|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:30 am Post subject: Re: OK Bush fans, explain this one away |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 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. |
This isn't worth responding to. C'mon, you can do a hell of a lot better than that. I'm not being facetious: you have done much better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was listening to a podcast of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and they interviewed a former colonel who is a member of the group Soldiers for the Truth that found the Pentagon study. In the interview, he was partnered with a colonel who was using the current body armor. Now my reaction while listening to this was that the whole thing had nothing to do with Bush. The choices were made in the 1990s not currently. The study is recent. The other interesting detail was that the colonel (Lt. Col. Roger Charles) was talking about how great the other body armor (Dragonskin) was. It made me wonder if the manufacturers of the product caused the study to be leaked.
Anyways, the current body armor is called Interceptor and was modified 5 times during the war. So that shows that the military is concerned in some way. My point to say again, is that someone is worried and is trying to change things.
Another thing is that they are fighting an insurgency. This means that the fighting is up close and personal, and will be full of ambushes. So just like other insurgencies, the other side learns quickly (to stay alive) how to hurt soldiers. In city fighting, the ambushers will have time to pick their targets and even aim for the better spots. It sounded like from the report I listened to, that they are looking for any weak spot. So unless the U.S. military was willing to invest in full armor (like knights) there would still be dead and wounded.
Your main argument is that Bush should know everything and must have the power to fix everything. On the other hand, you have a signature that calls G.W. a moron (not disagreeing with that mind you) This is what I'm arguing about with you. You can't have it both ways. If it is anybody in the administration's direct fault, it would have to Donald Rumsfield who was in charge of deciding what gets bought and what doesn't. In fact, he has shown a definite interest in changing how the military does things.
Besides ignoring your own comments about Bush's intelligence as a factor for why the body armor is immediately being updated, is that you're ignoring his own personal way of running his administration. He's a delegator. He picks people he trusts and then leaves them alone to do things. He wouldn't know about everything in the Department of Defense because he figures he doesn't have to know. The other point is, running something as big as the government means you have to delegate and you won't know every single detail. Nor can you simply change things overnight. Only politicians would say that can happen, and only suckers believe that can happen.
What amazes me about you is that in your mind, you have lumped me in with die hard republicans. Why? Because I try to argue with you and point out the flaws in your ideas. You attack by calling me naive, foolish, and cowardly. Would you like to say that to my face? I would be glad to give you the chance. Of course, you would have to be willing to accept what happens afterwards.
2 interesting sites
1. seems to be a military forum where they are discussing body armor, including how some don't seem to be wearing it all the time.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=38222.msg%25msg_id%25
2. The website describing the alternate body armor reccomended by Soldiers for Truth.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_PArmor,00.html
just found an interesting news article about soldiers views on body armor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor_10;_ylt=AkevrQ.0x3g3NcI6OvQXkCVsbEwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
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. |
Then you are no better than the ones you hate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riley wrote: |
I was listening to a podcast of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and they interviewed a former colonel who is a member of the group Soldiers for the Truth that found the Pentagon study. In the interview, he was partnered with a colonel who was using the current body armor. Now my reaction while listening to this was that the whole thing had nothing to do with Bush. The choices were made in the 1990s not currently. The study is recent. The other interesting detail was that the colonel (Lt. Col. Roger Charles) was talking about how great the other body armor (Dragonskin) was. It made me wonder if the manufacturers of the product caused the study to be leaked.
Anyways, the current body armor is called Interceptor and was modified 5 times during the war. So that shows that the military is concerned in some way. My point to say again, is that someone is worried and is trying to change things.
Another thing is that they are fighting an insurgency. This means that the fighting is up close and personal, and will be full of ambushes. So just like other insurgencies, the other side learns quickly (to stay alive) how to hurt soldiers. In city fighting, the ambushers will have time to pick their targets and even aim for the better spots. It sounded like from the report I listened to, that they are looking for any weak spot. So unless the U.S. military was willing to invest in full armor (like knights) there would still be dead and wounded.
Your main argument is that Bush should know everything and must have the power to fix everything. On the other hand, you have a signature that calls G.W. a moron (not disagreeing with that mind you) This is what I'm arguing about with you. You can't have it both ways. If it is anybody in the administration's direct fault, it would have to Donald Rumsfield who was in charge of deciding what gets bought and what doesn't. In fact, he has shown a definite interest in changing how the military does things.
Besides ignoring your own comments about Bush's intelligence as a factor for why the body armor is immediately being updated, is that you're ignoring his own personal way of running his administration. He's a delegator. He picks people he trusts and then leaves them alone to do things. He wouldn't know about everything in the Department of Defense because he figures he doesn't have to know. The other point is, running something as big as the government means you have to delegate and you won't know every single detail. Nor can you simply change things overnight. Only politicians would say that can happen, and only suckers believe that can happen.
What amazes me about you is that in your mind, you have lumped me in with die hard republicans. Why? Because I try to argue with you and point out the flaws in your ideas. You attack by calling me naive, foolish, and cowardly. Would you like to say that to my face? I would be glad to give you the chance. Of course, you would have to be willing to accept what happens afterwards.
