home

Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine Deaths

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 09:25:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Defense Tech writes about a recent military study showing that 80% of U.S. Marine torso deaths in Iraq might have been prevented if they had had extra body armor. The study is here (pdf) and covered the period of March 2003 through June 2005.

The New York Times has this report on the study.

In all, 526 marines have been killed in combat in Iraq. A total of 1,706 American troops have died in combat there. The findings and other research by military pathologists suggests that an analysis of all combat deaths in Iraq, including those of Army troops, would show that 300 or more lives might have been saved with improved body armor.

Happy Blogiversary to Noah of Defense Tech, which turns three today.

< Martha Stewart Loses Appeal | Jose Padilla Update: Bail Hearing Thursday >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine Deaths | 46 comments (46 topical)
    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 09:57:58 PM EST
    Noah was essential reading during the lead-up to and through the war in Iraq. He's the man.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimcee on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 11:00:39 PM EST
    Punisher, you're right about Defense Tech, it has been a reliable source. Better armor is always a good idea and should be implemented ASAP but we know how long it takes for anything to get through the red tape anywhere and especially the Pentagon. In a historical context this has always been a problem. In the Hundred Years War full plate armor was developed to suppliment 'mail' armor and used to great effect on the battlefield. The English archers began using bodice-point arrows which at 100 yards could penetrate it which resulted in thicker armor. With that the throat became a vunerable spot so 'gorgets' were developed. In hand to hand fighting, swords became smaller and more pointed to take advantage of gaps under the arms and legs. The mace became smaller and pointed on the sides to concentrate a blow to the helmet and so on. As armor developed so did the techniques to penetrate it until reliable firearms rendered it all but ceremonial. I'd have to say that the same is happening now with modern armor and there will always be a tactic to penetrate it and so on....

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#3)
    by Andreas on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 11:47:52 PM EST
    Not the "Lack of Adequate Armor" is responsible for the deaths but the imperialist war which is faught by the US government.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 05:20:10 AM EST
    Part of the Marines' graveyard humor in Vietnam was that the best way for us to win the war would be to send a fleet of our CH-46 helicopters (those are the ones with synchromesh tandem rotors on top, the army calls their very similar models "Chinooks") to North Vietnam loaded with M-16's. Because of a design flaw, every once in a while the rotors on a "46" would get out of sync, slam into each other, the helicopter would break apart at altitude and then it would start to rain soon-to-be-dead Marines. Because of some serious design flaws the early M-16's could almost always be counted on to jam at the worst possible moment. If you weren't killed in a helicopter crash odds were pretty good we'd find your body lying dead alongside a jammed, partially disassembled M-16. It's no comfort to know that the more things change the more the remain the same. Isn't it the Bush Administration that is forever scolding those of us who think this war in Iraq is an illegal, misguided monstrosity to "Support the Troops!" With this latest news on inadequate body armor (added to all the information already on file about inadequate vehicle armor) it's pretty clear that (1) we continue to make the same kinds of fatal mistakes today we were making 40 years ago in Vietnam, and (2) when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al say "Support the Troops" what they really mean is "Shut up! and leave us alone..." These unnecessary deaths are the appalling result of criminal negligence by the zealots who started this illegal--and incredibly stupid--war. Those dead Marines deserved better. We should and we must "support the troops" by bringing those who are still alive home to their families without further delay. Congressman/Colonel Murtha is right and we should listen to him. Terry Kindlon (Vietnam Marine, father of Marine Captain, criminal defense lawyer)

