Marines left swinging in the breeze...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<blockquote>The system for delivering badly needed gear to Marines in Iraq has failed to meet many urgent requests for equipment from troops in the field, according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.

Of more than 100 requests from deployed Marine units between February 2006 and February 2007, less than 10 percent have been fulfilled, the document says. It blamed the bureaucracy and a "risk-averse" approach by acquisition officials.

Among the items held up were a mine resistant vehicle and a hand-held laser system.- <a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_critical_gear&printer=1;_ylt=A0WTcUxalF5GRNcAlQ2WwvIE>AP</a></blockquote>

It would seem to me that if this administration was was as interested in supporting the troops as it claims to be, they would waste no time in removing the bureaucratic hurdles in the procurement process. This is just another example of the lack of gravitas with which this administration has shown since the invasion of Iraq.

Trying to wage war on the cheap, sending in fewer troops than commanders recommended (The ones recommending the more realistic troop numbers were shown the door}, the travesty at Walter Reed, the miserly increase in salary for our troops and an increase in the death benefit for their survivors, borrowing money to pay for the war rather than raising taxes, an now this. Yes, President Bush supports the troops.
 
<blockquote>The system for delivering badly needed gear to Marines in Iraq has failed to meet many urgent requests for equipment from troops in the field, according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.

Of more than 100 requests from deployed Marine units between February 2006 and February 2007, less than 10 percent have been fulfilled, the document says. It blamed the bureaucracy and a "risk-averse" approach by acquisition officials.

Among the items held up were a mine resistant vehicle and a hand-held laser system.- <a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_critical_gear&printer=1;_ylt=A0WTcUxalF5GRNcAlQ2WwvIE>AP</a></blockquote>

It would seem to me that if this administration was was as interested in supporting the troops as it claims to be, they would waste no time in removing the bureaucratic hurdles in the procurement process. This is just another example of the lack of gravitas with which this administration has shown since the invasion of Iraq.

Trying to wage war on the cheap, sending in fewer troops than commanders recommended (The ones recommending the more realistic troop numbers were shown the door}, the travesty at Walter Reed, the miserly increase in salary for our troops and an increase in the death benefit for their survivors, borrowing money to pay for the war rather than raising taxes, an now this. Yes, President Bush supports the troops.


Yer full of crap and so is the media. You know nothing of military acquisition processes and neither does the media. As for the bureaucratic hurdles, they were put in place to curb the "military/industrial" demon you so greatly fear.

Having been in the military, you know damn well how the requisition systems work (or you should). Not every soldier sailor or airman gets his own 500 gallon flamethrower or F-18.

Buried deep in the article is this:

The industrial capacity did not exist to quickly build the new mine resistant vehicles and the more heavily armored Humvees were viewed as a suitable solution, Marine Corps officials said

and this:

But because the lasers had not passed a safety review process, stateside authorities barred the Marines from using them.


Your rhetoric becomes more hollow every day.
 
For those interested in the MRAP:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-05-31-mrap-insurgents_N.htm?csp=34

MRAPs can't stop newest weapon

Of course, we should just send the substandard stuff so folks like Bully can bray some more about caring for the troops.

Your link wouldn't load. Yeah like the Dragon Skin flak vests the Pentagon won't let our troops use in favor of the inferior Interceptor vests. Bite me CSM...We've all had family and friends serving and killed in Iraq, including me. My brother-in-law just got back from Iraq and a buddy I trained with in martial arts came back from Iraq in a body bag, so just bite me.
 
Your link wouldn't load. Yeah like the Dragon Skin flak vests the Pentagon won't let our troops use in favor of the inferior Interceptor vests. Bite me CSM...We've all had family and friends serving and killed in Iraq, including me. My brother-in-law just got back from Iraq and a buddy I trained with in martial arts came back from Iraq in a body bag, so just bite me.

Drop yer linen and start your grinnin.....

Now you are a weapons/armor expert. I truly am sorry for your loss, but that doesn't mean you are now an expert on military acquisition. maybe if you took the time to understand the issues instead of spouting off, you could help. I suppose that would require some actual effort on your part though.

You are correct, some of us have had family and friends suffer because of Iraq. That does not mean your foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric is truthful.
 
Sorry, I deserved that. But it's really tiresome hearing how anyone opposed to this war and the Bush administration's pursuit of it doesn't give a shit about the troops in harms way. That's bullshit and we both know it.
 
Sorry, I deserved that. But it's really tiresome hearing how anyone opposed to this war and the Bush administration's pursuit of it doesn't give a shit about the troops in harms way. That's bullshit and we both know it.

Apology accepted.

You never saw a post from me proclaiming that those opposed to the war are somehow unpatriotic or non supportive of the troops. Neither is anyone who does support the war necessarily a Bush bot (or any other denigrating adjective). There is a reasonable and logical position on both sides.

