now that the newer side-plating has been developed, I think the evidence we have seen suggests that the DOD civilians, the guys writing the budget and running the procurement programs...have in fact caused a lot of delays and probably cost a lot of lives in the process. That is why there were so many stories during the early months of the war about families and communities chipping in to buy the interceptor vests on the public market...because the DOD wasn't doing it's job on that front in adapting to the changing situation.

[NorthSideSox72]

They're working on making body armor more modular so that soldiers can put it on and take it off depending on the situation.  Like anything else, however, it takes time to get it from the drawing board to the battlefield.  The interceptor body armor platform has saved a ton of lives and it's just a question now of tweaking it so that it fits more diverse situations.

 

Nuke-

 

I just want to clarify something, and I think you can help. It has been suggested in this thread that having side panels added to body armor would reduce casualties due to IEDs and other roadside bombs and such, particularly for passing vehicles. But the thing is, isn't the armor these troops wearing a Type II(a) or Type III armor? That's what I own, and that is meant to stop pistol rounds, submachine guns, shotgun and some rifles. It does NOT stop most high-powered rifles or edged weapons (except where there is a special trauma plate, over the mid-chest). So wouldn't the armor be pretty useless anyway, for that purpose? Wouldn't flying shrapnel fall more under the edged weapon category?

[Texsox]

So just how does one object to the war while supporting the Troops? It would seem to be that we have two choices

 

Yeah Troops! Go die for whatever reason, we don't care why you are going, but if you are going

 

Or s*** on the war and s*** on the Troops.

 

There has to be a way to show you support the Troops by making damn certain they are fighting for a just cause, that matters. Not to support some shakey poll numbers or get the public's mind off a bj.

 

Conservatives seem to think that as long as the President and Congress thinks soldiers should die, we should agree. Since I elect these people, I feel I have an obligation to let my voice be heard.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke-

 

I just want to clarify something, and I think you can help.  It has been suggested in this thread that having side panels added to body armor would reduce casualties due to IEDs and other roadside bombs and such, particularly for passing vehicles.  But the thing is, isn't the armor these troops wearing a Type II(a) or Type III armor?  That's what I own, and that is meant to stop pistol rounds, submachine guns, shotgun and some rifles.  It does NOT stop most high-powered rifles or edged weapons (except where there is a special trauma plate, over the mid-chest).  So wouldn't the armor be pretty useless anyway, for that purpose?  Wouldn't flying shrapnel fall more under the edged weapon category?

 

 

The armor we currently have consists of a vest which, by itself can stop 9mm rounds and such. When you add the ceramic plates that US soldiers wear now they stop rounds up to and including 7.62 rounds which are fired from AK 47'S and RPK machine guns.

[Texsox]

The armor we currently have consists of a vest which, by itself can stop 9mm rounds and such.  When you add the ceramic plates that US soldiers wear now they stop rounds up to and including 7.62 rounds which are fired from AK 47'S and RPK machine guns.

 

I've been hearing that many guys don't like wearing them, that they feel it increases their risk because it makes them less mobile, slower, and encourages head shots.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I've been hearing that many guys don't like wearing them, that they feel it increases their risk because it makes them less mobile, slower, and encourages head shots.

 

 

Thats what we me and Balta were talking about on the last page of this thread.

[Controlled Chaos]

So just how does one object to the war while supporting the Troops? It would seem to be that we have two choices

 

Yeah Troops! Go die for whatever reason, we don't care why you are going, but if you are going 

 

Or s*** on the war and s*** on the Troops.

 

There has to be a way to show you support the Troops by making damn certain they are fighting for a just cause, that matters. Not to support some shakey poll numbers or get the public's mind off a bj.

 

Conservatives seem to think that as long as the President and Congress thinks soldiers should die, we should agree. Since I elect these people, I feel I have an obligation to let my voice be heard.

 

 

How about....I disagree with this war. I disagree with why we're there. I dislike this administration and how they run things. However, I support the men and women fighting the war. I know they are just like me only maybe with a different opinion on why they're there. I donate money. I send over cards, food, magazines phone cards, sunblock etc... I'm supporting the people on the ground over there...but not the reason they're doing it.

[Texsox]

Thats what we me and Balta were talking about on the last page of this thread.

 

Sorry, I missed that.

[Cknolls]

]

 

They went in with just their uniforms and a helmet, right?

 

 

The army has updated the armor of our soldiers 4 times since the start of the conflict.

 

Do you have any idea heavy the body armor is?

 

What are the limitations to mobility if they add more weight to their persons?

 

 

What about the Iraqi Air Force General who said the WMD's were spirited to Syria?

 

Probably a Bush crony.

 

What about the documents being translated from Iraq stating that Saddam trained over 8000 terrorists.

 

Details. Details.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Cknolls

[LowerCaseRepublican]

]

 

They went in with just their uniforms and a helmet, right?

The army has updated the armor of our soldiers 4 times since the start of the conflict.

 

Do you have any idea heavy the body armor is?

 

What are the limitations to mobility if they add more weight to their persons?

What about the Iraqi Air Force General who said the WMD's were spirited to Syria?

 

Probably a Bush crony.

 

What about the documents being translated from Iraq stating that Saddam trained over 8000 terrorists.

 

Details. Details.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 What about the fact that in 2003 the US sent intelligence agents into Iraq to cook up "facts" to justify the invasion?

 

Details. Details.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383  What about the fact that in 2003 the US sent intelligence agents into Iraq to cook up "facts" to justify the invasion?

