Support the troops?

[latefordinner]

"support the troops" is a vacuous phrase. If I support US troops by making them more protected then I am also making it more likely that they are able to kill insurgents. I don't hold the value of a US soldiers life any higher than that of an Iraqi insurgent's life, therefore what I support is not having a State and having non-military ways to resolve conflicts.

(though likely much less conflicts to resolve without States jockeying for resources and political power and having a ruling class that can literally "spend" the lives of its citizens to maintain/increase their power)

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hold the value of a US soldiers life any higher than that of an Iraqi insurgent's life, therefore what I support is not having a State and having non-military ways to resolve conflicts.

[/ QUOTE ]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Pillow fights FTW!

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
If they really supported the troops, they wouldn't pay them 1/8th of what they pay the contracters.

[/ QUOTE ]

source ??????

While i'm not a contractor I am a DoD civilian. And I sure as hell don't make 8x what the soldiers do. Especially after I get done paying taxes.

Most of the contractors in iraq are foriegn workers making 5 bucks an hour so haliburton can screw the world over even more.

Your other contractors who do make the big bucks are security people paid by outside companys and they get killed too.

Taxes are the name of the game out here sir.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have plenty of adequate body armor. Where does this idea come from that there is some lack of adequate body armor?

The Iranian built and supplied IED's blow through an Abrams tank, the vehicle with probably the best armor in the world. Break that down and rewrite your OP and define what the problem is again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our humvees are utterly inadequate for this fight and soldiers are improvising solutions to protect themselves (literally welding together turret armor in back shops, amongst other things)... 4 years into the fight the Army has a paltry $60M to look at better concepts which may be fielded years from now if they're lucky --- that's hardly being responsive to immediate needs of our troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read my post you quoted? The Iranian supplied IED's blow through Abrams tanks. There is only one vehicle that I'm aware of that has any sort of defense from those blasts and its got other issues but to picture it, its shaped at sharp angles and semi deflects the IED. That being said, nothing happens "immediately" in any industry or organization when it comes to major end items like tanks or new suv's that burn clean fuels.

The uparmored humvee's, much like the M1 Abrams won't stop the Iranian IED's which truly suck. The flip side of all this is that its not like we're exactly getting slaughtered over there. Better vehicles would be nice, and should be developed and fielded, but aren't a must at this point. There isn't a vehicle in any army inventory that could stop stacked mines or the Iranian IEDs.

A couple of other points:

Humvee's do not = body armor. Body armor you wear on your body.

The improved (shaped charge) IED's come from IRAN. Our current rules about that situation are bluntly: they can kill us and we take it.

The Army (and DoD) introduce new technology into the fight virtually daily. Soon after 9/11 the Army established a rapid fielding directorate too, among other things, cut through the lengthy aquisition process, immediately purchase off the shelf technologies, and provide soldiers what they needed quickly rather than in the years you quote. The last time my unit deployed we ordered dozens of items we needed that were nonstandard (not in the DoD system). Most of them dealt with protection from or killing the enemy. Most, if not all of the items arrived within a month of ordering.

But what do I know?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you even read my post you quoted? The Iranian supplied IED's blow through Abrams tanks. There is only one vehicle that I'm aware of that has any sort of defense from those blasts and its got other issues but to picture it, its shaped at sharp angles and semi deflects the IED. That being said, nothing happens "immediately" in any industry or organization when it comes to major end items like tanks or new suv's that burn clean fuels.

[/ QUOTE ]
I heard Joe Lieberman on the radio yesterday cite a military forensic team that 175 US military deaths have been attributed to the Iranian shape charges that are being deployed against our troops....

Now they enter Iraqi waters to take British military hostage. Then they violate international treaties to allow British diplomats to see their men and violate international treaties to display this British on TV. These people have no respect for international agreements. Bombs is the only language this regime understands. There is plenty of causi belli events to initiate a large scale bombing of Iran. The sooner the better...

[AlexM]

It's a tough situation. Without context, the answer is to obviously bomb them (although it's a British problem, not an American one), but the fact is that we've been bullying them and mucking about in their affairs for more than 50 years. So what are we punishing them for? Standing up for themselves?

[Iq75]

[ QUOTE ]
Then they violate international treaties to allow British diplomats to see their men and violate international treaties to display this British on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the war against Iraq started i could watch videos of captured iraqies on CNN all day. A lot of gitmo detainees have also been seen in news footage too. It's not like they are doing anything that the western medias have not been doing for a long time now.


[ QUOTE ]
These people have no respect for international agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol at the US and Brits accusing others of breaking international treaties after starting a whole illegal war against Iraq.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a tough situation. Without context, the answer is to obviously bomb them (although it's a British problem, not an American one),

[/ QUOTE ]
Joe Lieberman cited military forensic studies that Iran is responsible for 175 dead Americans in Iraq due to their IEDs that they have imported into Iraq. This does not include deaths caused by their agents and their proxies. We have enough causi belli to start leveling their country....

[ QUOTE ]
but the fact is that we've been bullying them and mucking about in their affairs for more than 50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
50 Years....why stop there. Lets got back to 300 BC when the Persian Empire attacked Western Civilization. Hmmmm....50 Years ago Nazis murder American prisoners at Malmady. Gee lets bomb Germany....TODAY!

Before Jimmy Carter, Iran was a friend of the USA. Then thanks to that nitwit Jimmy Carter, the present regime was born in the 1970s. Since their creation, their foreign policy was been to attack the USA in all capacities..... Hostage taking, terrorism, etc...

[ QUOTE ]
So what are we punishing them for? Standing up for themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]
All the UK boats have GPS devices. They were in IRAQI waters. After seizing the UK sailors, Iran proposed a spy exchange to get back their agents that were caught in Iraq... Their play was 100% transparent.... It amazes me you are being an apologist for them...

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
starting a whole illegal war against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

by whose standards? Yours? Come back to reality and review what has happened the last 5 years. The Iraqi's violated UN regulations and the US congress, with the exception of a small minority voted for the war. What makes it illegal again? Your imagination?

You never watched any video of captured Iraqi prisoners released by the US government let alone answering questions posed my the government, and you certainly haven't seen any of any at GITMO with a face included in the picture.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
starting a whole illegal war against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

by whose standards? Yours? Come back to reality and review what has happened the last 5 years. The Iraqi's violated UN regulations and the US congress, with the exception of a small minority voted for the war. What makes it illegal again? Your imagination?

[/ QUOTE ]

Say a certain administration purposefully mislead the public at large and purposefully misinterpreted intelligence to build a case for war, would that be a problem for you? WMD In Iraq: Evidence and Implications breaks down the entire case for war on an "evidence" by "evidence" level and shows such misconstructions.