| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| How heavier is it than the type of bodyarmor that is now in the Marines kit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
When I was in the Corps, it was a Kevlar "flak jacket." When you're wearing a helmet, carrying a weapon, and sometimes a 50-lbs. pack on patrol, it's already heavy enough.
I don't know how much more the better quality body armor weighs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Conservative math: 260$ for plates or thousands of $ for rehab and surgeries or 500,000$ death payout to the family.
God I love the conservatives and their funny math skills. |
Conservatives are not known for funding PREVENTION and HARM-REDUCTION programs in other areas of social policy either.
And they are known to have optimistic predictions for success in war and social planning... not a single conservative would have admitted that over two thousand Americans would die in Iraq (and they'll deny that ANOTHER two thousand Americans will die before they pull out). |
Well maybe not in America but damn there sure was a lot of prevention type campaigns in Canada before I left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In any case, I did not see the President's name, Administration, or any of his policies referenced in this article. While I am not "a Bush fan" and I am not interested in "explaining this one away," I would like to better understand this tendency to chronically blame W. Bush for each and every problem in the U.S., indeed, in the world. Really, it isn't even annoying anymore...I just want to understand the mechanics of this knee-jerk reaction. |
It definitely has a spiritual component to it.
Like you said, I don't support some of his policies either. Like starting the war.
However, people have gone absolutely nuts trying to pin everything on the guy. The news in Canada, which is liberal/NDP////Communist in most cases is trying to make Harper look like a bed fellow of Bush. So they can get their pal, Martin back in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: Re: OK Bush fans, explain this one away |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| It was the military officials who decided against extra armour, not Bush. As for him waving a pen, or firing people, the first is nonsensical as is the second. He'd have to hire new people and get them trained. As the C in C he relies on his military experts and generals to make the best decisions. |
What nice little fantasy world do you live in.
One, as C-in-C he can stick his nose into anything he wants. Sorry, no free ride. Two, what's to prevent him from saying, "Get them appropriate armor" (I realize with war it's not a one-armor-fits-all situation) "or I'll kick your sorry ass"? As for *relying* on his experts: BS!!!! He and Cheney have run the war in Iraq as they wished. Common knowledge. Sorry, no free rides.
After three years we are still hearing stories of inadequate armor? This C-in-C needs a little military viagra. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
You people worry me. How do you have the energy to have the same argument, recycled and reworded, spread out over hundreds of threads and thousands of posts. Don't you get tired of having the same fight every friggin day? It's cliche to say it, but seriously, get a life. More and more I think you guys do it just to hear yourself talk, so to speak. Has it ever accomplished anything? Even once?
I'm not knocking the forum altogether, I'm all for spirited debate, but christ ANOTHER Bush Is Evil thread. The more and more I come on here, the less and less I find there is to actually talk about. Not you folks though. Your passion for this absurdity is a little freaky.
��S�� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| The more and more I come on here, the less and less I find there is to actually talk about. |
Me, too!! Not enough "Bush is Evil" threads!!!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| The more and more I come on here, the less and less I find there is to actually talk about. |
Me, too!! Not enough "Bush is Evil" threads!!!
|
The problem is, though ... he is.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster,
I think the problem that some of us have with the "Bush is Evil" people is that one hand they are willing to say how stupid he is but then immediately say how he must know everything and be an expert at everything. They don't see the fundamental flaw in their thinking.
This reminds me of the far right wackos who say that the U.N. is incompetent but then say that the U.N. is out to take over the United States.
This was my point when I wrote about fanatics. I hate that they are unwilling to listen and accept that they may be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I would like to better understand this tendency to chronically blame W. Bush for each and every problem in the U.S., indeed, in the world. Really, it isn't even annoying anymore...I just want to understand the mechanics of this knee-jerk reaction. |
Because Ken Starr and the boys demanded accountability for a Presidential fling with a secretary.
Accountability now means anti-Americanism.