 

Details. Details.

 

 

Once again you go on some looney leftist website and parrot their rediculous accusations as if they're fact.

 

:rolly

[Balta1701]

Once again you go on some looney leftist website and parrot their rediculous accusations as if they're fact. 

 

:rolly

Well...you have to admit, it was a fair response to CKnolls doing exactly the same thing from the other side.

[Cknolls]

Well...you have to admit, it was a fair response to CKnolls doing exactly the same thing from the other side.

 

 

I didn't see a website listed in my post. But if you would like a reference try Stephen Hayes. He writes for the Weekly Standard.

[Balta1701]

I didn't see a website listed in my post. But if you would like a reference try Stephen Hayes. He writes for the Weekly Standard.

And I could direct you to Michael Moore for facts also...but there's a reason I don't.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, that column was written by a follower of Murray Rothbard and a very hardcore libertarian member of the Old Right. I'm pretty sure that Justin Raimondo would have a good laugh at being called a "leftist" considering he is one of the major writers at "The American Conservative" magazine.

 

I also really doubt that the Washington Times is a leftist newspaper -- and they are one of the sources being cited in the article as to the plans of OSP to create fake documents justifying the war.

 

As as Raimondo also stated after making the OSP claim of fake intelligence being scooped up by guys like Hayes at the Weekly Standard -- "Hayes' piece is a perfervid tale of raw "intelligence" vacuumed up by U.S. forces from various sites, including in Iraq, that supposedly documents Iraq's links to al-Qaeda. The secret of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S. is allegedly contained in a veritable treasure trove of "raw intelligence," the Holy Grail of the neocons, described by Hayes as "photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps" that "come from a collection of some 2 million 'exploitable items' captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives."

 

The point of Hayes' piece is that these "secret" documents and other items are being suppressed by evil forces within the U.S. government who want to see Bush and the War Party discredited. All right then, let's release the hidden "evidence" of al-Qaeda's much-touted "links" to Saddam: I can hardly wait to see the videotape of the Iraqi dictator playing Risk with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as the three of them chat amiably about how to nuke New York, Washington, and Crawford, Texas.

 

This is the fallback theory the neocons are pushing in light of the complete collapse of the case for WMD, which only the most die-hard cargo-cultists of Neoconland still uphold. It's much more fluid, and easier to "prove," if only in the minds of the president's supporters. Although an alleged Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent turned out to be a crock, there is an infinite number of similarly tall tales on tap, and I'm sure Señor Hayes and other authors of the neocon school of docudrama will rise to the challenge.

 

Such a ploy illustrates the three cardinal rules of warfare, both political and otherwise: Buck up the troops and keep firing at the enemy. Above all, stay on the offensive."

[BigSqwert]

Who is attacking your freedom?  You must have slept in on 9-11.

:rolly

 

Still waiting for evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.

[Cknolls]

And I could direct you to Michael Moore for facts also...but there's a reason I don't.

 

So Hayes isn't reputable? And Moore is not a journalist. Facts and Moore do not

 

coincide.

 

 

From now on I guess I can only cite N.Y. Slimes and Wash. Toast.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Cknolls

[Cknolls]

Still waiting for evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.

 

Who said that and when?

[BigSqwert]

Who said that and when?

 

For the months leading up to the war this administration dropped the name Osama Bin Laden out of their vocabulary. Iraq and 9/11 became synonymous for them. All they talked about was fighting the war on terror and Iraq was the first name that kept coming up.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So Hayes isn't reputable?  And Moore is not a journalist.  Facts and Moore do not

 

coincide.

From now on I guess I can only cite N.Y. Slimes and Wash. Toast.

Well the notoriously conservative Washington Times is shooting holes in the Weekly Standard's claims (along with the American Conservative magazine amongst others), so methinks that you're just creating a straw man here about the Washington Post and the NY Times and the so-called liberal media and doing so very ineffectually.

 

And while Moore is pretty liberal with his interpretation at times, he does do good things (think: when he confronted God Hates f**s leader "Rev." Fred Phelps during one of his anti-gay protests and completely flustered the Hell out of the group or when he took on Humana with a guy who needed a pancreas transplant or he would die. The pressure put on Humana due to the show and the exposure caused them to abide by their original statements that they would cover the surgery) Moore is no saint but even a blind squirrel finds a few nuts.

[Middle Buffalo]

 

The average age of the military man is 19 years.

 

He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy.

 

Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country.

 

He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's; but he has never collected unemployment either.

 

He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student,

pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy,

and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left,

or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away.

 

He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and 155mm howizzitor.

 

He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home

because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk.

 

He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him,

but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark.

 

He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher

and use either one effectively if he must.

 

He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional.

 

He can march until he is told to stop r stop until he is told to march.

 

He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity.

 

He is self-sufficient.

 

He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other.

 

He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.

 

He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle.

 

He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts.

 

If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food.

 

He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.

 

He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.

 

He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.

 

He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay

and still find ironic humor in it all.

 

He has seen more suffering and death then he should have

in his short lifetime.

 

He has stood atop mountains of dead bodies, and helped to create them.

 

He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat

and is unashamed.

 

He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body

while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to

'square-away' those around him who haven't bothered to stand,

remove their hat, or even stop talking.

 

In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.

 

Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom.

 

Beardless or not, he is not a boy.

 

He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free

for over 200 years.

 

He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.

 

Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect

and admiration with his blood.

 

And now we even have woman over there in danger, doing their part in this tradition of going to War when our nation calls us to do so.