# BODY ARMOR:We are STILL dicking around. Repug incompetence kills **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 7, 2006, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860 "2006-01-07T06:11:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/41 "2006-01-09T20:20:32Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I think you missed my point. I have a legitimate bitch if it is true that additional body armor would save lives and could be provided, and the counter argument is “But I was in the military and I didn’t get body armor.” Um, nevermind. That was appropriate for my response to **mks57** , no so much to **xtisme**. My point re the latter is that the conservative response to the needs of the military is “Hey, life is tough. Now get out there and fight.” You know, the whole “you go with the military you have, not the one you would wish for” thing. If we can have it, why don’t we? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/42 "2006-01-09T21:01:08Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > And I’m very certain that if the Whitehouse had ordered the Pentagon to circumvent its established procurement procedures to expedite acquisition of body armor, you and your ilk would be screaming about that, too. So, what the fuck, Chicken Little? Pretty easy to cry wolf; not so much so to actually shoot the big bad fucker, eh? Note, friend, that you have no basis whatever to make such an insulting allegation, and no basis \*squared \* to use your own febrile imaginings as evidence of anyone else’s hypocrisy or unprincipledness. Yet you’re trying it anyway, in the tired old GOP-partisan method called Projection. If you have\*actual \* hypocrisy or party-before-country examples of The Other Guys’ perfidy available to you, then \*use \* them. If you don’t, then stop for a moment and consider what that implies. And apparently you don’t have them. And for Og’s sake, start having some \*food \* with your lunch. The government is capable of moving quickly and short-cycling or short-cutting bureaucracy when it needs to. Look at the runup to Gulf War 1, a bigger effort in a shorter time, for a fine example. Look at just the 4 years of US involvement in WW2 for an even better one. The rest of what we see here is just making excuses for incompetence and indifference. Shame on you for accepting it, much less defending it. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/43 "2006-01-09T22:19:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The government is capable of moving quickly and short-cycling or short-cutting bureaucracy when it needs to. Look at the runup to Gulf War 1, a bigger effort in a shorter time, for a fine example. Look at just the 4 years of US involvement in WW2 for an even better one. The rest of what we see here is just making excuses for incompetence and indifference. Shame on you for accepting it, much less defending it. Once again, you accuse me of defending something I have no intention of defending. As is par for you, simply because I take exception to what I believe is a poorly thought out position, you assume I support its antipode. Even tho’ I’ve made no such statement, or posted anything from which such can be logically inferred. In fact, I made it explicit that I believe the problem lies within the Pentagon procurement process - multiple times. And then there’s the ever-present drunkeness crack, too. You are becoming a quite predictable caricature of yourself. Sylvia Browne could likely make a _legitimate_ living off your posts. > [@](#): > > Note, friend, that you have no basis whatever to make such an insulting allegation, and no basis \*squared \* to use your own febrile imaginings as evidence of anyone else’s hypocrisy or unprincipledness. Yet you’re trying it anyway, in the tired old GOP-partisan method called Projection. > > If you have\*actual \* hypocrisy or party-before-country examples of > The Other Guys’ perfidy available to you, then \*use \* them. If you don’t, then stop for a moment and consider what that implies. And apparently you don’t have them. I think you botched your vB tags. It is quite apparent that these two paragraphs in reply to the OP. Can’t quite figure out how you stuck GOP in there though. Fuck off, “friend.” ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/44 "2006-01-09T22:43:46Z")
Beleve it or not, there is probably an actual intelligent and rational debate to be had concerning Body Armor on a number of levels. First, is who should be wearing it, and how much? Consider that Marines are shock troops and as such are trained to combat to be light and mobile. They are trained to take territory, not to keep it. The amount of weight they carry especially in extreme conditions such as the desert is of paramount importance. Any discussion on these lines needs to consider whether the Marines are being used appropriately, and what the alternative is, and take this role and how they are equipped for it into account. It is easy but fallacious to point at a fatal wound, and say “this man would have lived had he had side protecting armor. They should all have this armor. Let’s blame the Republicans that they don’t.” It’s also as stupid an argument as it is an easy one. Second is who decides. This is a toughie. Do individual Marines get to decide how to equip themselves, or, do they get told what to use? Third, who is responsible for procurement through the chain of command? Someday, someone on the left will surprise me by starting a thoughtful and rational thread to discusss the actual issues, rather than as an excuse for namecalling. Until that day this is just another typical dumbass knee jerk political thread. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/45 "2006-01-10T00:05:33Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > As for you, my bombastic friend, I don’t really see how that NYT story you gave us shows that any of this can be laid at the feet of the Republican Party, or the Whitehouse, or Congress. Looks to me like a procurement issue wholly contained in the Pentagon. Procurement issues in the Pentagon aren’t something new; people - on both sides of the aisle, as well as the non-partisian CBO and GAO - have been pointing to problems with Pentagon procurement procedures for as long as military procurement has been centralized. > > And I’m very certain that if the Whitehouse had ordered the Pentagon to circumvent its established procurement procedures to expedite acquisition of body armor, you and your ilk would be screaming about that, too. So, what the fuck, Chicken Little? Pretty easy to cry wolf; not so much so to actually shoot the big bad fucker, eh? Calling this a procurement issue is like calling the Titantic a boating accident. > [@Scylla](#): > > irst, is who should be wearing it, and how much? Consider that Marines are shock troops and as such are trained to combat to be light and mobile. They are trained to take territory, not to keep it. The amount of weight they carry especially in extreme conditions such as the desert is of paramount importance. Any discussion on these lines needs to consider whether the Marines are being used appropriately, and what the alternative is, and take this role and how they are equipped for it into account. It is easy but fallacious to point at a fatal wound, and say “this man would have lived had he had side protecting armor. They should all have this armor. Let’s blame the Republicans that they don’t.” It’s also as stupid an argument as it is an easy one. You’ve missed the point by about a mile and a half. In regards to vehicles being armored we have known for at least a year now that we need to armor them. Remember the whole “you go to war with the army you have not the army you want” thing? Sure you might go to war with the arm you have but you also correct the deficiencies as soon as possible. Its inexcusable that vehicles over there still aren’t entirely armored. As far as the body armor goes the issue isn’t really whether or not they should be wearing the armor. Thats already been decided in the affirmative by both the Army and the Marines. The problem is that it took the military 20 freaking months to even begin studying how the soldiers were dying in Iraq. 5 of those months were becuase the military couldn’t come up with a piddling 100,000 dollars. Does that sound at all like this administration cares at all about the safety of troops over there? I know for damn sure that if I were president and I were deploying the military I wouldn’t wait 20 months to begin studying if it were possible to save some lives by better equipment. I sure as hell would get some asses in to gear and get the vehicles armored that need to be. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/46 "2006-01-10T00:43:35Z")
> [@treis](#): > > You’ve missed the point by about a mile and a half. I doubt it. > [@](#): > > In regards to vehicles being armored we have known for at least a year now that we need to armor them. This is so nonspecific as to be a completely useless statement (and the idea that armor might be protective to a vehicle is a bit more than a year old, but I congratulate you on the epiphany.) > [@](#): > > Remember the whole “you go to war with the army you have not the army you want” thing? Sure you might go to war with the arm you have but you also correct the deficiencies as soon as possible. Its inexcusable that vehicles over there still aren’t entirely armored. No. Not at all. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Armor is not practical or desirable for all vehicles. There are an awful lot of engineering tradeoffs to creating an armored vehicle. > [@](#): > > As far as the body armor goes the issue isn’t really whether or not they should be wearing the armor. Thats already been decided in the affirmative by both the Army and the Marines. I’ll bet this is not true. Do you have a cite to an actual study/studies by these branches of the armed services stating so? > [@](#): > > The problem is that it took the military 20 freaking months to even begin studying how the soldiers were dying in Iraq. 5 of those months were becuase the military couldn’t come up with a piddling 100,000 dollars. So says… the NYT, which is not all that impressive these days. Something being reported in the news is no longer particularly indicative of it’s truth. > [@](#): > > Does that sound at all like this administration cares at all about the safety of troops over there? I know for damn sure that if I were president and I were deploying the military I wouldn’t wait 20 months to begin studying if it were possible to save some lives by better equipment. I don’t think this kind of thing is a Presidential type decision. Hopefully, you are intelligent enough that you don’t either. The President doesn’t decide whether or not the Marines should spend $100,000 to fund a study. The Marines do. It’s not a Presidential decision. Blaming the President for this decision is just stupid. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/47 "2006-01-10T00:54:15Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I doubt it. No, you have and are continuing to do so. > [@Scylla](#): > > No. Not at all. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Armor is not practical or desirable for all vehicles. There are an awful lot of engineering tradeoffs to creating an armored vehicle. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Its already been decided that these vehicles need to be armored. The delay is coming in actually armoring them. > [@Scylla](#): > > I’ll bet this is not true. Do you have a cite to an actual study/studies by these branches of the armed services stating so? I’ll bet you didn’t read the article linked in the OP, or at least not close enough. > [@Scylla](#): > > So says… the NYT, which is not all that impressive these days. Something being reported in the news is no longer particularly indicative of it’s truth. :rolleyes: > [@Scylla](#): > > I don’t think this kind of thing is a Presidential type decision. Hopefully, you are intelligent enough that you don’t either. The President doesn’t decide whether or not the Marines should spend $100,000 to fund a study. The Marines do. It’s not a Presidential decision. Blaming the President for this decision is just stupid. Again, you have missed the point by about a mile and a half. Its not the President’s job to find $100,000 to do the study. Its the President’s job to ensure that we are at least putting forth a semblance of an effort to protect our troops. I ask you again, does the Marines taking 5 months to find $100,000 dollars to study how to better protect our troops indicitive of an organization that comprehends the situation in Iraq and the urgency needed to protect our troops? Where is the pressure from the administration to do everything to protect our troops, becuase frankly I haven’t seen it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/48 "2006-01-10T01:18:11Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No, you have and are continuing to do so. So say you. > [@](#): > > You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Its already been decided that these vehicles need to be armored. The delay is coming in actually armoring them. “these” vehicles? Which vehicles are “these.” Your general to the point of absurdity. > [@](#): > > Again, you have missed the point by about a mile and a half. So you keep saying, but based on your reasoning I’m not crediting you with the intelligence necessary to make that determination. > [@](#): > > Its not the President’s job to find $100,000 to do the study. Its the President’s job to ensure that we are at least putting forth a semblance of an effort to protect our troops. You used the display of the study as an example of a Presidential failure. Since you agree that this particular study is not his responsibility than you must find another example or logically you must retreat from your assertion. > [@](#): > > I ask you again, does the Marines taking 5 months to find $100,000 dollars to study how to better protect our troops indicitive of an organization that comprehends the situation in Iraq and the urgency needed to protect our troops? That’s a different question than you asked before (see what I mean about you’re not being very smart?) The question you asked before was “Does that sound at all like this administration cares at all about the safety of troops over there?” But, to answer the new question you just asked…it is too stupid a question to answer intelligently. You have not defined what “organization” you are speaking about The Marines? The Government in general? The Marine Office of Study Funding? It is stupid for another reason, too. A selected sample is a poor indicator of the population that sample derived from. > [@](#): > > Where is the pressure from the administration to do everything to protect our troops, becuase frankly I haven’t seen it. Not seeing it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s an argument from ignorance. I will suggest that you haven’t seen it because you haven’t looked intelligently and reasonably. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/49 "2006-01-10T02:04:45Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Once again, you accuse me of defending something I have no intention of defending…In fact, I made it explicit that I believe the problem lies within the Pentagon procurement process - multiple times. As if the Pentagon operates in a vacuum, independent of any civilian control? That nothing the White House says or does makes any difference to it? Even you know better than that. You \*are \* defending something - Bush’s lack of leadership. > [@](#): > > And then there’s the ever-present drunkeness crack, too. I’m trying to offer you an out. If you’re instead going to claim you made that silly little rant, pretending that “our ilk” would say or do something that would prove your hypocrisy when you have zero evidence for it, while _sober_, that’s even scarier. No, not scarier, just sadder - that would mean your condition can never get better. > [@](#): > > You are becoming a quite predictable caricature of yourself. Sylvia Browne could likely make a _legitimate_ living off your posts. Right after she got done laughing at your ritual demonization of all those nasty liberals, like the one a few posts above. Your mention of predictability and caricaturization is, however, just more projection, though, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Fuck off When one doesn’t have anything left to say … Now go join **Scylla** over in the self-pitying denial corner. You two have a lot to talk about, I’m sure. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/50 "2006-01-10T02:12:12Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > “these” vehicles? Which vehicles are “these.” Your general to the point of absurdity. Are you daft? The vehicles that they, as in the military brass, have already decided that need armor. I don’t know how much more specific you want me to be. > [@Scylla](#): > > You used the display of the study as an example of a Presidential failure. Since you agree that this particular study is not his responsibility than you must find another example or logically you must retreat from your assertion. You are daft. Of course “Get money to study troop fatalities” is not an item on Bush’s checklist. “Ensure steps are being taken to protect troops” sure as hell is. The fact that the vehicles are still not armored and the fact that this study took so long to even initiate are evidence of him not doing his job. > [@Scylla](#): > > That’s a different question than you asked before (see what I mean about you’re not being very smart?) The question you asked before was “Does that sound at all like this administration cares at all about the safety of troops over there?” No its the exact same question. I don’t know if you need to brush up on your Government or not but the President is by extension in charge of the Marines. It doesn’t matter if I am talking about the Marines, the Joint Cheifs or the Administration becuase ultimately the responsibilty rests on the Administration. Or have you already forgotten where the buck stops? > [@Scylla](#): > > But, to answer the new question you just asked…it is too stupid a question to answer intelligently. You have not defined what “organization” you are speaking about The Marines? The Government in general? The Marine Office of Study Funding? No, I think you are just too daft to figure it out. > [@Scylla](#): > > Not seeing it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s an argument from ignorance. I will suggest that you haven’t seen it because you haven’t looked intelligently and reasonably. Bullshit. I have provided evidence for a complete lack of concern by this administration for the well-being of the troops. It is the administration’s responsibilty to ensure that the troops they deploy are protected to the fullest extent possible. Bush has been criminally negligent in this department. You understand the magnitued of what we are talking about correct? 300 troops that died could have been saved by the body armor alone. How many of those died simply becuase of this administrations’ ineptitude. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/51 "2006-01-10T03:10:55Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Are you daft? The vehicles that they, as in the military brass, have already decided that need armor. I don’t know how much more specific you want me to be. So, you’re saying that in a study of some vehicles by some people, some “brass” decided that some needed some more armor and it supposedly hasn’t happened yet. That’s not very specific. How about a cite to the study itself? How about naming the types of vehicles? How about identifying the person or committee making the recommendation? How about showing that the recommendation was accepted but not implemented? That would be, you know, specific. > [@](#): > > You are daft. Of course “Get money to study troop fatalities” is not an item on Bush’s checklist. “Ensure steps are being taken to protect troops” sure as hell is. Actually no. That again, would be the job of the Marine Corps, giving the troops the equipment necessary to the task and ensuring that they are not hazarded unnecessarily relevant to their job. > [@](#): > > The fact that the vehicles are still not armored and the fact that this study took so long to even initiate are evidence of him not doing his job. How about a cite to the study so I can see what it says and verify that it has been accepted but not implemented? I know I’ve asked you this before. > [@](#): > > No its the exact same question. I don’t know if you need to brush up on your Government or not but the President is by extension in charge of the Marines. It doesn’t matter if I am talking about the Marines, the Joint Cheifs or the Administration becuase ultimately the responsibilty rests on the Administration. Or have you already forgotten where the buck stops? This is what I’m talking about in my initial post in this thread. You start with a stupid OP and it’s not like you’re likely to get intelligent discussion. First, you asked two different questions. One referred to the administration. I quote: “Does that sound at all like this administration cares at all about the safety of troops over there?” The second was about the Marine Corps. Again I quote: “I ask you again, does the Marines taking 5 months to find $100,000 dollars to study how to better protect our troops indicitive of an organization that comprehends the situation in Iraq and the urgency needed to protect our troops?” Despite your absurd semantic gymnastics to the contrary You can hardly claim the administration and the Marine Corps are synonymous. While it is true that the buck ultimately stops with the Pres., the fact of the matter is that most often it stops significantly before it reaches the Pres. For example, if the post office loses your letter it is not the President’s fault. The blame stops before it gets to the President because there are certain things which are supposed to be done at lower levels of Government. This concept is why we have more than one person for a Government. One person cannot oversea or do all the roles Government fulfills in a micromanagement sort of way. > [@](#): > > No, I think you are just too daft to figure it out. So says the person who thinks the President personally signs your tax refund and checks the numbers on your return. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. I have provided evidence for a complete lack of concern by this administration for the well-being of the troops. In truth you have provided no evidence. What you have provided is a serious of embarrasingly flawed arguments. Basic stupid fallacies. I’ve asked you for actual evidence so that we could discuss it. Like, can I see this study you are so familiar with? (that’s the fifth or sixth time I’ve asked) > [@](#): > > It is the administration’s responsibilty to ensure that the troops they deploy are protected to the fullest extent possible. No. This is just not true, and it represents a fundamental ignorance of the role of the military and CIC. It is not the President’s job to protect the troops. It is his job to deploy them prudently (including not at all, if the sitation merits it) in service of the country. It is the job of those troops to hazard their safety in that service. It is the job of their branch of service to ensure that they are trained and equipped commensurate with the task at hand. The President is no more personally responsible for armoring a given vehicle (or ensuring that it’s armored) than he is for signing your tax return and writing the check. He would be acting foolishly to micromanage at such a level. There’s this thing called the chain of command, and it works two ways. When the President says “go invade Iraq” He’s not supposed to have to say “and make sure all the GIs have enough batteries for their flashlights, and send them enough food so they don’t starve, and clothe and arm and armor them appropriately, and keep track of their pay, and make sure you put somebody on latrine duty” Through the chain of command all this and other things are **implied** in the order the President gives. As he gives this order it filters through the chain of command and millions of decisions are made concerning tens of thousands of issues. Three months later, PFC Doby pulls Latrine duty. As he gripes about this duty he blames his Sgt. who assigned him this duty. He does not blame the President for his Latrine duty. While PFC Doby may be an ignorant grunt, unlike you, is not stupid. He understands the chain of command and how it works. You on the other hand would blame Sam Walton for a delayed cleanup in aisle 5 according to your logic. > [@](#): > > Bush has been criminally negligent in this department. Did this study that you are so knowledgeable about result in Presidential oversight or an executive decision. > [@](#): > > You understand the magnitued of what we are talking about correct? 300 troops that died could have been saved by the body armor alone. Show me the study and we can talk about it. On the face of it, it’s a stupid assertion, put like that. If they had all turned left a moment before they were hit they might also have been saved. Assuming this report you are going to link to in your next post says what you say it does what does it describe as the tradeoffs? > [@](#): > > How many of those died simply becuase of this administrations’ ineptitude. Well, Iraq has cost, in total about 2,500 American servicemen. In the three years of this conflict, we’ve removed a Dictator, restored infrastructure, held three elections creating a Constitution and a functioning soveriegn government. What did Vietnam accomplish (started by a Democrat mind you) accomplish? How many lives were lost? How many were lost on D-day? How many in the civil war? If you look at this as an intelligent individual, one must inevitably conclude that this conflict has been persecuted with remarkable success in terms of preventing the loss of life of American servicemen, as compared to all other conflicts with which this country has been involved. We have militarily taken over a country having one of the larges standing armies of the world and held it for three years losing less than 2,500 lives. Your assertion that this conflict has not been prosecute with regard to the safety of our servicemen is incredibly, riciculously, unforgiveably stupid, and so are you. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/52 "2006-01-10T03:15:38Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Or have you already forgotten where the buck stops? This administration? Buck? Stopping??? Surely you jest. (somehow it’s all Clinton’s fault) ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/53 "2006-01-10T03:22:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Your assertion that this conflict has not been prosecute with regard to the safety of our servicemen is incredibly, riciculously, unforgiveably stupid, and so are you. Your assessment of what we have accomplished is equally uninformed, partisan and stupid. I would also ask you to go and re-read your own description of what it is that Marines are supposed to do. Now tell me, how does this compare with what they are actually doing in Iraq? How does your fantasy of what military forces are supposed to be for compare to reality? How does your fantasy at all relate to whether body armor would be appropriate for our military in Iraq right now? I would suggest that if people are routinely wearing crotch protection under their arms, they have identified a present and significant need. I would suggest that if individuals and families are buying their own body armor, they have identified a specific need. It is galling that not only will Republicans not provide the support our troops need, but they will begrudge family members a reimbursement or tax break for buying their loved one equipment they will need. But life is full of trade-offs, and some Republicans once had it worse. So fuck the troops. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/54 "2006-01-10T03:41:08Z")
Okay, **Scylla** , or is it Captain Commodore64 of the 81st Netborne, tell me how Paul Rieckhoff doesn’t know what he’s talking about, considering that he actually led troops in Iraq: [http://www2.operationtruth.com/blog/comments.jsp?blog\_entry\_KEY=20524&t=](http://www2.operationtruth.com/blog/comments.jsp?blog_entry_KEY=20524&t=) > [@](#): > > “What is it going to take for our leaders in Washington to finally commit to providing the best possible support for the Troops?” asked Paul Rieckhoff, an OIF veteran and the founder of IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America). “The men and women of the military have long known that the body armor supply chain is seriously flawed, and three years into this war they’re still waiting for a solution. No American should tolerate this continuing example of bureaucracy at its worst.” > > Rieckhoff, who led an Army infantry platoon in Baghdad, sent a letter today to the Senate Armed Services Committee calling for an investigation into the body armor supply problems. > > “There should be no higher priority for our elected officials than protecting our Troops, but so far Congress has shown little interest in fixing the body armor supply problems,” Rieckhoff said today. “We’re not talking about building a bridge or rewriting the tax code. This is a matter of life and death, and bureaucratic excuses just won’t cut it.” All of you apologizing fuckers can explain to me how this guy is mistaken. No, in fact, don’t bother. I have no more use for you. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/55 "2006-01-10T03:47:33Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > or is it Captain Commodore64 of the 81st Netborne, [Hmmmm…](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/finnagain/InternetCommando.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/56 "2006-01-10T04:14:12Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Okay, **Scylla** , or is it Captain Commodore64 of the 81st Netborne, tell me how Paul Rieckhoff doesn’t know what he’s talking about, considering that he actually led troops in Iraq: I started off stating that there was a legitimate debate concerning body armor, but that the morons on this board weren’t making a legitimate debate, but simply engaging in moronic knee-jerk partisan bashing (hence, you’ll notice this thread got moved to the pit in 1 post) Why would I confuse Reickoff, with the wingnut left of the SDMB communtity. > [@](#): > > All of you apologizing fuckers can explain to me how this guy is mistaken. > > No, in fact, don’t bother. I have no more use for you. Since you address me a post later, a minute or two later this is clearly just embarassing rhetorical posturing on your part. I’ll be glad to discuss his post with you, if you like, but first you’ll have to become **Reasonable Hentor who I can discuss something with** and take off **Angry partisan bullshit Hentor** who insists that I will say people are mistaken before I am afforded the opportunity to read their posts. If you know I’m going to say he’s all wrong than don’t waste the time asking me about it? Capisce? You will notice of course, that Rieckoff doesn’t call anybody a “repugnican,” nor does he blame Bush. He instead addresses Senator Levin of the Armed Services committee. There are things I agree and disagree with in his post. But he makes a rational and reasonable argument which I have not seen from your band of dipshits in this thread. To try and put yourself on a par with him with the arguments that you’re making is more than a little self-serving and grandiose. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/57 "2006-01-10T04:35:13Z")