Not everything is Bush's fault and not everything the libs fault or the Dem's fault etc. Whenever we as citizens at least try to understand the other side's POV we have some common ground a basis for true debate and discussion...possibly even for compromise. When either side goes rabid, there is no possibility for anything.
 
Your link wouldn't load. Yeah like the Dragon Skin flak vests the Pentagon won't let our troops use in favor of the inferior Interceptor vests. Bite me CSM...We've all had family and friends serving and killed in Iraq, including me. My brother-in-law just got back from Iraq and a buddy I trained with in martial arts came back from Iraq in a body bag, so just bite me.
You state the opinion that Dragon Skin is superior to Interceptor body armor as though it is a categorical fact. That is far from accurate. If it were true, then the implication is that the Defense Dept (and therefore the Administration) is deliberately allowing our soldiers to be wounded or killed unnecessarily: a horrific allegation. It seems to me that you lunge at anything that will portray the Administration negatively, whether accurate or exaggerated seems to be irrelevant to you.

The other opinion about Pinnacle (Dragon Skin) armor:
Of the eight Pinnacle vests tested, four of them failed the tests, with 13 rounds penetrating completely on the first or second shot, Brown said. After the first complete penetration, the vests technically failed the test, but the Army continued the testing to be fair, he said.

The Pinnacle vests also were subjected to extreme temperature variations, from minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, which would be a realistic cycle if the equipment was loaded onto a plane and flown to the Middle East, Brown said. These temperature tests caused the adhesive holding the Dragon Skin&#8217;s protective discs together to fail, and the discs gathered at the bottom of the vest, leaving gaps in protection, he said.

Brown also noted that the Dragon Skin vests are significantly heavier and thicker than the Interceptor vests. Dragon Skin vests in size extra large are 47.5 pounds and 1.7 to 1.9 inches thick; the Interceptor vests in size large, which offer an equivalent coverage area, weigh 28 pounds and are 1.3 inches thick.

&#8220;Bottom line is, it does not meet Army standards,&#8221; Brown said of the Pinnacle body armor.

Complete article: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46113

Some other links on this topic:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/05/28/body-armor-wars-the-way-forward/

http://op-for.com/2007/05/dragon_skin_redux.html
 
You state the opinion that Dragon Skin is superior to Interceptor body armor as though it is a categorical fact. That is far from accurate. If it were true, then the implication is that the Defense Dept (and therefore the Administration) is deliberately allowing our soldiers to be wounded or killed unnecessarily: a horrific allegation. It seems to me that you lunge at anything that will portray the Administration negatively, whether accurate or exaggerated seems to be irrelevant to you.

The other opinion about Pinnacle (Dragon Skin) armor:

Some other links on this topic:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/05/28/body-armor-wars-the-way-forward/

http://op-for.com/2007/05/dragon_skin_redux.html

Well, we can't have anything presented that remotely looks like facts, so you are summarily dismissed!
 
Not everything is Bush's fault and not everything the libs fault or the Dem's fault etc. Whenever we as citizens at least try to understand the other side's POV we have some common ground a basis for true debate and discussion...possibly even for compromise. When either side goes rabid, there is no possibility for anything.


hehehe...

can someone bronze this message and hang it on the wall around here?
 
You state the opinion that Dragon Skin is superior to Interceptor body armor as though it is a categorical fact. That is far from accurate. If it were true, then the implication is that the Defense Dept (and therefore the Administration) is deliberately allowing our soldiers to be wounded or killed unnecessarily: a horrific allegation. It seems to me that you lunge at anything that will portray the Administration negatively, whether accurate or exaggerated seems to be irrelevant to you.

The other opinion about Pinnacle (Dragon Skin) armor:

Some other links on this topic:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/05/28/body-armor-wars-the-way-forward/

http://op-for.com/2007/05/dragon_skin_redux.html

Well golly, an article from "<a href=http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=842>Defense Review</a>" will give you all the information you need and links to the data about the efficacy of Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor.
 
Well golly, an article from "<a href=http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=842>Defense Review</a>" will give you all the information you need and links to the data about the efficacy of Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor.

Sure, lets just ignore the testing done by the army and have people in the civilian sector determine what to buy, how much of it we need and just dispense with that pesky testing all together.
 
Hows about testing to DOD standards by an independent testing lab?

Why don't you aske CSM what happened when they were so hot to get a new weapon in the field they dumped the M-16 on some grunts in the field before all the bugs were worked out? Results were not good.

Why is it that Dems/liberals have been so quick to blame every little supply and equipment issue on Bush they can dream up, but nobody gave a damn when Clinton sent us out with stuff rigged so many times it was held together with bailing wire and duct tape? Oh yeah ... because he so-called "balanced the budget" by trimming our O&M,N and O&M,MC funding it was okay.

Right?
 
Why don't you aske CSM what happened when they were so hot to get a new weapon in the field they dumped the M-16 on some grunts in the field before all the bugs were worked out? Results were not good.

