Weapons of Mass Delusion

[Gunny]

Yes - yes I do understand what you’re saying. And maybe the kids coming home from Iraq don’t squawk about it anymore because they’ve gotten by and taken care of it themselves - like the one’s who’s parents have ponied up for their child’s body armor.

Somewhat like Mikal said yesterday, at 86: "The American soldiers are using my AK-47 that they've confiscated - because it’s a superior weapon".

Guess the "grunts" always improvise - we "squids" always did.

Did you REALLY think this argument would wash here any more than it did on TNFZ?

First, ANY US military person opting a stamped-metal, piece-of-crap bullet-thrower over then M-16A2/M-4 gets my vote for mess duty in the pot shack.

Second, there aren't any parents "ponying up" for body armor. That is a myth perpetuated by the left based on the grandstanding actions of a few lefties three years ago as they tried to spead the misinformation that US troops were being sent into combat without body armor. Hogwash.

US troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq, some with a newer version of the same-old body armor we had in the 90s, some with the older version.

US military history during the era of modern warfare has been a story of events taking place faster than technology can keep up. US Marines in the Phillppines at the outset of WWII still wore doughboy helmets and were armed with '03 Springfields and water-cooled Browning machineguns. Then there is the matter of the US's fighter aircraft at the outset of WWII .......

This is no different a scenario. The left's attempt to act like if one piece of body armor exists that is superior to the rest, then all pieces should be replaced in a manner of seconds is an impossible expectation. But then, isn't that how it always is with you lefties?

The body armor gets to the field as fast as any other technology. Simple as that.

Another thing missing from your argument is the fact that troops in 2003/2006 wouldn't be wearing the same body armor Ronald Reagan bought for us had Clinton not cut the military's financial throat in his grand scheme to "balance the budget."

And I didn't hear any damned whining when US troops were sent to Kosovo with "inferior" body armor. OH, but Tralierpark Bill sent THEM ......

 

[Darwins Friend]

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/APC06/604030543/1036

"To the U.S. Army, for telling soldiers they can't protect themselves. Soldiers serving in Iraq have long complained of inadequate body armor supplies, and many have taken to buying their own from private defense companies. Last year, the Army said it wouldn't reimburse soldiers for their purchases, causing a minor uproar. Now, it says it will forbid them from wearing non-issue armor altogether. The sad irony is that the only reason soldiers were spending hundreds of their own dollars on armor is because the Army isn't supplying them with what they need. This ban wouldn't be necessary if the Army had taken care of its soldiers in the first place."

 

[GotZoom]

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/APC06/604030543/1036

"To the U.S. Army, for telling soldiers they can't protect themselves. Soldiers serving in Iraq have long complained of inadequate body armor supplies, and many have taken to buying their own from private defense companies. Last year, the Army said it wouldn't reimburse soldiers for their purchases, causing a minor uproar. Now, it says it will forbid them from wearing non-issue armor altogether. The sad irony is that the only reason soldiers were spending hundreds of their own dollars on armor is because the Army isn't supplying them with what they need. This ban wouldn't be necessary if the Army had taken care of its soldiers in the first place."

Quoting an Editorial page?

I'm sure others can quote editorials and give opinions taking the opposite stand.

Oh wait...I think Gunny just did.

 

[Darwins Friend]

Quoting an Editorial page?

I'm sure others can quote editorials and give opinions taking the opposite stand.

Oh wait...I think Gunny just did.

Another Lie! (editorial)

Body armor battles

Published April 4, 2006

One of the most vital advances for modern American combat soldiers can be summed up in two words: body armor.

Troops in past wars were far more vulnerable to bullets and shrapnel than those who are fighting today in Iraq, many of whom have survived only because of this vital protection. Tremendous improvements in emergency medicine over the last half-century also now save many wounded combatants who would have died in earlier conflicts. Still, the best way to survive any war is to not be struck by any projectile that can penetrate human flesh.

But if body armor represents a blessing in this war, it also represents a failure. The Pentagon, failing to anticipate the violence that swept Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein, lacked enough modern bulletproof vests for everyone serving there. It also lagged in gearing up production of armored vehicles--leaving many soldiers in trucks that were painfully vulnerable to mines and roadside bombs. A lot of men and women in uniform decided they had no choice but to buy their own flak jackets and install makeshift armor on unclad vehicles.