Dude, what study are you talking about? As I have said again and again that its already been decided. Its not a study. Its not a proposal. Its what the military has decided to do but it hasn’t been done yet. Here is one of a gazillion cites out there: [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-12-15-iraq-vehicles\_x.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-12-15-iraq-vehicles_x.htm) The armor and new vehicles that this money was spent on have not been finished one year latter. As for the body armor why don’t you read the fucking article linked in the OP? > [@](#): > > Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection. > [@](#): > > 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. Its been decided already. The troops need this body armor and they need their vehicles armored. This has not been done. > [@Scylla](#): > > Actually no. That again, would be the job of the Marine Corps, giving the troops the equipment necessary to the task and ensuring that they are not hazarded unnecessarily relevant to their job. So, once Bush says invade Iraq he can kick up his cowboy boots and go on vacation becuase his job is done? Absolutely not. He is ultimately responsible for everything the military does. The Marines work for him and its his job to oversee what they do. It is an unacceptable failure for this administration to send the military into harms way without ensuring that they get the equipment they need to do the job safely. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/58 "2006-01-10T07:36:55Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > This is what real war planning looks like: > This is what America could do in the 1940s. Surely it can put through the odd $107k report, or build a few score combat vehicles in the 2000s. Well, shit. That doesn’t count–those guys were at WAR…(oh yeah…, well, they were REALLY REALLY at war) ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/59 "2006-01-10T14:01:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As if the Pentagon operates in a vacuum, independent of any civilian control? That nothing the White House says or does makes any difference to it? Even you know better than that. You \*are \* defending something - Bush’s lack of leadership. Wrong. And I’ve already mentioned the GAO who has oversight (but unfortunately not veto) of all of federal spending. > [@](#): > > I’m trying to offer you an out. If you’re instead going to claim you made that silly little rant, pretending that “our ilk” would say or do something that would prove your hypocrisy when you have zero evidence for it, while _sober_, that’s even scarier. No, not scarier, just sadder - that would mean your condition can never get better. If getting “better” means catching whatever the fuck you’ve got, I’d prefer to be terminal. And I don’t need an out. Words and thoughts posted by you and your ilk repeatedly over five years seem to be a pretty strong indication that identical behavior is likely to continue. If procurement of body armor had been fast-tracked, and the product proved imperfect, you assholes would be screaming to the high heavens about cronyism and corruption in “BushCo.” As for your WWII example, you’re aware, of course, that many, many U.S. (and allied) servicemen died as a direct result of military acquisitions of substandard materiel, right? You keep trying to make some stupid points with your infantile quips about my user name. Seems a really foolish thing to do when it comes from someone whose name indicates a belief that the dead are walking among us. Maybe John Edward is more your speed than Sylvia Browne. > [@](#): > > Right after she got done laughing at your ritual demonization of all those nasty liberals, like the one a few posts above. Your mention of predictability and caricaturization is, however, just more projection, though, isn’t it? Yup. I treat kind with kind. I responded to the ritual demonization if Republicans with the same. Pity you’re too blind to see the hypocrisy of yourself and your brothers. > [@](#): > > When one doesn’t have anything left to say … Now go join **Scylla** over in the self-pitying denial corner. You two have a lot to talk about, I’m sure. Well, there wasn’t much left to say. I’d voiced my objections to every substantive point you and your brothers in idiocy (if indeed you clowns had made any substantive points) had made. A simple “Fuck off,” then, seemed perfectly appropriate since your followup response was eminently predictable. And I didn’t even need to consult Sylvia to predict it. Which is good, because her little nuggets of prophecy are just about equal in value with your little nuggets of stupidly blind partisanship. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860/60 "2006-01-10T14:56:42Z")
So for the people defending the Republicans here: Do they bear any responsibility? I think we can agree that Rumsfeld has a particularly close relationship with the President, and has very much been able to effect legislation. As Secretary of Defense is he responsible for insuring that our troops are properly equipped? Who is responsible? All I know is that when my husband was called up, we spent our own money to make sure that he was properly equipped with such things as GPS and Body Armor. So I guess it’s the soldier’s responsibility. If he can’t afford it, he deserves to die. Too bad for him. Keep in mind, that despite protestations to the contrary, Republicans control the Government from top down; if you get to take the credit, then you’d better damn well be ready to take the blame. Considering that the Republican Party has been the “Party of Personal Responsibility” since the dawn if time, it sure is telling what they do when they can’t blame the Democrats. They just blame others: The DoD, The CIA for supplying “faulty Intelligence”, The LA local Gov’t, “Overzealous, partisan prosecutors”, and of course; terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, oh, and did I mention terrorists? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/body-armor-we-are-still-dicking-around-repug-incompetence-kills/338860.md?page=4)