My friend who is ex-military says that all the huffing and puffing about up-armoring the Humvees is disingenuous. The enemy uses the least powerful weapon that will get the job done. If we armor the Humvees, they just will go to a larger calliber weapon and accomplish the same thing. This is the nature of war. People die. Courage and confidence waver.
That is why my brother in law who is 20 yr retired special forces voted for a Democrat for the first time for president in 2004. That is why you should not support stupid wars even if you are a loyal Republican.
That is like saying we shouldn't really give the troops flak jackets. The enemy will just use armor piercing ammo. Why even use planes or mortars, or any artillery? The enemy will just use something different to make them ineffective. With that kind of reasoning we could probably cut the military budget in half. I think you give the troops everything they need to have the best chance, and that includes armored humvees.
You guys are absolutely right. There is nothing to be concerned about. Bush is not running for office again. His and Cheney's approval ratings will have no effect on the elections in 2006 and 2008. This is just common sense.
Sending the troops into harm's way without proper armor is exposing them to danger, but I guess that doesn't matter to President Bush if he wants to give the top 1% another tax break.
Yep, but unfortunately we're stuck with the nincompoop running the country for another two years. That is the problem.
I'm just telling you what a retired military guy's comment was; I would think he would know something. You can take it to extreme and ridicule it but I think you get his point. You can armor up to a point....
Sooo more armor would be just a waist of money? I understand what you and your friend are saying, but don't you think more armor would produce fewer casualties? Near misses might not have as much effect. Larger bombs would be more expensive, easier to spot and more difficult to build. Our troops deserve the best we can give them.
I do understand his point, and I disagree with it. Even if inusrgents are ableto develop the kinds of bombs that would go through that, how many attacks would it take them to figure out? How many lives would that save? Is it possible that while they were developing this stuff we could actually stop some of them? The rationale behind your friend's argument is one that I don't see the sense in if it is examined with more than superficial depth.
I don't see how anybody can sit here and still argue that Bush has done a better job in Iraq than any other person with average intelligence could have. even basso has ceased with the propaganda.
well this makes total sense. maybe if they go over there with no armor or protection the terrorists will just use water guns. im actually suprised that dubya's approval rating is as high as it is. just goes to show that the american people arent paying attention as much as they should be.
He's got 20 years in the military and you have how many? Sure more armor would prevent more casualties but it would also make the humvees better targets as they lose speed and maneuverability due to more weight. It's a matter or proportion and, sadly, apportionment.
3 years left and he's a lame duck already, unpopular presidents accomplish zero (i.e.) uae port deal.
