Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

[WyteWatt]

As an American, I find your arrogant attitude towards Canadians offensive.

 

[Polish3d]

Honestly what the ******

I would really like to see some true accountability for this, like say, criminal charges but I doubt that will happen.

 

[WyteWatt]

First, I find it hilarious that conjur can post an article from the NY Times, which is well accepted as the biggest left-wing propoganda machine in the nation, while at the same time shooting down any other source as "right wing propoganda". Absolutely brilliant.

To the main point though... it seems that many of you believe that extra body armor = better for our troops. Seeing as how many of you believe yourselves to be military experts, despite the fact that you've most likely never touched a rifle, much less worn body armor, much less experienced combat conditions, I can't help but simply laugh at most of the ideas expressed in here.

If you spoke with any of the troops who've actually shown some intestinal fortitude (you might have to look that one up), and joined/deployed, and have been in the sandbox, you'd get the overwhelming opinion that "more body armor" wouldn't only not help our troops in the ways you claim it would, but it'd most likely cause even more casualties,
which you would then curse the Bush admin for sending them this armor, while at the same time you would praise Kerry for "voting against it". Many of you think that
armoring our troops from head to toe, in a desert environment, in an urban combat situation, would somehow increase their chances of survival. Not only would this
additional armor cause an extreme limitation of mobility, which is one of the most important issues on today's battlefield, but it would also increase heat casualties
dramatically. There's a very high chance that many of the soldiers would not even wear this additional armor, due to the reasons listed above.

If you believe that slowing down our troops, making them more vulnerable to heat casualties, making them easier targets for the terrorists, and overall putting them
in more danger than they are already in is a good thing... well.. I can't really say anything else.

If any of you really care about the troops, you should be complaining about the 5.56mm rifle and 9mm handgun rounds that NATO uses.

I'm not expecting much of a response to this, as it's most likely going to be the typical left-wing rhetoric, but have fun.

 

[conjur]

The NY Times is the "biggest left-wing propoganda [sic] machine in the nation"??

AH HA HA HA HA HA!!!


That's why Judy Miller helped sell the invasion of Iraq?
That's why The Times sat on the spying story for a year?

Seems the rest of your spewing is Limbaugh-inspired and is therefore summarily dismissed.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
First, I find it hilarious that conjur can post an article from the NY Times, which is well accepted as the biggest left-wing propoganda machine in the nation, while at the same time shooting down any other source as "right wing propoganda". Absolutely brilliant.

To the main point though... it seems that many of you believe that extra body armor = better for our troops. Seeing as how many of you believe yourselves to be military experts, despite the fact that you've most likely never touched a rifle, much less worn body armor, much less experienced combat conditions, I can't help but simply laugh at most of the ideas expressed in here.

If you spoke with any of the troops who've actually shown some intestinal fortitude (you might have to look that one up), and joined/deployed, and have been in the sandbox, you'd get the overwhelming opinion that "more body armor" wouldn't only not help our troops in the ways you claim it would, but it'd most likely cause even more casualties,
which you would then curse the Bush admin for sending them this armor, while at the same time you would praise Kerry for "voting against it". Many of you think that
armoring our troops from head to toe, in a desert environment, in an urban combat situation, would somehow increase their chances of survival. Not only would this
additional armor cause an extreme limitation of mobility, which is one of the most important issues on today's battlefield, but it would also increase heat casualties
dramatically. There's a very high chance that many of the soldiers would not even wear this additional armor, due to the reasons listed above.

If you believe that slowing down our troops, making them more vulnerable to heat casualties, making them easier targets for the terrorists, and overall putting them
in more danger than they are already in is a good thing... well.. I can't really say anything else.

If any of you really care about the troops, you should be complaining about the 5.56mm rifle and 9mm handgun rounds that NATO uses.

I'm not expecting much of a response to this, as it's most likely going to be the typical left-wing rhetoric, but have fun.

Not much to respond to this, except you expect "left-wing rhetoric" after you spout right-wing garbage.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems the rest of your spewing is Limbaugh-inspired and is therefore summarily dismissed.

Limbaugh is a clown and does his show for ratings and money. Maybe when people like you realize this, you'll stop giving him the time of day.

I am 100% independent in my voting. Kerry lost the election, deal with it. Pulling up these BS articles and saying "well Kerry would have done this" does nothing to help our soldiers in Iraq. Ditching the M16 and Beretta will however.

 

[conjur]

Anyone hear anything? Sounds like Bush-God fanboi apologism....

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone hear anything? Sounds like Bush-God fanboi apologism....

That's ok, I didn't expect you to be able to put up any sort of solid rebuttal. That's what happens when one person's ideas and opinions are based in reality, while the other's are based in fantasy.