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:33:53 AM EST
    Terry - Your point regarding problems with military equipment is well stated. We could easily include the B24 in WWII which was almost impossible to fly, the F102, about one third of which crashed for various reasons beyond pilot error and on and on. And it is a fact that many aviator types have been known to purchase their own flight boots, knife (shroud cutting,) flashlights and hand weapons because of dissatisfaction with Government Issue. (There are many other examples.) So the issue should not be a "war." The people getting killed had nothing to do with "getting us into" any of the various wars associated with the faulty equipment. The issue should be how we streamline the identifying, correcting and procuring the better equipment procedures. Tying the problem correction to the politics of "the war is bad" does nothing but polarize people and cause delays while each side defends their position. You have “been there,” Terry. So I was very surprised to see you mix the two issues.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:42:04 AM EST
    jimcee, this isn't a tech race, it is negligence:
    Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
    [...]
    Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine officials acknowledge.
    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:08:16 AM EST
    Annapolis graduate, retired USMC Lt. Col. Roger Charles commanded an infantry platoon in I Corps during the Vietnam War, and has won a Peabody Award for news coverage. He writes:
    When the post-mortem on our current military venture in Iraq is finally written, and if an honest analysis is allowed, the failure of the United States to provide decent, best-available body armor to our fighters will be acknowledged as the worst equipment failure of all. ...the disconnect between the DoD acquisition system that finds body armor at $4000 per set too expensive, while the DoD personnel system is now paying $400,000 in death insurance benefits to the beneficiaries of each KIA. ...Maybe the DoD bean counters will now re-compute their cost-benefit analysis to reflect the new death benefits. If there was ever a case for the U.S. Congress to assert its constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch's bungling of a sacred duty, it is this one. The Armed Services Committees of both the House and Senate should conduct extensive investigations into this entire matter. They should determine just how our nation spent hundreds of millions of dollars on body armor that was in far too many cases, sub-standard in both design and material.
    Sorry for the long quote, but this seemed worth it. Read the whole thing over at Soldiers For The Truth.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#8)
    by John Mann on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:09:40 AM EST
    100% of these deaths could have been prevented if they weren't there in the first place.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:18:54 AM EST
    Jimakaetc--Permit me to clarify: (1) The war is wrong, stupid, illegal, ill-advised and pointless, (2) The lack of body armor is wrong, stupid, ill-advised, stupid and criminally negligent. These two issues should not be "confused" with each other. Each is independent of the other. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, both are unacceptable. Hope that resolves your confusion. Terry Kindlon

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:26:16 AM EST
    I think it is disrespectful at best for PPJ to "misunderstand" the points of Mr. Kindlon's post. To truly "support the troops", 1. troops should never be sent into an unnecessary war, 2. Should never be sent without a clear plan to win, clear goals for victory, and an exit strategy, 3. should be sent in a quantity sufficient to perform their tasks, and 4. and should be sent with all the best available equipment that will maximize their chances of survival. Since many of these decisions are not made by the military per se, but by their civilian overlords, the decisions are by definition political. This administration as with others in the past consider the troops nothing but cannon fodder to advance their geopolitical and corporate goals. So for the Bush apologists to lecture us, as they will continue to do, about supporting the troops is hypocritical. They are not supporting the troops as individual people but rather they are supporting the policies of this disgraceful administration. It should also be noted that a contractor that makes the vests has made enough money to throw a $10million bat mitzvah

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:34:51 AM EST
    SD, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Mr. Kindlon's second comment should have settled Jim's concerns about the possible confusion of the two separate topics.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:47:41 AM EST
    TerryKindlon: I have about 1700 hours in helos. (H-3s). The syncromesh system was used in the Vietnam era Kaman Husky (HH-43). It is used also by the KMax lift helo now. The H-46 and H-47 uses different systems. That being said, I am glad I flew conventional helos. Much better survival rates.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:31:58 AM EST
    Why blame only the Bush administration? Don't the soldiers themselves have a personal responsibility? They could just have said "no" before they were sent to Iraq. But they wanted their imperialist adventure, and now they are dead. Tough luck.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    Mar, I find the comments despicable. I would say most if not all soldiers believed in what they were told and acted out of loyalty to the country, especially at the beginning of the war. As far as saying no, thats usually not a very good option in less you think going to jail for a long time is cool.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    So far we've blamed Bush & Friends for not buying better armor, the contractor for making a profit, and the marines for not going AWOL. Anybody think the people trying to kill marines get a share of the responsibility?

