Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

[MCsommerreid]

I could see some logic in not passing this as the US forces armor is going to be 100% revamped in the next 2-5 years, and that would be $87 billion in the proverbial hole.

However, $87 billion is utter chicken feed compared to the total cost of the war and total spending by the government. Likely by saving soldiers lives and saving soldiers from being wounded over $87 billion would be saved in long term costs from medical care, funeral costs, lost equiptment, training a new soldier to replace the old one, and lost experiance from a veteran of a war who knows the lay of the land.

There is no logical reason to have vetoed a bill that provides more body armor untill about 2008, and there is no logical reason to have not voted for it.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: kongs

Originally posted by: Stunt
Just think of all the lives that would have been saved if the Democrats would have voted against the war.

Kerry voted FOR the war.

Yes that was when EVERYONE was being bombarded with all the patriotic war propaganda. Also, the democrats voted for getting Bin Laden, not for the control of Iraq.

So even through that patiotism, and war propaganda, Kerry managed to make some time in his busy election schedule to vote against the armour.

Makes sense...must be Bush's fault!

Hey, thats one vote he bothered to show up for! Too bad he only managed to do so about 5 times that year.

$30k per vote, not a bad salary.

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: kongs

Originally posted by: Stunt
Just think of all the lives that would have been saved if the Democrats would have voted against the war.

Kerry voted FOR the war.

Yes that was when EVERYONE was being bombarded with all the patriotic war propaganda. Also, the democrats voted for getting Bin Laden, not for the control of Iraq.

So even through that patiotism, and war propaganda, Kerry managed to make some time in his busy election schedule to vote against the armour.

Makes sense...must be Bush's fault!

Hey, thats one vote he bothered to show up for! Too bad he only managed to do so about 5 times that year.

$30k per vote, not a bad salary.

Right, so pot-shot at kerry aside, it was an important issue, and he stuck to his principals on that vote. He knew it would pass anyway. He probably could have missed it. But it simply wasn't the version of the bill he agreed with. And please quit saying that Kerry didn't suppurt body armor for the troops; he cosponsored a bill for that exact purpose. And then Bush said he'd veto it. So how does Bush come out more pro-troops when he promises to veto one version of the body armor bill while kerry votes against another version? It seems they were both playing politics with the soldier's lives, and they both stuck to their idealogical guns. Not much else to say on that point.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
How come you guys all say Kerry didn't vote for the war when Kerry himself said he voted for the war?

link

Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

Continue to stick your head in the sand...Even the guy you are defending is against you! :laugh:

Just more of your Propagandist apologist stance. Were you working for the Propagandist's campaign in 2004? The fact that you can't understand the difference between voting for the resolution and voting for war speaks volumes as to your lack of ability to think critically.

I believe the speech from Kerry that I posted above speaks for itself in what he was doing when he voted for the resolution. You can spin all you want. All you're going to do is get dizzy.

 

[Stunt]

How am I spinning...Kerry himself said he would vote FOR the war even with the now known absence of WMD.

There are very few issues Bush and I agree on, so no...I was not working on the campaign.

Your defense of Kerry contradicts his own words...you are spinning against your own leader's words.

 

[conjur]

There you go again with your spin. Will you never stop?

 

[Stunt]

My spin is Kerry's quotes as posted by the Washington Post?

Who's right conjur? You or Kerry, he doesn't support your views.

 

[conjur]

You keep saying Kerry voted for the war. That is false and is a lie.

He voted for a resolution to give authorization to use force *IF AND ONLY IF* other conditions (diplomatic measures and inspections) failed. That's where the Congress was deceived as the Propagandist had no intention of holding up his end of the bargain.

 

[Stunt]

I'm not proposing Kerry voted for the war...

Kerry has stating he voted for the war, and would do so again in that situation.

So who is it conjur? Are your views on Kerry right, or are Kerry's views on Kerry right?

 

[maddogchen]

The only thing I could see possibily wrong with this study is that if they do finally get the extended armor that in a few years when they do the study again, they will still get close to 50% fatal wounds right outside the armor. And then what next? even more calls for more armor until they all look like storm troopers.

But yeah whats with the delay, if your troops in the field are calling for it, maybe you should have made it a top priority.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm not proposing Kerry voted for the war...

Kerry has stating he voted for the war, and would do so again in that situation.

So who is it conjur? Are your views on Kerry right, or are Kerry's views on Kerry right?

Kerry never said he voted for the war. You keep twisting his words. He said he voted to give authorization for war *IF AND ONLY IF* .... you know the rest. But, keep on with your delusional form of logic. It suits you well.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm not proposing Kerry voted for the war...

Kerry has stating he voted for the war, and would do so again in that situation.

So who is it conjur? Are your views on Kerry right, or are Kerry's views on Kerry right?

Kerry never said he voted for the war. You keep twisting his words. He said he voted to give authorization for war *IF AND ONLY IF* .... you know the rest. But, keep on with your delusional form of logic. It suits you well.

So is the Washington Post using delusional reasoning? That's my source...Kerry said he voted for the war and would have done it, even with no WMD's.

Not my fault you are denying yourself reality.
Conjur, you are blatently wrong here...cut your losses and admit it.

"Game. Set. Match.

buh-bye"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm not proposing Kerry voted for the war...

Kerry has stating he voted for the war, and would do so again in that situation.

So who is it conjur? Are your views on Kerry right, or are Kerry's views on Kerry right?

Kerry never said he voted for the war. You keep twisting his words. He said he voted to give authorization for war *IF AND ONLY IF* .... you know the rest. But, keep on with your delusional form of logic. It suits you well.

So is the Washington Post using delusional reasoning? That's my source...Kerry said he voted for the war and would have done it, even with no WMD's.

