What is Digg?72 Comments
- bonked, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27@ilyag
First off, I am one of the people that was issued this gear - and I have wore it in a combat envrionment.
Yes, they do have a "warehouse" of sorts for all this old gear. It is called "the guy/gal that the gear is currently issued to." Not very much of your equipment (save for NBC gear) is "brand new" it is hand-me-down. - evazan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25This is how we support our troops? By sending them off with inefficient tools?
- evazan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24I blame the administration's rush to war and their lack of planning before or after.
"FORT EUSTIS, Va. - Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday."
In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/15473180.htm - Hoovooloo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Um... that was the whole point of the video. The troops we given degraded, 80's armor as opposed to new armor with blast plates... your points just support what was in the video.
- evazan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Either way, our troops did not have proper body, nor were their vehicles properly armored. Don't you read the news?
"Congress has allocated funds for all U.S. troops to wear 16-pound, ceramic-plated Interceptor body armor (search), but as many as 51,000 American soldiers and civilian administrators in Iraq have not yet been equipped with the gear, and have been asking friends and families at home to purchase and send them off-the-shelf models for protection."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html
"When Hart died in a small-arms ambush in mid-October, the Army had no official plan to “retrofit” most of the 12,000-odd Humvees in Iraq. This in spite of continuing attacks on convoys and complaints from combat units that they were taking unnecessary casualties in the thin-skinned Humvees."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731185/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So i guess there is no 20 year old equipment being used on the battlefield?
or 20 year old designs?
Ok most of it is newer but is using an old design, based on old science but there is plenty of ancient equipment being used on the battlefield, and yes they do have warehouses of the *****. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Article in the navy times on this ad: http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2101883.php
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8never mind, i saw his profile.. definate koolaid drinker so ignore my rant.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our US Armed Forces? US forces armed with what? Spitballs?"
-- Zell "Crazy Old Bastard" Miller, 2004 Republican Convention - evazan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's the same argument with more facts to back it up.
Any response to the FACTS, or are you just going to attack the messenger because you cant debate the FACTS?
Is this how you "support our troops"? - Hoovooloo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ Ilyag
Duffy40 was the one who made the comment about using 80's armor. I was simply stating that he was actually helping the video by making those points.
Oh, and even though the flak jackets were actually enached versions, Fox news, a republican biased network, reports, "U.S. soldiers not issued the Interceptor equipment are using enhanced versions of the Vietnam-era flak jackets, which are incapable of stopping a round from a Kalashnikov (search) or AK-47, the most common weapon in Iraq." ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html ) - rsh28630, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The message is clear. 'Support the Troops' isn't just a platitude; it means they deserve the best America has to offer. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but the men and women placed in harms way are entitled to quality equipment.
- notkevinrose, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Unless you happen to have an AK47 round lodged in your pancreas.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Pro war/bombs? yes. Pro military personel safety? no.
The guy has a noose and the 'stars and bars' hanging in his office. Racism alone disqualifies anyone for the Senate IMO. - galore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7No, we support them by sticking little yellow ribbons (made in China) on our cars. What, you mean we are supposed to spend _real_ money on body armor for our troops??? Not with our tax dollars...
- LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Damn, how come I can't get my compressed videos to look this good?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Obviously suupporting our troups simply means supporting the president unconditionally and has nothing to do with the safety and well being of our men in uniform.
- madfester77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Duffy30
Just to let you know... the first vest, is what we in the military refer to a "flack jacket". It was designed to stop shrapnel, not bullets.
Our Drill Instructors told us that the first time we were given instruction on the old body armor, and to prove a point, loaded a blank round in a M-16, put a cleaning rod in the barrel and fired it at the vest from 10 feet. The damn thing went clean through, and before you say that the total mass of the rod was most responsible for punching through, keep this in mind... blank rounds don't have nearly as much powder as a true 5.56 ball round and therefor cannot not push a cleaning rod to max velocity( the rod isn't even big enough to provide a proper gas seal to achieve maximum muzzle velocity).
The second vest is designed to stop bullets, the blast plate is for higher caliber rounds such as those used by AK-47s. Get you facts right before calling *****. - galore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No.
Spending money on armor = good.
Spending money on bombs = bad.
After all, we _are_ pro-life, aren't we?
See. That was easy. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8unless your life depends on it?
- Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@Charlotte_Web: Is it surprising to you that people who were sent into a war based on lies are trying to get "the other guy" into office?
Of the 3 Iraq vets I know, only 1 of them is voting Republican this year. - rjacobsen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This is a non-issue and an example of liberals shooting themself in the foot.
The troops have been issued even better body armor since the vote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102235.html
When it pointed out Kerry voted the same way the left went off the handle
http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html
Allen should be running for president, I'm glad to see the wacko left getting scared of him already.
Allen for President of United States! - gr8one, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Let's settle this on the shooting range...
- o2sk8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Blah blah blah, that video was ridiculously clear.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Listen to all you Republican "Macacas" out there. The "Georges" both Bush and Allen first lied to the soldiers and America at the start of this ***** Iraqi war.
Then the grand "Macacas" sent our poor soldiers into harms way without proper battle gear (so badly, families were buying gear on eBay to supply their loved ones - this is well documented).