Peace is war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| Because Ken Starr and the boys demanded accountability for a Presidential fling with a secretary. |
| Quote: |
There is a picture by Paul Klee called Angelus Novus. In it, an angel is depicted who appears as if trying to distance himself from something that he stares at. His eyes and mouth gape wide, his wings are stressed to their limit.
The Angel of History must look this way; he has turned to face the past. Where we see a constant chain of events, he sees only a single catastrophe incessantly piling ruin upon ruin and hurling them at his feet.
He would probably like to stop, waken the dead, and correct the devastation - but a storm is blowing hard from Paradise, and it is so strong he can no longer fold his wings.
While the debris piles toward the heavens before his eyes, the storm drives him incessantly into the Future that he has turned his back upon.
What we call Progress is this storm. -- Walter Benjamin, 1940 |
In other words, get over it and move on; obsessing on the past is no way to confront the present and the future. Disagree with W. Bush on his own merits (and there are many, even if the body armor issue is not one of them). But leave whatever Ann Coulter said last week, and Ken Starr, and Reagan, and Watergate, and Vietnam, and JFK, and Eisenhower, and FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court, and...and...and...out of it.
http://www.arts.ucsb.edu/faculty/budgett/angelus.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No.
The Republicans didn't. They stewed about Democrat licentiousness for 8 years and were eventually prepared to squander huge Clinton-era budgtetary surpluses to impose their agenda on America and the rest of the world. In their twisted logic, Presidential sexual misconduct is more important than plunging the world into a new era of constant warfare and bankrupting their nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riley wrote: |
Bobster,
I think the problem that some of us have with the "Bush is Evil" people is that one hand they are willing to say how stupid he is but then immediately say how he must know everything and be an expert at everything. They don't see the fundamental flaw in their thinking.
This reminds me of the far right wackos who say that the U.N. is incompetent but then say that the U.N. is out to take over the United States.
This was my point when I wrote about fanatics. I hate that they are unwilling to listen and accept that they may be wrong. |
Fundamental flaws? Every time you are pointing at someone saying they are inflexible because they don't see things how you do, you are being a hypocrite. (You in the "people" sense.)
Fundamental flaw? Just where does the buck stop? Bush has created a culture of death, deception, outright lying and lawlessness. It starts at the top and flows down in a torrent.
This is not rabidity. I did not have nearly as much trouble with Reagan because he wasn't nearly as bad. Screw you and your horse, ya know? We disagree, so we're fanatics? My take: you're naive, foolish and cowardly in your assessents. See? Goes both ways.
There is no "one" perspective. It is the debate that defines the future. All sides of the debate bring about the eventual reality, so stop denying that others views have legitimacy.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: Re: OK Bush fans, explain this one away |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| It was the military officials who decided against extra armour, not Bush. As for him waving a pen, or firing people, the first is nonsensical as is the second. He'd have to hire new people and get them trained. As the C in C he relies on his military experts and generals to make the best decisions. |
What nice little fantasy world do you live in.
One, as C-in-C he can stick his nose into anything he wants. Sorry, no free ride. Two, what's to prevent him from saying, "Get them appropriate armor" (I realize with war it's not a one-armor-fits-all situation) "or I'll kick your sorry ass"? As for *relying* on his experts: BS!!!! He and Cheney have run the war in Iraq as they wished. Common knowledge. Sorry, no free rides.
After three years we are still hearing stories of inadequate armor? This C-in-C needs a little military viagra. |
One as C-in-C his time is limited. To think that he personally oversees every little detail of the war in Iraq (and by extension blame him for every limitation) is ludicrous. A C-in-C knows how to delegate (or should).
Two. What? You just expect him to say "get approriate armour" and they will wave a magic wand.? Obviously the body armour that they were using is not sufficent. So to make new body armour they will have to get the manufactor(s) to update and replace their entire product line(s). That takes time (and a lot of it). Not to mention the time spent making enough to cover the soldiers in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
