Hundreds of Marines dead and wounded because Adminstration dropped ball on Armour

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
May 29, 2007
1,414
127
48
If we want the Iraq war to continue, we need to start drafting people to relieve the unbelievable stress on soldiers, and get rid of the Bush tax cuts to pay for more armour and better equipement in a timely manner.


Study: Lack of MRAPs cost Marine lives

Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

Cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down the request for the so-called MRAPs, according to the study.

If the mass procurement and fielding of MRAPs had begun in 2005 in response to the known and acknowledged threats at that time, as the (Marine Corps) is doing today, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented. While the possibility of individual corruption remains undetermined, the existence of corrupted MRAP processes is likely, and worthy of (inspector general) investigation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_mrap_deadly_delay_10


a fifth of veterans have been impacted by stop-loss regulations or extensions beyond their promised deployment, which is one year for the Army and seven months for the Marine Corps.

Army soldiers committed suicide last year [2006] at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

...Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.

"In addition, there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed" in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby countries where troops are participating in the war effort, it said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who not only attempted, but succeeded in killing themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502027.html?hpid=topnews


The Army’s first study of the mental health of troops who fought in Iraq found that about one in eight reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5334479/
.
 
If we want the Iraq war to continue, we need to start drafting people to relieve the unbelievable stress on soldiers, and get rid of the Bush tax cuts to pay for more armour and better equipement in a timely manner.

Are you kidding? THIS again?

The administration is NOT in charge of military procurement. The military is. So much for THIS bullshit.
 
If we want the Iraq war to continue, we need to start drafting people to relieve the unbelievable stress on soldiers, and get rid of the Bush tax cuts to pay for more armour and better equipement in a timely manner.









.

Do you actually believe the Chinese will provide us with FIRST QUALITY STEEL to accomplish what you suggest??????????:rolleyes: :eusa_whistle:
 
Are you kidding? THIS again?

The administration is NOT in charge of military procurement. The military is. So much for THIS bullshit.

Oh please. Before Bush (the commander in chief) sent us off to war, he should have checked with the military. Bush: “Hey guys. I think that we should go to war. Do you have more double the armor that you think that you will need for this war?”

This reminds me of Rumsfeld.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."


How callous and shortsighted can an administration be?
 
Oh please. Before Bush (the commander in chief) sent us off to war, he should have checked with the military. Bush: “Hey guys. I think that we should go to war. Do you have more double the armor that you think that you will need for this war?”

This reminds me of Rumsfeld.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."


How callous and shortsighted can an administration me?


Our kids went into Afghanistan ON FLIPPIN' CARDBOARD, PLYWOOD AND SANDBAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not the Army you might want BUT HIS FUCKING ASS WASN'T ON THE LINE NOW WAS IT??????????:eusa_wall:
 
Another irrelivent and stupid thread from DCD....What a surprise!

THe administration has nothing to do with any of your suggested responsabilities....

... threads of lies so transparent just support the conservative platform by exposing the angry and dishonest left..

Keep them coming DCD... people like you hurt your own cause... its pretty commical...
 
If we want the Iraq war to continue, we need to start drafting people to relieve the unbelievable stress on soldiers, and get rid of the Bush tax cuts to pay for more armour and better equipement in a timely manner.




Oh for the love of god!!!! Bush is not in charge of what the military does with the money it is given!!! 2. I have been to Iraq 4 times and going back for my 5th, I DONT WANT DRAFTEES IN MY FU$&ING ARMY!!!! We are a professional military now and we would really like to keep it that way!!! 3. Will anyone fu%@ing blame Clinton for destroying the military over the 90's? People don't go to war with the military they WANT!!! WE GO WITH THE MILITARY WE HAVE!!! Try listening to the troops for one time!
 
If we want the Iraq war to continue, we need to start drafting people to relieve the unbelievable stress on soldiers, and get rid of the Bush tax cuts to pay for more armour and better equipement in a timely manner.




Oh for the love of god!!!! Bush is not in charge of what the military does with the money it is given!!!

The people He puts in charge of the Pentagon are. Therefore, the Pentagon's performance is ultimately Bush's responsibility

I have been to Iraq 4 times and going back for my 5th, I DONT WANT DRAFTEES IN MY FU$&ING ARMY!!!!

LOL. 5th tour? Nice trolling. The average length of tour for an army soldier in Iraq is between 12 and 15 months. Which means you've been stationed in Iraq for between four and five years. The ENTIRE length of the war, you've been stationed there. LOL


We are a professional military now and we would really like to keep it that way!!! 3. Will anyone fu%@ing blame Clinton for destroying the military over the 90's? People don't go to war with the military they WANT!!! WE GO WITH THE MILITARY WE HAVE!!! Try listening to the troops for one time!

LOL, again, nice trolling.
 
The people He puts in charge of the Pentagon are. Therefore, the Pentagon's performance is ultimately Bush's responsibility



LOL. 5th tour? Nice trolling. The average length of tour for an army soldier in Iraq is between 12 and 15 months. Which means you've been stationed in Iraq for between four and five years. The ENTIRE length of the war, you've been stationed there. LOL




LOL, again, nice trolling.


The people in charge of each service have different needs and they spend accordingly. B the AVERAGE length of a tour is 12 to 15 months. I see you love the media. Tell me MR. know-it-all how long does the average special ops soldier spend over there on each deployment? I was there in 03', 05', 06', 07', and going back later this year. What does that equal smartass? :eusa_think: And on the last part yea no one wants to look at Clinton and say he fu*$ed something up. He downsized the military period. Now we are paying the price. There is no looking past that.
 
The people in charge of each service have different needs and they spend accordingly. B the AVERAGE length of a tour is 12 to 15 months. I see you love the media. Tell me MR. know-it-all how long does the average special ops soldier spend over there on each deployment? I was there in 03', 05', 06', 07', and going back later this year. What does that equal smartass? :eusa_think: And on the last part yea no one wants to look at Clinton and say he fu*$ed something up. He downsized the military period. Now we are paying the price. There is no looking past that.

DCD is a coward that hides behind the men and women that protect his sorry ass so he can bad mouth the Country, our President and our military. He doesn't know crap about the military. Proven yet again by claiming the President and the Secretary's of the Different branches are some how responsible for orders like what this thread is about. He has not a clue how the marine Corps works or why they would not want , at least initially, vehicles that could not be easily shipped around the globe nor loaded aboard the ships that the Marines depend on for transportation. He has not got a clue why it is that the military general does not buy "off the shelf" having learned in earlier years that a lot of times without adequate testing and assessments for mobility and shipment types and needs things waste money. Money the Marine Corps almost never has.

He has no concept of the hide bound nature of military procurement and the systems they use and standard procedures they depend on to keep from being yanked before Congress to explain why they bought 2000 trucks that did not work properly or they did not have authority to spend the money on.
 
Oh please. Before Bush (the commander in chief) sent us off to war, he should have checked with the military. Bush: “Hey guys. I think that we should go to war. Do you have more double the armor that you think that you will need for this war?”

This reminds me of Rumsfeld.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."


How callous and shortsighted can an administration be?

Perhaps you should avail yourself of the facts prior to making ignorant statments?

The body armor the military had in 2000 was the best body armor the military had tested, given the stamp of approval, and purchased. The argument being made is, as most liberal finger-ponting arguments are, dishonesty at its finest.

Someone in the police/civilian sector made some arguably "better" body armor and the left immediately started making bullshit accusations.

And no, it is NOT the President's job to ask "Do your men have the latest greatest version of body armor?" That's about as lame as the people trying to hold him accountable for individual military personnel committing crimes.
 
Our kids went into Afghanistan ON FLIPPIN' CARDBOARD, PLYWOOD AND SANDBAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not the Army you might want BUT HIS FUCKING ASS WASN'T ON THE LINE NOW WAS IT??????????:eusa_wall:

You want it that way, try THIS ...

How long does it take the latest-greatest stuff to trickle down from procurement to actual issue? During my 20 years, it took about 4 years for new stuff to hit, and about 4 years during the 90s for the stuff we had to fall apart.

So WHO exactly would be responsible for troops deploying in 2001 with what they had?

BTW... the body armor was just fine for us.
 
Perhaps you should avail yourself of the facts prior to making ignorant statments?

The only fact in this that matters to me is that many soldiers were complaining that they did not have sufficient armor.

The body armor the military had in 2000 was the best body armor the military had tested, given the stamp of approval, and purchased. The argument being made is, as most liberal finger-ponting arguments are, dishonesty at its finest.

Then why were our fine soldiers complaining?

And no, it is NOT the President's job to ask "Do your men have the latest greatest version of body armor?" That's about as lame as the people trying to hold him accountable for individual military personnel committing crimes.

The commander in chief has utmost responsibility of making sure that we are ready to go to war before sending us to war. It would not have taken much time or trouble at all for him to consult with the armory, defense department, generals, etc. and make sure that everything is ready.
 
The commander in chief has utmost responsibility of making sure that we are ready to go to war before sending us to war. It would not have taken much time or trouble at all for him to consult with the armory, defense department, generals, etc. and make sure that everything is ready.[/QUOTE]


Should the people of the United States be responsible for electing a leader that has failed like you said?:eusa_think:
 
The only fact in this that matters to me is that many soldiers were complaining that they did not have sufficient armor.



Then why were our fine soldiers complaining?



The commander in chief has utmost responsibility of making sure that we are ready to go to war before sending us to war. It would not have taken much time or trouble at all for him to consult with the armory, defense department, generals, etc. and make sure that everything is ready.

I believe this was one of the failed executions of the war. I support the justification for the war.Although I agree with you, that it is unthinkable to send our troops in harms way without the proper equipment. I don't think it is reasonable for the President to go out on the battlefield and analyze all of our military equipment or for that matter field commanders. I do believe the President should have ensured clear communications between the Pentagon and field commanders during the war. In some way I believe there was a breakdown in communication. So that way he could have secured funding for needs when they were needed. Besides the Pentagon and the President didn't even expect IED's.
 

Forum List

Back
Top