2 interesting sites
1. seems to be a military forum where they are discussing body armor, including how some don't seem to be wearing it all the time.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=38222.msg%25msg_id%25
2. The website describing the alternate body armor reccomended by Soldiers for Truth.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_PArmor,00.html
just found an interesting news article about soldiers views on body armor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor_10;_ylt=AkevrQ.0x3g3NcI6OvQXkCVsbEwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl |
Excellent post sir. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) -- Soldiers exposed to Iraq's increasingly lethal roadside bombs, which can rip through armored Humvees, are drawing on wartime experience and stateside expertise to protect their vehicles with stronger armor and thermal detection cameras.
The upgrades are being done by individual soldiers and units as the Pentagon decides how Humvees should be changed, and follow public criticism of the Bush administration for not armoring all Humvees ahead of the war.
Nearly three years after rolling into Iraq in trucks covered in many instances only by canvas roofs, the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade is adding extra layers of armor to its Humvees.
Col. Michael Steele, the brigade's commander, said he ordered the improvements because the insurgents' roadside bombs -- known to the military as "improvised explosive devices" -- have become bigger and harder to detect.
"The responsibility of the commander is to figure out what we need to respond to this evolving threat. The easiest, the fastest and most appropriate answer is add additional armor," Steele said.
Iraqi insurgents are also using more anti-tank mines and making bombs that can penetrate the Humvee's current armor. Among the more deadly devices are explosives shaped to funnel a blast through Humvee plating -- sophisticated bombs that officials suspect are being imported from neighboring countries like Iran.
Because additional armor won't always stop such explosives -- one bomb destroyed an Abrams battle tank last month, for instance -- a National Guard unit in Baghdad has added detection devices and other measures to protect its Humvees.
Drawing on the part-time soldiers' backgrounds as mechanics, electricians and carpenters, the 126th Armor Battalion based in suburban Grand Rapids, Michigan, added thermal imaging cameras and a 6-foot boom that can be lowered in front of the Humvee. Dangling chains and an infrared countermeasure on the boom can help trigger explosives before the Humvee is directly over them, said Lt. John Caras.
Caras, a former Marine, was the driving force behind the improvements, which have been made to six of the unit's Humvees.
"Right from the beginning, I was looking for ways to go on the offensive," he said of the upgrades, which also include extra bulletproof glass around the Humvee gunner and lights and sirens to help with traffic control.
Many Humvees around Iraq also jam signals like cell phones, garage door openers and other remote-control devices used by insurgents to detonate explosives.
U.S. troops in the past have hardened soft-skin Humvees by using upgrade kits or by attaching spare steel to their vehicles, and the Army's chief of staff now requires that all combat vehicles in Iraq be armored. The military now has more than 25,000 armored Humvees in the country.
No Humvee successor in sight
Commanders in Iraq and at the Pentagon have debated how to further improve the Humvee. The Army also has tested several vehicles to replace it, but a successor has not been developed.
There have been 43 bomb and mine attacks on Humvees operated by the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade since September, killing nine soldiers and injuring dozens.
Given those numbers, Steele said the need for new armor was apparent.
"There are a whole bunch of IEDs that are above the current protection level for the armored Humvee," he said. "Everybody has been trying to do something over the last couple of years."
Army officials would not comment on where Humvees have failed or detail how the armor improvements differ from current designs.
Nearly all the 530 Humvees in the Fort Campbell, Kentucky-based brigade, which is deployed to north-central Iraq, will be upgraded at a makeshift assembly line the brigade created at Camp Speicher in Tikrit.
Maj. Tom Bryant, the brigade spokesman, said the armor program is not a reaction to faulty equipment but a response to change on the battlefield.
"We're not interested in creating controversy," he said. "It's about saving soldiers lives."
'I'm not willing to wait'
While the brigade plans to upgrade all its Humvees, the program is not in official use elsewhere. Francis Harvey, the secretary of the Army, was briefed on the improvements to the Humvee's armor months ago.
There is no Humvee armor strong enough to protect against roadside bombs packed with thousands of pounds of explosives, which the Army categorizes as "catastrophic IEDs," Steele said.
"There is nothing wrong with the Army," he said. "But I'm not willing to wait. I'm not sure I would be the priority, and I don't know how many of my guys could be hurt or killed between now and then."
The National Guard unit's Humvee improvements also have been passed up the chain of command, but it's not clear if the military plans to make the changes on more vehicles.
Caras said the additions like the infrared camera -- which might detect the thermal footprint of a bomb hidden among roadside debris -- help turn the Humvee from an armor-wrapped defensive shell into an offensive vehicle.
"It's about moving to where the problem is and counteracting it," he said. "Your purpose is to move against any enemy that's out there."
Commanders in both units say insurgents are adept at hiding their work and improving their bombs. And they are quick to learn.
"All the stupid ones are dead," said Capt. Jamey Turner of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a brigade commander in Beiji. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/14/iraq.humvees.ap/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:19 am 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. [...]
This was my point when I wrote about fanatics. I hate that they are unwilling to listen and accept that they may be wrong. |
The little winking-eye smiley was supposed to communicate the fact that I was kidding around ...
I honestly don't know whether Dubya is clueless or in league with the devil. Regardless of which, he is clearly bad for my country. So, I don't like him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