With no shame these grand pieces of "Macacas" are still perpetuating their lies and war. And to date, more soldiers have died in this bull "Macaca" war than people who died on 9/11 (and not taking into account all the thousands who have come home missing limbs).
So all the Republican "Macacas" STFU and stick all that "Macaca" where the sun don't shine. Btw, George Allen as president ... now that's funny.
So funny, I just "Macaca"ed on myself. - radioleft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Autobahn: I am opposed to the war. But, I also think it is immoral to send our troops into battle without proper equiprment and sufficient numbers to accomplish the objective. Bush is a political coward who refuses to send sufficient troops and then lies by claiming that the officers get everything they ask for.
- raada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't see Mr. Rumpled fighting in the trenches... "We should all take ***** as long as the ***** doesn't hit me..." should be his saying..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/108/senate/1/votes/116/
That has information about the vote...the fact that it was split right down the middle (democrats no, republicans yes) leads me to think that there is more to this vote than is revealed. - spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Stop being such a Macaca!
- nokla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If it were someone I knew in Iraq, I would want them to have working body armor. It's interesting to keep in mind that the AK-47 and the "vests left over from the Viet Nam war" haven't changed - nor have politicians. Our politicians were putting our soldiers up against superior firepower with inferior armor way back in Nam - so why do vets and other people keep voting for these *****?
Of course it'd all be a moot point if:
1) European nations and the UN had not skirted sanctions on Iraq that, like it or not, were containing Saddam.
-or-
2) The Democrats hadn't overwhelmingly voted FOR WAR.
The Neocon Hawks were being idiots, but that's what they do. And Europe, the UN, and the Democrats did everything they could to avoid developing a spine and stopping the war hawks.
You don't need new body armor when you're not invading other nations. - tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." - gr8one, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Will that vest protect against an IED?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're not reading it correctly.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Looks like the Democrats are trying to "Swift Boat" George Allen.
I'm curious to hear the other side of the story, however... a budget item like this could have just been a line item in a larger bill (maybe not even a budget bill) that Allen didn't agree with. - galore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You mean like all those pro-lifers who vote for Bush because he is a good Christian (tm) who protects the unborn (but has no problem killing 10s of thousands of fully developed humans in his BS war)?
- krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Is this the same body armor that John Kerry and a myriad of other Democrats didn't vote for? (http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html)
- radioleft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This ad should be used against every Republican who voted similarly as well as ads pointing out that the Republicans continue to block implementing the 9/11 commission report recommendations. and have cut funding for veterans medical care - for example cutting in half the budget for traumatic head injuries which are in large part caused because the Republicans refuse to supply sufficient new and safer helmets, and that George Bush has repeatedly threatened to veto these bills and that the Democrats have pushed them and voted for them but were voted down by the Republicans.
- kristov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Im actually for anything that slanders a Republican - but seriously..... was this bill part of a 2 billion dollar bridge in Alaska - and they tacked on 100k worth of body armor and he voted against it or something?
The sooner the sheep (YOU!) start to pay more attention to the truth behind the propaganda the better off we will all be. - theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The weird thing is, if you go to the VoteVets homepage, the "voted against the troops" link shows that Allen voted for the bill and it's amendments? What am I missing?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4With Allen as president, we can make nooses a legal form of death penalty again, and get rid of all those pesky black people that fill up the prison system!
Damn macacas... - EvilBaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not sure what bill this body armour was part of, but was that sole item being voted on or was this something thrown in at the end to make a certain group look bad?
- Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Max cleland was triple amputee because he was drunk and playing with hand grenades.
And killed a man.
If he was not an amputee, he would have done time in Prison
I detest Max Cleland, he is everything that a professional soldier is not, mostly not competent - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. An honest Democat. I don't think you will be one for long before the run you out of the party.
*tip of the stetson* - egrabosky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1evel politics as usual ftw
- radioleft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Whenever I read or see anything bout Republican corruption, greed, and bigotry, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. It is much easier than researching this stuff only to find that it is not only true, but typically is worse than reported.
A friend who recently turned from Iraq says that the Republicans are just pissed off when a disabled vet returns home alive because the money spent for his or her care makes it more difficult for them to give financial benefit to their corporate and ulta-wealthy masters. As he puts it, the Republcans don't like it when a "soldier has the bad taste to survive his wounds on the battlefield." - spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Clearly we need more military spending.
- radioleft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Duffy: Bush recruited Saxby Chambliss who never served in the armed forces to run against Senator Max Cleland. I've known Max since the early 70's. They ran ads against Max claiming he was soft on defense and morphing him into Saddam Hussein (or was it Osama -don't remember at the moment.). When it was pointed out that Max is a triple amputee becasue he lost three limbs in Vietnam, do you know what the Republican scumbag response was? "Well, Cleland was injured in an accident in Vietnam, not in a battle, so he doesn't deserve any respect."
- bdpf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Or hold public office?
- bdpf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Should vets be the only ones to Vote?????
- rjacobsen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Did you ever stop and think what the blogs are like on the Terrorist side?
"Our sucide vests are killing more jihadists than ever, when can we make them safer??? "
"More and more people are pointing out our IED's"
"Even the Iraqis are now in control of the Military - WHEN WILL THIS STOP!!?" -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is