I used to be Democrat and supported Al Gore's campaign for president. People like you are killing the Democrat Party. You and the rest of the radical left have done a fine job thus far destroying their reputation for years to come. Thanks...

 

[conjur]

There it is again...

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone hear anything? Sounds like Bush-God fanboi apologism....

That's ok, I didn't expect you to be able to put up any sort of solid rebuttal. That's what happens when one person's ideas and opinions are based in reality, while the other's are based in fantasy.

I used to be Democrat and supported Al Gore's campaign for president. People like you are destroying the Democrat Party. You and the rest of the radical left have done a fine job thus far destroying their reputation for years to come. Thanks...

LOL, you liar. You say one thing, but keep repeating right-wing talking points. Pathetic.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: WyteWatt

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone hear anything? Sounds like Bush-God fanboi apologism....

That's ok, I didn't expect you to be able to put up any sort of solid rebuttal. That's what happens when one person's ideas and opinions are based in reality, while the other's are based in fantasy.

I used to be Democrat and supported Al Gore's campaign for president. People like you are destroying the Democrat Party. You and the rest of the radical left have done a fine job thus far destroying their reputation for years to come. Thanks...

LOL, you liar. You say one thing, but keep repeating right-wing talking points. Pathetic.

Yeah, every time I turn on Fox News I hear those darn right-wingers talking about how the soldiers need to have M14's and 1911's...

Hey conjur, if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a point!

 

[WyteWatt]

Where did conjur go all of a sudden???? Is he filing for another bankruptcy?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
First, I find it hilarious that conjur can post an article from the NY Times, which is well accepted as the biggest left-wing propoganda machine in the nation, while at the same time shooting down any other source as "right wing propoganda". Absolutely brilliant.

To the main point though... it seems that many of you believe that extra body armor = better for our troops. Seeing as how many of you believe yourselves to be military experts, despite the fact that you've most likely never touched a rifle, much less worn body armor, much less experienced combat conditions, I can't help but simply laugh at most of the ideas expressed in here.

If you spoke with any of the troops who've actually shown some intestinal fortitude (you might have to look that one up), and joined/deployed, and have been in the sandbox, you'd get the overwhelming opinion that "more body armor" wouldn't only not help our troops in the ways you claim it would, but it'd most likely cause even more casualties,
which you would then curse the Bush admin for sending them this armor, while at the same time you would praise Kerry for "voting against it". Many of you think that
armoring our troops from head to toe, in a desert environment, in an urban combat situation, would somehow increase their chances of survival. Not only would this
additional armor cause an extreme limitation of mobility, which is one of the most important issues on today's battlefield, but it would also increase heat casualties
dramatically. There's a very high chance that many of the soldiers would not even wear this additional armor, due to the reasons listed above.

If you believe that slowing down our troops, making them more vulnerable to heat casualties, making them easier targets for the terrorists, and overall putting them
in more danger than they are already in is a good thing... well.. I can't really say anything else.

If any of you really care about the troops, you should be complaining about the 5.56mm rifle and 9mm handgun rounds that NATO uses.

I'm not expecting much of a response to this, as it's most likely going to be the typical left-wing rhetoric, but have fun.

For starters, the NYTimes is well accepted as the biggest left-wing propaganda machine? I suppose if you're running around with a tinfoil hat on and listen only to talking heads and not news you might think that. The only people who widely accept it are the same people you dismiss (i.e. Rush fanbois).

Anyways, if you would read the article, you would realize that a big part of the argument about the armor deals with weight. I know it's shocking that the article actually addresses the issue you present, but amazingly, some writers do things like that.

Additionally, I have spoken with soldiers who have been over to Iraq and yes, there are a lot more issues than just body armor, but it doesn't exactly make them thrilled with this issue.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
First, I find it hilarious that conjur can post an article from the NY Times, which is well accepted as the biggest left-wing propoganda machine in the nation, while at the same time shooting down any other source as "right wing propoganda". Absolutely brilliant.

To the main point though... it seems that many of you believe that extra body armor = better for our troops. Seeing as how many of you believe yourselves to be military experts, despite the fact that you've most likely never touched a rifle, much less worn body armor, much less experienced combat conditions, I can't help but simply laugh at most of the ideas expressed in here.