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    Anybody think the people trying to kill marines get a share of the responsibility?
    Well thanks for that glimpse into the obvious. I await your next perceptive comment.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:16:55 AM EST
    Terry - Your comment on the war is an opinion. Many disagree. As I noted, I agree that any and all problems with equipment should be immediately studied and solved. But when the war is brought in, the following breaks out: SD - Again, your opinion about the war is your opinion. You should consider this. When you loudly attack the "war," then there is no way that your attacks are not seen as a weakness by the enemy, and boosts their belief that they can win a political battle. You may consider that "support." Many of us do not. charlie – Having you bring up “disrespect” and “nuance” is akin to MacDonalds talking about fine dining. By your own admission you have no experience in anything military, and deal only from what you have read/heard. Also you never post links to define and bolster your claims. BTW – You object to my mentioning previous problems with military equipment. I would assume then that you object to Terry’s example of the helicopters and M-16’s. You seem to fail to understand that things like this are long standing, and are not confined to only “here and now.” I would love to see some actual information on the following comment by you:
    explains why these guys and girls are doin' Bat mitzvahs at the Rainbow Room at Rockefeller Center for the daughters of the manufacturers of shoddy body armor for the Pentagon and is evidently an associate of Azoff.
    That’s a heck of a claim, charlie. Let’s see some facts beyond “my friend who…” And perhaps you should remember that a description like “shoddy armor” would be hard to explain when the product in question is designed to and meets government specifications. Is your claim that it does not? Now, we recognize that the problem is really “problems.” If you still do not, please slow down and read Terry K’s first comment, and my response. Note the politeness of the exchange. Since you now should have actually read the comments, perhaps you could offer some suggestions on how to fix the problem besides waiting for whatever administration that is in power to be voted out, which could take as much as eight years. Those doing the actual fighting will undoubtedly appreciate your efforts to actually help.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:17:34 AM EST
    Anybody think the people trying to kill marines get a share of the responsibility?
    Yes, all those iraqis who invaded and occupied america and are killing civilians and marines deserve the blame.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    You should consider this. When you loudly attack the "war," then there is no way that your attacks are not seen as a weakness by the enemy, and boosts their belief that they can win a political battle.
    yep, all them terrerists who read english and have an internet connection and follow TalkLeft are greatly comforted ... when they're not scrambling for food, praying for electricity, worrying about whether they'll be the next collateral damage or victim of a suicider, or shot w/ an M60 while driving down the street, or kidnapped at night and tortured by the americans and/or iraqis ... etc. Yep, SD's comments are sooo comforting to them.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    The mercs are wearing them. Nothing but the best for our soldiers of fortune. Mar, While I see your point, yout timing sucks.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    PPJ is a classic example of someone who says he supports the troops but who in fact just supports his leaders policies. His first concern is not for the individual soldier and his family he left behind. He just hides behind his "patrotic" slogans and excuses everything. The vests were available, they were not ordered, just like the armor plating wasn't ordered earlier on the in the war. But what the hell they're just so much cannon fodder to exert geopolitical dominance in the ME.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#22)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    Hope that resolves your confusion.
    Nothin' is gonna resolve his confusion.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    Gee tax cuts or body armor? Yep, rethugs really know how to support the troops.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    Jim, It is self-evidently more important for Americans to freely express and dissent and live like FREE AMERICANS than it is to worry about seeming "weak" to an enemy. That is the ENTIRE POINT of freedom. It only has meaning in dissent. And for heaven's sake (pun intended) the enemy in this case think we're weak for letting women wear mini-skirts, why on earth would you allow the same people to effectively censor free American dialogue about a war??? That is surrender if ever I heard it outta your mouth.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    Folks, Jim isn't against ALL dissent. Just certain things. Jim, could you post your list of what is OK to dissent about today? Let me know as changes occur. That would be great.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:07:57 PM EST
    Che: could you post your list of what is OK to dissent about today? Let me know as changes occur. Don't hold your breath, Che. There's only one entry one the list, it's just comes in a few variations (spelling mistakes mostly) on: "you either support the fuhrer 100% or you're supporting the "emeny".

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    Che - Hey, dude, long time no see. You okay? Dissent? Maybe you should ask your namesake what he did to teenagers who dissented.
    "And then we saw Che unholstering his pistol. It didn't seem possible. But Che raised his pistol, put the barrel to the back of the boy's neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.
    edger writes:
    you either support the fuhrer 100% or you're supporting the "emeny".
    Since you have written that you don't know that car bombers are terrorists, how will you figure out the difference? Charlie - I recommend you ask some of the military who keep you free so you can dissent. Now for some quotations from the shmenie boy name caller himself. Regarding opnions:
    As opposed to your.... what?..Divine Guidance?
    Typical leftie position. Everyone has free speech except those who disagree wih them. Regarding military service:
    Besides, like I've said, I was the last year that got drafted and I had a high lottery number. Never even got called in for a physical. Just lucky that way.
    No one has ever said that you should have served. My comment was that since you didn't, you know nothing about the military except what you have read or been told. Do you have a case of envy because you did not? You could voluteenered if you had the cha's cha's. I am LOL. Let me guess. You managed to sneek by and join the VFW. Regarding the issue of the thread, problems with military equipment:
    Nice try, shmenie boy. Just because they've happened before isn't an excuse for them to happen again.
    Of course, let's act like the world was invented yesterday and history doesn't exist. Now that, dear hearts, is either a staggering lack of logic and knowledge about problem solving... or else a middle schooler talking. I'm starting to think it's the latter. Regarding support:
    When it comes to this war the majority of the American people disagree with you and your beloved fuhrer. Deal with it.
    Last I checked 60% of the people agree re NSA, Bush was re-elected and the Left has developed no traction. Perhaps you can provide some links?? Regarding the fact that you never provide links.
    Perhaps someone someday will explain to you the quantity quality thing. In any event, your links don't bolster your case, either.
    Quantity? charlie, you have linked to zero. I don't know if you just don't know how or you're just that big of an empty hat that picks up all of his information from the big boys down at the pool hall. Of course it could be both. Sorry Charlie. The world wants smarts tunas.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:04:28 PM EST
    you're either with us or against us whirrrrrr.....clik.....zzzzzzzztttt! su tsniaga ro su htiw rehtie er'uoy whirrrrrr.....clik.....zzzzzzzztttt! you're either with us or against us whirrrrrr.....clik.....zzzzzzzztttt! su tsniaga ro su htiw rehtie er'uoy Dizzy yet?