So on this subject, the Defense Department doesn't enjoy complete credibility with those in the ranks. That may explain why the Army has felt compelled to put out a directive banning the use of any protective equipment it hasn't issued. Said Col. Thomas Spoehr, Army director of materiel, "We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff."

But if the Army is issuing better equipment, why would men and women in the field go to the trouble of procuring their own?

For a long time, it was because the military simply didn't have enough to go around. After that problem was solved, another emerged. In January, The New York Times revealed a secret Pentagon study that concluded that 80 percent of the Marines who died from torso wounds in Iraq might have survived had their protective vests been equipped with plates to shield their shoulders and the sides of their upper bodies. The study didn't count all the Army lives that might have been saved.

It was not until the Times story appeared that the Army decided to spend the extra money--about $450 per soldier--to furnish state-of-the-art protection to everyone who needs it. The new plates are supposed to be delivered over the next year to personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This equipment is not an unmixed blessing: Some Marines who have gotten the extra armor have chosen not to use it, because it adds weight and hampers mobility. But the Army has decided the trade-off is attractive enough to justify procuring 230,000 sets. So it's not surprising that soldiers still waiting for delivery from the government might want to get it elsewhere; better today than tomorrow.

Rather than bar soldiers from buying armor from private companies, the military could provide guidance on which gear is reliable and which is not. Better yet, it could supply all personnel with what it thinks they should have.

Until then, the Pentagon shouldn't get in the way of soldiers who think they need more protective gear than what they've been given.

(A Liberal Press: The only real defense against a President who would be King.)

 

[Darwins Friend]

Second, there aren't any parents "ponying up" for body armor. That is a myth perpetuated by the left based on the grandstanding actions of a few lefties three years ago as they tried to spead the misinformation that US troops were being sent into combat without body armor. Hogwash.

Protecting our troops
Charlottesville Daily Progress
Tuesday, April 4, 2006

Remember all that body armor that families bought for their loved ones in Iraq because the armed services didn’t have enough to go around?

After months of controversy and pressure from families, Congress even approved a program to reimburse soldiers who bought their own equipment. The Pentagon began implementing it just six months ago.

Now the Army says soldiers must give up all privately purchased armor.

Soldiers who don’t turn in this armor may be disciplined.

The Army wants to protect not only its soldiers from physical harm, but also their families from financial distress. Families are “wasting their money on substandard stuff,” said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Armor sold by at least one company has failed Air Force tests, government officials say. The Army’s directive says private armor can’t meet its own rigorous safety standards. Therefore, the armor has to go.

But some body armor, even if inferior, is better than none.

Privately purchased body armor isn’t good enough for the Army, and Army body armor simply wasn’t enough. At least, there wasn’t enough of it.

This switch in policy is saved from grim absurdity by the fact that the Army says it will replace privately bought armor with its own protective equipment.

It had better do exactly that. Imagine the repercussions if the Army took with one hand and gave nothing back with the other.

The question is: Why didn’t the Army provide body armor sooner?

Its own initial failure to properly outfit its soldiers created the current problem with allegedly inferior equipment.

Now, suddenly, the Army has found itself capable of providing standard equipment.

Better late than never. But for the world’s most sophisticated army from the world’s richest nation, the question still remains: What took so long?



A simple question: If the parents and families of the kids over in Iraq weren’t purchasing body armor - then why have a reimbursement program?

 

[Darwins Friend]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/706780.html

Last update - 13:26 17/04/2006

AK-47 inventor: U.S. troops in Iraq prefer my rifle to theirs
By Reuters

Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the world's most popular assault rifle, says that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are using his invention in
preference to their own weapons, proving that his gun is still the best.

"Even after lying in a swamp you can pick up this rifle, aim it and shoot. That's the best job description there is for a gun. Real soldiers know that and understand it," the 86-year-old gunmaker told a weekend news conference in Moscow.

"In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly," he said.

"Look what's happening now: every day on television we see that the Americans in Iraq have my machine guns and assault rifles in their armored vehicles. Even there American rifles don't work properly."