If you spoke with any of the troops who've actually shown some intestinal fortitude (you might have to look that one up), and joined/deployed, and have been in the sandbox, you'd get the overwhelming opinion that "more body armor" wouldn't only not help our troops in the ways you claim it would, but it'd most likely cause even more casualties,
which you would then curse the Bush admin for sending them this armor, while at the same time you would praise Kerry for "voting against it". Many of you think that
armoring our troops from head to toe, in a desert environment, in an urban combat situation, would somehow increase their chances of survival. Not only would this
additional armor cause an extreme limitation of mobility, which is one of the most important issues on today's battlefield, but it would also increase heat casualties
dramatically. There's a very high chance that many of the soldiers would not even wear this additional armor, due to the reasons listed above.

If you believe that slowing down our troops, making them more vulnerable to heat casualties, making them easier targets for the terrorists, and overall putting them
in more danger than they are already in is a good thing... well.. I can't really say anything else.

If any of you really care about the troops, you should be complaining about the 5.56mm rifle and 9mm handgun rounds that NATO uses.

I'm not expecting much of a response to this, as it's most likely going to be the typical left-wing rhetoric, but have fun.

For starters, the NYTimes is well accepted as the biggest left-wing propaganda machine? I suppose if you're running around with a tinfoil hat on and listen only to talking heads and not news you might think that. The only people who widely accept it are the same people you dismiss (i.e. Rush fanbois).

Anyways, if you would read the article, you would realize that a big part of the argument about the armor deals with weight. I know it's shocking that the article actually addresses the issue you present, but amazingly, some writers do things like that.

Additionally, I have spoken with soldiers who have been over to Iraq and yes, there are a lot more issues than just body armor, but it doesn't exactly make them thrilled with this issue.

Heh, why would any of you see the NY Times for what it is if it's telling you exactly what you want to hear?

Anyway, a flexible and mobile army is the military of hte future. We need to keep our soldiers cool and agile. Here's a little food for thought:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/01/07/ap2434673.html
Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Miss., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed. "The issue comes up daily on the battlefield in Iraq, and soldiers need to realize there is no such thing as 100 percent protection, "he said. "You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility," he added. "If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."

"These guys over here are husbands, sons and daughters. It's understandable people at home would want all the protection in the world for us. But realistically, it just don't work," said Sgt. Paul Hare, 40, of Tucumcari, N.M.

I don't think your made up "soldier buddies" can refute information from our troops.

 

[Strk]

Yes, I clearly don't know any soldiers. How would I? They're an enigmatic bunch -- rarely seen by the human eye. I have no way of ever meeting one in real life.

I'm not sure if you just can't read or what. The article takes into consideration how to combat the issue between weight and efficiency, but you act like it doesn't. I agree with you that there are a lot more issues that the soldiers have than just this, but you start by saying I'm making up knowing soldiers.

Hell, let's look at what the article you posted says:

Some soldiers felt unhappy that ceramic plates to protect their sides and shoulders were available, but not offered, when they deployed for Iraq in September.

"If it's going to protect a soldier or save his life, they definitely should have been afforded the opportunity to wear it," said Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, 26, of Conneaut, Ohio. "I want to know where there was a break in communication."

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: Strk
Yes, I clearly don't know any soldiers. How would I? They're an enigmatic bunch -- rarely seen by the human eye. I have no way of ever meeting one in real life.

I'm not sure if you just can't read or what. The article takes into consideration how to combat the issue between weight and efficiency, but you act like it doesn't. I agree with you that there are a lot more issues that the soldiers have than just this, but you start by saying I'm making up knowing soldiers.

Hell, let's look at what the article you posted says:

Some soldiers felt unhappy that ceramic plates to protect their sides and shoulders were available, but not offered, when they deployed for Iraq in September.

"If it's going to protect a soldier or save his life, they definitely should have been afforded the opportunity to wear it," said Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, 26, of Conneaut, Ohio. "I want to know where there was a break in communication."

My problem is that people like conjur are acting as if weight and efficiency are irrelevant and that more body armor is the answer to all of our problems. It's complete BS and it's pretty much only being used to slam Bush and promote Kerry. If conjur gave a damn about our soldiers, he wouldn't be spouting this BS.

And yes, that soldier you quoted does have a point. It's one quote in an article that addresses both sides of the issue, unlike the NY Times article. While the added weight is not something a lot of troops want, maybe it is something that could atleast be offered.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
Where did conjur go all of a sudden???? Is he filing for another bankruptcy?

Not sure. But tell me, are you still beating your wife?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt

Originally posted by: Strk
Yes, I clearly don't know any soldiers. How would I? They're an enigmatic bunch -- rarely seen by the human eye. I have no way of ever meeting one in real life.

I'm not sure if you just can't read or what. The article takes into consideration how to combat the issue between weight and efficiency, but you act like it doesn't. I agree with you that there are a lot more issues that the soldiers have than just this, but you start by saying I'm making up knowing soldiers.

Hell, let's look at what the article you posted says:

Some soldiers felt unhappy that ceramic plates to protect their sides and shoulders were available, but not offered, when they deployed for Iraq in September.

"If it's going to protect a soldier or save his life, they definitely should have been afforded the opportunity to wear it," said Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, 26, of Conneaut, Ohio. "I want to know where there was a break in communication."

My problem is that people like conjur are acting as if weight and efficiency are irrelevant and that more body armor is the answer to all of our problems. It's complete BS and it's pretty much only being used to slam Bush and promote Kerry. If conjur gave a damn about our soldiers, he wouldn't be spouting this BS.

And yes, that soldier you quoted does have a point. It's one quote in an article that addresses both sides of the issue, unlike the NY Times article. While the added weight is not something a lot of troops want, maybe it is something that could atleast be offered.

I'm not acting like anything, Mr. Keyboard Commando Freeper.

Do you even know how to read? Do they teach that in Counterstrike classes?

From the article:

Almost from the beginning, some soldiers asked for additional protection to stop bullets from slicing through their sides. In the fall of 2003, when troops began hanging their crotch protectors under their arms, the Army's Rapid Equipping Force shipped several hundred plates to protect their sides and shoulders. Individual soldiers and units continued to buy their own sets.

I give a lot more than a damn about our soldiers. It's obvious arrogant fools like yourself don't. You talk tough and throw about insults and divert and distract from the topic. You don't give two sh*ts for anyone in uniform. If you did, you'd be calling for them to be brought home now.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
Where did conjur go all of a sudden???? Is he filing for another bankruptcy?

Not sure. But tell me, are you still beating your wife?

She'd deflate if he beat her.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
Where did conjur go all of a sudden???? Is he filing for another bankruptcy?

Not sure. But tell me, are you still beating your wife?

Don't have a wife.

Originally posted by: conjur
I give a lot more than a damn about our soldiers. It's obvious arrogant fools like yourself don't. You talk tough and throw about insults and divert and distract from the topic. You don't give two sh*ts for anyone in uniform. If you did, you'd be calling for them to be brought home now.

Outfitting all of our soldiers with heavy armor is not the solution. However, I believe that a soldier should get the ceramic plates if he needs them. Making them standard issue is not ideal for urban warfare in the desert, but not all of our soldiers are in the streets over there.

Do you know what will happen if pull out of Iraq right now? There will be a civil war and hundreds of thousands of people will be killed. We screwed over the kurds in the north when we pulled out of Desert Storm, and I'm glad we are not making the mistake again.

We all know the war was a mistake, but by establishing democracy we are trying to do the right thing. I will be ashamed if we leave them high and dry at this point. We were doing the right thing in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton (though I think we could have done so much more if we didn't pull out). And we're still doing the right thing in Iraq.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt

Originally posted by: conjur
I give a lot more than a damn about our soldiers. It's obvious arrogant fools like yourself don't. You talk tough and throw about insults and divert and distract from the topic. You don't give two sh*ts for anyone in uniform. If you did, you'd be calling for them to be brought home now.

Outfitting all of our soldiers with heavy armor is not the solution. However, I believe that a soldier should get the ceramic plates if he needs them. Making them standard issue is not ideal for urban warfare in the desert, but not all of our soldiers are in the streets over there.

They didn't even have the option of deciding if they wanted it or not. They were making their own, though. That speaks volumes as to what they wanted, doesn't it? One should think so.

Do you know what will happen if pull out of Iraq right now? There will be a civil war and hundreds of thousands of people will be killed. We screwed over the kurds in the north when we pulled out of Desert Storm, and I'm glad we are not making the mistake again.

There's already a civil war going on! Damn! Open your eyes and stop reading The Weekly Standard and Newsmax! The insurgents have infiltrated all levels of authority and security in Iraq. Sunnis are murdering Shia. Shia are murdering Sunni. And the Kurds are threatening a sort of coup with a force of 10,000. Talibanesque rule is in place several cities. Women are being repressed whereas they weren't before. Girls are being kidnapped on the way to school.

You say you're "glad we are not making the mistake again". Well, this war IS a mistake. It was warned against by Poppy and his administration (including Brent Scowcroft who has railed against the way this war is being waged). There's a reason why the US didn't invade Iraq before and it had a lot more to do with what UN resolutions said or didn't say. Poppy at least had some people with the ability to think criticially working in his administration. The Propagandist is surrounded by yes-men and every aspect of our foreign policy is controlled by chickenhawk PNAC fvcks who are hell-bent on spreading their ideology, by force if necessary.

We all know the war was a mistake, but by establishing democracy we are trying to do the right thing. I will be ashamed if we leave them high and dry at this point. We were doing the right thing in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton (though I think we could have done so much more if we didn't pull out). And we're still doing the right thing in Iraq.

Somalia is debatable. Kosovo and Bosnia, yes, but that was under NATO auspices. Iraq is a unilateral, pre-emptive invasion/occupation. And don't even start talking about a "coalition". That's a crock and everyone knows it.

And establishing democracy? Where? Iraq's Dec. elections just created an Iran-lite! You happy about that?

 

[WyteWatt]

They didn't even have the option of deciding if they wanted it or not. They were making their own, though. That speaks volumes as to what they wanted, doesn't it? One should think so.

Like I said before, outfitting ALL of our troops with heavy armor will turn many of them into slow-moving dehyrdated targets for the suicide bombers. However, the Army Rangers are issued ceramic plates for sure. Other soldiers should be given the option if their jobs need it, but not every soldier will benefit from the armor. There are more important issues, like the M16 and Berettas that our soldiers are using.

There's already a civil war going on! Damn! Open your eyes and stop reading The Weekly Standard and Newsmax! The insurgents have infiltrated all levels of authority and security in Iraq. Sunnis are murdering Shia. Shia are murdering Sunni. And the Kurds are threatening a sort of coup with a force of 10,000. Talibanesque rule is in place several cities. Women are being repressed whereas they weren't before. Girls are being kidnapped on the way to school.

If you think there's a civil war right now, there will be a friggin apocalypse if we leave them high and dry. And since when do you care about women and girls? They are the innocents that are going to suffer the most if we leave. Also, I don't read Newsmax or The Weekly Standard and I never have. In fact, the only article I posted in this thread showed both sides of the issue fairly. I have nothing to gain by trying to quote BS sources...

You say you're "glad we are not making the mistake again". Well, this war IS a mistake.

I know it was a mistake. I told you it was a mistake. I'm saying pulling out is an even bigger mistake.

And establishing democracy? Where? Iraq's Dec. elections just created an Iran-lite! You happy about that?

Establishing democracy in Iraq isn't easy and it'll take time. It took a long time to fix Japan after WWII, but the Americans succeeded then and we can succeed now.

 

[piasabird]

No matter what kind of body armor they made, it could be made better.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: piasabird
No matter what kind of body armor they made, it could be made better.

Our soldiers deserve the absolute best at any time.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt

They didn't even have the option of deciding if they wanted it or not. They were making their own, though. That speaks volumes as to what they wanted, doesn't it? One should think so.

Like I said before, outfitting ALL of our troops with heavy armor will turn many of them into slow-moving dehyrdated targets for the suicide bombers. However, the Army Rangers are issued ceramic plates for sure. Other soldiers should be given the option if their jobs need it, but not every soldier will benefit from the armor. There are more important issues, like the M16 and Berettas that our soldiers are using.

I'd say armor keeping them alive is a rather important issue. But that's just me.

There's already a civil war going on! Damn! Open your eyes and stop reading The Weekly Standard and Newsmax! The insurgents have infiltrated all levels of authority and security in Iraq. Sunnis are murdering Shia. Shia are murdering Sunni. And the Kurds are threatening a sort of coup with a force of 10,000. Talibanesque rule is in place several cities. Women are being repressed whereas they weren't before. Girls are being kidnapped on the way to school.

If you think there's a civil war right now, there will be a friggin apocalypse if we leave them high and dry. And since when do you care about women and girls? They are the innocents that are going to suffer the most if we leave. Also, I don't read Newsmax or The Weekly Standard and I never have. In fact, the only article I posted in this thread showed both sides of the issue fairly. I have nothing to gain by trying to quote BS sources...

Removing the US will remove a large target. The only good we're doing there is being target practice and roadkill. I'd hardly call that good. There won't be a "friggin apocalypse" if we remove our troops. Murta's idea was a very good one. Move our troops just beyond Iraq so if something does happen, they can move back in quickly. Creating four mega-military bases isn't going to help matters any either. But why would that stop the PNAC fvcks? They don't give a sh*t. They are INSANE.

You say you're "glad we are not making the mistake again". Well, this war IS a mistake.

I know it was a mistake. I told you it was a mistake. I'm saying pulling out is an even bigger mistake.

Staying is the mistake.

And establishing democracy? Where? Iraq's Dec. elections just created an Iran-lite! You happy about that?

Establishing democracy in Iraq isn't easy and it'll take time. It took a long time to fix Japan after WWII, but the Americans succeeded then and we can succeed now.

Ah, the ol' right-wing talking point. I knew you wouldn't disappoint.