Not my fault you are denying yourself reality.
Conjur, you are blatently wrong here...cut your losses and admit it.

"Game. Set. Match.

buh-bye"

Your post:

Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.


That does NOT mean "Hey, Go ahead! Invade! Drop those bombs!"

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Your post:

Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.


That does NOT mean "Hey, Go ahead! Invade! Drop those bombs!"

You realize this statement was made after the decision to go to war was made.

So Kerry endorsing this authorization and accepting they would not find WMD, he still supports his vote to go to war.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm not proposing Kerry voted for the war...

Kerry has stating he voted for the war, and would do so again in that situation.

So who is it conjur? Are your views on Kerry right, or are Kerry's views on Kerry right?

Kerry never said he voted for the war. You keep twisting his words. He said he voted to give authorization for war *IF AND ONLY IF* .... you know the rest. But, keep on with your delusional form of logic. It suits you well.

So is the Washington Post using delusional reasoning? That's my source...Kerry said he voted for the war and would have done it, even with no WMD's.

Not my fault you are denying yourself reality.
Conjur, you are blatently wrong here...cut your losses and admit it.

"Game. Set. Match.

buh-bye"

Oh for God's sake, have you completely lost all reading comprehension? Did you even read your own link? Nowhere does it say Kerry voted for "war". He voted to give Bush "authority", authority to use force as a last resort.

From your link:

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Get it? Not for "war", for the "authority" to use force, and as already documented, to use that force only as a last resort. There's all the difference in the world, no matter how desperately you want to evade it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
Your post:

Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.


That does NOT mean "Hey, Go ahead! Invade! Drop those bombs!"

You realize this statement was made after the decision to go to war was made.

So Kerry endorsing this authorization and accepting they would not find WMD, he still supports his vote to go to war.

Right, because when one looks at the resolution (as I've pointed out many times in this thread), a resolution with no teeth would have been scoffed by Saddam and ignored by the UN. It needed some bite to force Saddam to allow the inspectors in, which he did. But then the Propagandist yanked the inspectors when they weren't finding anything as he knew his sole justification for invading would soon vanish like a fart in the wind.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Stunt
What issues am I backpedaling on conjur?

I said Kerry voted against the armour bill...and he did, how it happened is what you are waffling on.

^troll

I think you left your crap all over this thread. Would you mind cleaning up before you moved on to your next throne?

So anyone challenging conjur's bizarre logic is somehow a troll?

Conjur's logic is quite sound, and easy to understand for anyone making a sincere effort. There were two versions of the $87 Billion bill funding Bush's misadventure in Iraq. Both included body armor funding. The difference is that one of the bills was more fiscally responsible than the other. Kerry supported -- voted FOR -- the fiscally responsible version of the bill. Bush did NOT support the responsible version, and threatened to veto it.

It is no more honest to claim "Kerry voted against body armor" than it is to say "Bush threatened to veto body armor". Both statements are techincally true. Both statements are meaningless.

This whole Bush machine smear campaign bleating "Kerry voted against ..." is just another deception, a disturbingly successful attempt to slime Kerry and distract the sheeple from the fact that Bush is so fiscally reckless. That so many here continue to buy into this BS -- or at least continue to parrot it -- is pathetic.

Stunt?

Speaking of evasion, Stunt continues to make claims like this:

I have no motive in this thead other than expose conjur's hipocracy.
It's OK to admit you are wrong on this topic...you don't have to blindly support conjur's illogical partisan reasoning.

while continuing to evade the points above, as well as similar comments by others. I guess we must assume that his failure to address these facts means he cannot refute them, that he knows they are true yet is determined to attack Conjur anyway. Shameful. I know he is capable of better.

 

[Stunt]

This was a post war comment...
Kerry knows the authorization was used to initiate the war.

Yet he still supports it. He still supports the Iraq war itself, even with no WMD.

 

[conjur]

No, he doesn't. Yet again you twist his words and extract some distorted meaning from those twisted words.


Seriously, Stunt. You're really embarrassing yourself here. Give it up.

 

[Stunt]

I'm not the one who dragged Kerry into an article with no mention of the man...
I felt the need to hold your lack of reasoning to account...

You have failed.

 

[Todd33]

You guys should just drop the Kerry thing and get back to body armor.

It's hard to defend Kerry's vote for authorization for war and it's had to attck his votes on the $87B. Drop it and move on.

 

[Stunt]

Todd33, I am addressing the Topic summary...
I am not off topic.

Conjur made it a point to bring Kerry (unmentioned in the article) into this discussion.
His reasoning contradicts Kerry's point of view post war and during the campaign.

I refuse to let conjur spin this news towards support of Kerry when it is unjustified.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm not the one who dragged Kerry into an article with no mention of the man...
I felt the need to hold your lack of reasoning to account...

You have failed.

It goes to show, as I have said in this thread before, that this administration doesn't give a sh*t about our troops. This administration failed to provide proper protection for our troops when it sent them into battle. Kerry got slimed by the Rovian smear machine over that $87 billion supplemental funding and the right-wingers fell in lock-step, spreading the same BS lies all in support of their Party. Where's their party now? Kicking our soldiers in the nuts and watching them die while the military-industrial complex makes bank.

All of that campaign rhetoric surrounding that supplemental funding bill has proven to be just that: empty rhetoric. In the end, our troops are the ones that have suffered and no one on the right seems to give a sh*t.

 

[Stunt]

At least we agree on the Republicans...

Your reasoning on Kerry is the issue...and you are wrong.

 

[conjur]

yeah...right. You are the one in the wrong but your arrogant attitude precludes you from admitting it. You have twisted and distorted his words many times in a failed attempt to bolster your ridiculous stance.


This administration has failed to provide for our troops and you won't admit it. But, what do you care? You're Canadian.