Some U.S. troops in Iraq have reportedly taken to using AK-47s in preference to the standard-issue M-16. The Cold War-era gun, renowned for its durability and easy handling, is plentiful in Iraq.

Kalashnikov designed his first weapon in 1947 and is still chief constructor at Izhmash arms factory in Izhevsk in the Urals mountains.

The factory's director Vladimir Grodetsky told the news conference that around a billion rifles had been produced around the world using parts of Kalashnikovs or based on the same design, only 10-12 percent of which were made in Russia.

(I'll take the one made in the former USSR: milled from a single piece of stock)

 

[dmp]

Protecting our troops
Charlottesville Daily Progress
Tuesday, April 4, 2006

Remember all that body armor that families bought for their loved ones in Iraq because the armed services didn’t have enough to go around?

After months of controversy and pressure from families, Congress even approved a program to reimburse soldiers who bought their own equipment. The Pentagon began implementing it just six months ago.

Now the Army says soldiers must give up all privately purchased armor.

Soldiers who don’t turn in this armor may be disciplined.

The Army wants to protect not only its soldiers from physical harm, but also their families from financial distress. Families are “wasting their money on substandard stuff,” said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Armor sold by at least one company has failed Air Force tests, government officials say. The Army’s directive says private armor can’t meet its own rigorous safety standards. Therefore, the armor has to go.

But some body armor, even if inferior, is better than none.

Privately purchased body armor isn’t good enough for the Army, and Army body armor simply wasn’t enough. At least, there wasn’t enough of it.

This switch in policy is saved from grim absurdity by the fact that the Army says it will replace privately bought armor with its own protective equipment.

It had better do exactly that. Imagine the repercussions if the Army took with one hand and gave nothing back with the other.

The question is: Why didn’t the Army provide body armor sooner?

Its own initial failure to properly outfit its soldiers created the current problem with allegedly inferior equipment.

Now, suddenly, the Army has found itself capable of providing standard equipment.

Better late than never. But for the world’s most sophisticated army from the world’s richest nation, the question still remains: What took so long?



A simple question: If the parents and families of the kids over in Iraq weren’t purchasing body armor - then why have a reimbursement program?

blah blah blah - what a crock of horseshit.

Why didn't the army provide armor sooner? Who knows? Why didn't you or that author grow up to be reasonable people?

 

[Darwins Friend]

blah blah blah - what a crock of horseshit.

Why didn't the army provide armor sooner? Who knows? Why didn't you or that author grow up to be reasonable people?

Thank God for small town newspapers - winning Pulitzer Prizes - keeping the ever-deceptive government on it’s toes and completely paranoid.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/APC06/604030543/1036

"To the U.S. Army, for telling soldiers they can't protect themselves. Soldiers serving in Iraq have long complained of inadequate body armor supplies, and many have taken to buying their own from private defense companies. Last year, the Army said it wouldn't reimburse soldiers for their purchases, causing a minor uproar. Now, it says it will forbid them from wearing non-issue armor altogether. The sad irony is that the only reason soldiers were spending hundreds of their own dollars on armor is because the Army isn't supplying them with what they need. This ban wouldn't be necessary if the Army had taken care of its soldiers in the first place."

Wow, THERE's an unbiased source.

BS. The problem here is the left has created this myth of some mystical body armor that is "superior." Superior to WHAT, exactly?

NONE of it is bulletproof, and NONE of it guarantees a ride home in a seat. You obviously have forgotten the time honored tradition of "making do" until you get something better. You're telling me at all times that you were in the military you had the very best of equipment? I wouldn't believe it. No such animal.

For you to take a historically institutional problem and try to pin it on Bush is just bullshit.

 

[Annie]

Thank God for small town newspapers - winning Pulitzer Prizes - keeping the ever-deceptive government on it’s toes and completely paranoid.

Hey, if the Pulitzer was worth anything, Claudia Rosett would have been nominated and won for single handedly breaking and expanding on the Oil for Food Scandal, the largest economic crime ever. She wasn't and it is no longer worth crap.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/706780.html

Last update - 13:26 17/04/2006

AK-47 inventor: U.S. troops in Iraq prefer my rifle to theirs
By Reuters

Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the world's most popular assault rifle, says that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are using his invention in
preference to their own weapons, proving that his gun is still the best.