Why is it that Dems/liberals have been so quick to blame every little supply and equipment issue on Bush they can dream up, but nobody gave a damn when Clinton sent us out with stuff rigged so many times it was held together with bailing wire and duct tape? Oh yeah ... because he so-called "balanced the budget" by trimming our O&M,N and O&M,MC funding it was okay.

Right?

Ahhh yes...Mr. Stoner's AR-15!!!

The media gets wind of a test in which the manufacturer has a tiff with the government. Of course, the government is being unfair, rigs the test, and all that crap. Investigation after investigation, retests and more retests. Eventually, it all gets worked out, above mentioned crap gets fielded. It is an endless cycle.

Is it just me or are the vehicles getting bigger and heavier (MRAP anyone?). If it keeps going, each soldier will have his own Main Battle Tank to drive around.
 
Hows about testing to DOD standards by an independent testing lab?

I guess it must be embarrassing to be so totally owned on the board in front of everybody like that. But this is getting silly.

He proved that there is another side to the story, which was what it was about. Personally, I'm relatively sure the Army gave it a rigorous test. Particularly telling was how they fell apart in temp changes that they actually would have to go through to get to Iraq.

You write with assurance that they were "superior" then when shown that there may be another side to that, you get all "Let's test independantly"... Except that wasn't your cry before... It was "Bush sends them out there with INFERIOR blah, blah..."
 
Ahhh yes...Mr. Stoner's AR-15!!!

The media gets wind of a test in which the manufacturer has a tiff with the government. Of course, the government is being unfair, rigs the test, and all that crap. Investigation after investigation, retests and more retests. Eventually, it all gets worked out, above mentioned crap gets fielded. It is an endless cycle.

Is it just me or are the vehicles getting bigger and heavier (MRAP anyone?). If it keeps going, each soldier will have his own Main Battle Tank to drive around.

In all of that AR-15 hoo-ha, the weapon was originally designed to fire lubricated ammo; which, the military purchased, THEN told Stoner to modify the weapon to fire dry ammo.

No sense letting that ammo go to waste, right? It got shipped to Vietnam with the modified AR-15/M-16s. The result was lubricated ammo creating too high chamber pressures in weapons designed to fire dry ammo, resulting in malfunctioning/jammed weapons.

Not to mention handing a weapon to GIs in the field in a damned jungle no less that had to be kept meticulously clean or it would not cycle.
 
In all of that AR-15 hoo-ha, the weapon was originally designed to fire lubricated ammo; which, the military purchased, THEN told Stoner to modify the weapon to fire dry ammo.

No sense letting that ammo go to waste, right? It got shipped to Vietnam with the modified AR-15/M-16s. The result was lubricated ammo creating too high chamber pressures in weapons designed to fire dry ammo, resulting in malfunctioning/jammed weapons.

Not to mention handing a weapon to GIs in the field in a damned jungle no less that had to be kept meticulously clean or it would not cycle.

yeah, finally decided to plate the chamber and... whaddya know...it kinda worked. By the way, the lubricated ammo did a fine job of collecting every small piece of debris within a 10' radius.
 
Why don't you aske CSM what happened when they were so hot to get a new weapon in the field they dumped the M-16 on some grunts in the field before all the bugs were worked out? Results were not good.

Why is it that Dems/liberals have been so quick to blame every little supply and equipment issue on Bush they can dream up, but nobody gave a damn when Clinton sent us out with stuff rigged so many times it was held together with bailing wire and duct tape? Oh yeah ... because he so-called "balanced the budget" by trimming our O&M,N and O&M,MC funding it was okay.

Right?

I will admit to not paying close attention during the 90s, as making money was far more important to me than politics, and if you say that Clinton sent you out with stuff rigged so many times it was held together with bailing wire and duct tape, I am forced to believe you... but... I don't recall Clinton ever deploying 160,000 troops anywhere... a few cruise missiles sure... but 160,000 troops? I don't think so.

The Iraq war is bush's baby... not Clinton's... so the state of the gear NOW is own bush's shoulders, not on Clinton's...
 
Ahhh yes...Mr. Stoner's AR-15!!!

The media gets wind of a test in which the manufacturer has a tiff with the government. Of course, the government is being unfair, rigs the test, and all that crap. Investigation after investigation, retests and more retests. Eventually, it all gets worked out, above mentioned crap gets fielded. It is an endless cycle.

Is it just me or are the vehicles getting bigger and heavier (MRAP anyone?). If it keeps going, each soldier will have his own Main Battle Tank to drive around.

Could be, CSM, could be...

Does the fact that the majority of americans are now overweight have anything to do with the vehicles needing to be bigger and heavier?

I'm serious... this isn't a smartassed question even if it sounds like it is.

and about each soldier having their own battle tank... the military-industrial complex would love that...

THAT was a smartassed comment...

laffs...
 

Forum List

Back
Top