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:01:13 PM EST
    Edger - Repeat after me and perhaps your dizziness will be cured. A terrorist is a car bomber. A terrorist is a car bomber. A car bomber is a terrorist. A car bomber is a terrorist. ;-)

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    Aw, jeeze, Jim... come on. You got it bass-ackwards again, both times. ;-)

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    Gee, this thread used to be about how the gov't has killed marines instead of just maiming them. Thanks for the distractions, I'm sure the boys overseas appreciate such logical fallacies when they are dying.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    Edger - Sorry, but grinning about such a gross misunderstanding just doesn't cut it. And yes, I will keep reminding you of that comment. charlie - Sorry, but we need "links" to believe you..... And my mother's brother's uncle was a grunt in the pacific and he told me that Iowa Jima didn't happen and the army had lied to us....and Dewey really won and Kennedy is alive and well living with Elvis in a secret apartment in Hollywood and Ms. Monroe loves them both but is mad because Elvis won't let her wear his Blue Suede Shoes.. Links, charlie, not hearsay. As for the Tuna. He's staying home. That's "HOME." Not "Homage."

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimcee on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:02:08 PM EST
    Going back to the topic at the top, It is unreasonable to think that an army can be sent into battle with perfect arms, armor etc. I also know for some people it is impossible to write about a subject without somehow tying it to the Bushies but it wouldn't hurt to try just once. Should the soldiers have better equipment? Sure they should and it would have been a good idea if the gov't had spent the 'peace dividend' on better military equipment but they didn't. It would also be better if the Pentagon were quicker to approve and distribute new and better stuff to the troops and that is where the problem lies. The other thing that applies is that when there isn't an ongoing conflict many people want to cut the military research and aquisition budget and use it on something else. Unfortunatly when a conflict erupts there is a catch-up period in equipment purchases and upgrades. WWII was a prime example of this. A question to all: Now that we know that the body armor needs an improvement are we all willing to fund it possibly at the expense of some domestic spending? I know I am.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:39:20 PM EST
    jimcee: Now that we know that the body armor needs an improvement are we all willing to fund it possibly at the expense of some domestic spending? At the expense of domestic spending? From USAToday, 01/07/2006:
    In his broadcast, Bush also called on Congress to make permanent all the tax cuts passed at his urging earlier in his administration. Most are due to expire before or at the end of 2010.


    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    jimcee,
    A question to all: Now that we know that the body armor needs an improvement are we all willing to fund it possibly at the expense of some domestic spending?
    1) We knew all along the body armor was deficient. 2) So we kill more poor American children or we kill more American soldiers!? Interesting way that wingnuts present their position. If they were actual patriots they'd give up their 'tax cuts' instead of sacrificing other's lives.
    Unfortunatly when a conflict erupts
    We chose the exact time to invade iraq, it didn't 'erupt.'

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimcee on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    Sailor, If we knew all along the armor was deficient what should we have done? Waited till things were just right? With so many people looking for anything to exploit to bash the Iraq war I would think that we would have heard about it before the invasion began. Your omniscience is amazing. I am all for upgrading the armor, what part of that don't you get? And of course your answer to anything is 'Bush....' The problem is less of funding than it is in the red tape that is draped around anything that should get done soon but has to jump through bureaucratic hoops. I'm not defending the administration in the least, just pointing out the obvious. Punisher, I'll keep my tax cut, thank you but I'm sure there are some 'earmarks' that could be eliminated that would more than pay for new armor for the troops and no little children would need to starve. Heck if Sen. Byrd just had refused to accept a Navy training facility in that port(?) in WV or Stevens a bridge in Alaska that would have bought a few vests and fed some of your poor straw children. Man, your stereotypes are of such monumental proportion that it is hard to believe there is any room in your brain for other thoughts. And no, a conflict didn't just erupt. Either way if a country were to wait until all conditions were just right to do the right thing there would still be 25 million people suffering under the rule of a psychotic murderer. Saddam would still be running Iraq. Chirac, Anan et al still taking thier cut of the Oil for Food scam, rape rooms would be in full use, torture the everyday thing, people being fed into wood chippers feet first while still alive, innocent women and children being gassed (oh wait they don't count to you because they are not American children), terror training camps being run in Ramadi, Salman Pak and Samarra and an overall bad influence still extant in the Mid-East. Nice. In that odd Orwellian way you actually support that kind of thing because you refuse to see evil for what it is. You pacifistic moral posturing is more important than freeing innocents under the jack-boot of a fascistic dictator. Obviously you support Saddam and his lovely late sons regardless of your pretentions to the opposite.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:22:18 PM EST
    jimcee: Man, your stereotypes are of such monumental proportion that it is hard to believe there is any room in your brain for other thoughts. Whoa. You sound mad. All I did was point out that just today, while we're wondering how to buy adequate body armor for our troops, Bush was stumping to make tax cuts permanent. jimcee: I'll keep my tax cut, thank you... Is that what you got so angry about? Because our rational discussion about how to protect our fighting men and women sure did go AWOL PDQ.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:32:33 PM EST
    Also, jimcee, the way that your comment was organized, it appeared that you were attributing to me opinions that could not have been inferred from my very brief and limited comment about tax cuts during a time of war. So I ignored the stuff that came after your comment about my brain being stuffed with stereotypes, because I think you may have been responding to Sailor there. If he wants to, he can respond to that part of your strange rant.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 11:00:04 PM EST
    et al - The tax cuts have nothing to do with body armour. BTW - Since this problem didn't just happen in Jan 01, why wheren't you yellling about it before that? I will tell you. Because you didn't give a damn about the military and all you complained about was that it was costing us too much. Now tell me you didn't support the military budget cuts during the 8 years of Clinton.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 11:32:28 PM EST
    Hi PPJ, hope your having a good Saturday night. You note that the issue of tax cuts is unrelated to the issue of body armor. Of course you're right. Jimcee had suggested that in order to fund new armor, domestic spending cuts might be necessary. I was pointing out another option. Frankly I don't care how it's funded. They need it, they're going to have to get it. They ought to have it already. I won't address the other comments because they just don't apply to me.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:18:05 AM EST
    Last I checked 60% of the people agree re NSA
    Check again Jim, 56% think Bush should have a court order to wire trap even if terrorists are involved.
    bat mitzvah


    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#42)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:11:13 AM EST
    I will tell you. Because you didn't give a damn about the military and all you complained about was that it was costing us too much.
    complete nonsene as usual, we complained here about the armor for the humvees. We never complained about it costing too much. Feeling desperate are we.
    Now tell me you didn't support the military budget cuts during the 8 years of Clinton.
    1st this has nothing to do with it since the situation is not the same and the Repubs supported them too. Got nothing dont ya?

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#43)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    Sailor, If we knew all along the armor was deficient what should we have done? Waited till things were just right?
    It's not bush bashing to say bush started the war anymore than it is chapman bashing to say he killed Lennon. Bush attacked a country that was no threat to the US, of course he could have picked any time he wanted. Better yet, DON"T ATTACK a country that is no threat to the US.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:58:28 PM EST
    debbiehamil - And your link is?? SD - Well, my point hit dead center, eh? Sailor - We understand that is your belief. There was a time we people believed the world was flat.

    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:04:43 PM EST
    Jim, I think debbiehamil was referring to this:
    Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Jan. 3-5, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. "Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?" Required To Get Warrant 56% Monitor Without a Warrant 42% Unsure 2%


    Re: Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    SD - Well, my point hit dead center, eh?
    no just more of your delusional gibberish

    Lack of Adequate Armor Responsible for Marine Deaths | 46 comments (46 topical)