"Even after lying in a swamp you can pick up this rifle, aim it and shoot. That's the best job description there is for a gun. Real soldiers know that and understand it," the 86-year-old gunmaker told a weekend news conference in Moscow.

"In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly," he said.

"Look what's happening now: every day on television we see that the Americans in Iraq have my machine guns and assault rifles in their armored vehicles. Even there American rifles don't work properly."

Some U.S. troops in Iraq have reportedly taken to using AK-47s in preference to the standard-issue M-16. The Cold War-era gun, renowned for its durability and easy handling, is plentiful in Iraq.

Kalashnikov designed his first weapon in 1947 and is still chief constructor at Izhmash arms factory in Izhevsk in the Urals mountains.

The factory's director Vladimir Grodetsky told the news conference that around a billion rifles had been produced around the world using parts of Kalashnikovs or based on the same design, only 10-12 percent of which were made in Russia.

(I'll take the one made in the former USSR: milled from a single piece of stock)

I wonder if his POV is a golf cart too?

You know better than this. It wouldn't be allowed for one thing. For another, the AK-47 is a stamped-metal piece of shit, and anyone that would prefer it to the M-16A2/M-4 is an idiot.

 

[archangel]

the AK47 jams as well when dropped in the mud...and the original M-16 was modified later on in Vietnam to compensate...more shuck and jive to eliminate the possibility that civilians are continuing to be shot by the insurgents and then blame US troops...how benign!

 

[Darwins Friend]

I wonder if his POV is a golf cart too?

You know better than this. It wouldn't be allowed for one thing. For another, the AK-47 is a stamped-metal piece of shit, and anyone that would prefer it to the M-16A2/M-4 is an idiot.

BAAAHHHAAAA!

But serioulsy Gunny - read this again:

(I'll take the one made in the former USSR: milled from a single piece of stock)

 

[Gunny]

BAAAHHHAAAA!

But serioulsy Gunny - read this again:

Nothing to read again. I've fired the weapon and am familiar with it. I guess you think the Soviets sold milled, presentation pieces to Third World countries?

What's out there are stamped pieces of crap and I'd welcome ANY enemy carrying one. They'd be dead before ever getting within their weapon's range.

 

[GotZoom]

I would take a Thompson any day of the week over an AK.

There are too many AKs out now that ARE stamped sheet metal.

I'll pass.

 

[Gunny]

I would take a Thompson any day of the week over an AK.

There are too many AKs out now that ARE stamped sheet metal.

I'll pass.

Forget that Thompson business.

http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/03ae5c82962bc0f48525627b006d3126?OpenDocument

 

[GotZoom]

Forget that Thompson business.

http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/03ae5c82962bc0f48525627b006d3126?OpenDocument

Well, hell yeah. Two different purposes but if I had to use just ONE....sniper all the way baby.

 

[Gunny]

Well, hell yeah. Two different purposes but if I had to use just ONE....sniper all the way baby.

Mowing down targets works great as a last line of defense. That's what assault rifles on full-auto are good for.

I prefer to be a bit more proactive than that last line of defense crap.

 

[GotZoom]

Mowing down targets works great as a last line of defense. That's what assault rifles on full-auto are good for.

I prefer to be a bit more proactive than that last line of defense crap.

Absolutely. Mow and go...blah.

I'll take a few sharpshooters/snipers up in the hills/bushes anytime.

 

[Darwins Friend]

Nothing to read again. I've fired the weapon and am familiar with it. I guess you think the Soviets sold milled, presentation pieces to Third World countries?

What's out there are stamped pieces of crap and I'd welcome ANY enemy carrying one. They'd be dead before ever getting within their weapon's range.

Actually - I never said anything about Iraqis getting the ‘primo’ model, which our guys happened to acquire, and only implied that I would like one of those superior versions. Turn down your ‘projection death ray’ for a moment and let others have their opinion.

"AK-47’s in American hands" got you twisted off a bit too much.

:firing: