Pages: 1
Posted by: thud
Now, not to be cold or arrogant but what exactly are the troops expecting? They have the best equipement in the world and yet they still complain? Its a war ffs,,, guys are gonna die, guys are gonna get maimed , thats a fact no one can debate. It seems to me that over the years Americans in general have been lead to beleive that their armed forces are indestructable. Well news flash guys, American soldiers and equipement get shredded just as easily as 'enemy' troops and equipement, no way around that. If you get hit with a fast moving chunk of steel bad things will happen regardless of your nationality. Bradley vehicles, cobra helocopter, even Abrams tanks have all been knocked out in Iraq .The marketting the military has done of the years has been incredible, they've gotten young men and women to volunteer to serve by getting them to think that US forces are invincible. Now thats not proving true and , not meaning to sound cold , soldiers are beginning to realize they were duped. Remember how they used to say that US forces could fight TWO wars on TWO front at the same time? Hell Iraq has them bogged down ! How manystill believe the two wars on two fronts 'spin' now?? Just be glad they have the equipement they have, specifically the body armor, because without these things the number of KIA would surely surpass 5000 , instead of the relatively light number of 1000 that it is now. I'd hazard a guess the Iraqi's have lost more then 5000 innocent civilians in the same time frame..... but you dont hear anyone complaining about that do you? The victors always right the history books and I'm sure thats a little fact that will be conveniently left out .
Posted by: thud
LOL.. Im not running the war .. Just stating my opinions :-) As I said before... no matter what your nationality is .. if you get hit by a fast moving chunk of steel you are gonna get hurt. BAD. Whether that chuck of steel came from an IED or a main tank round.. makes no difference when it hits you. I agree with you that innocent Iraqi deaths are probably in the 15k+ range. the 5000 figure I used was nothing more then a way to illustrate the relative differences in the number of DEATHS compared to US troop death. I want to make it 100% that I would prefer that no one, on either side, suffers in this conflict. War by its nature leaves nothing but ruin in its wake,,, on both sides. As for you comment that you dont think that any of the reservests or guardsmen intended on fight a war........ umm wtf?? Thats like saying you got your drivers licence but never expected to get a speeding ticket ! I mean come on.. any one that joins an armed force without even considering the remote possibilty of having to commit to the use of force is naive !. Which goes back to my original arguement that alot of the troops were duped by the militaries 'marketing' that they were 'invincible" The american public hasnt gotten a very rude awakening in the last few month in terms of the military capabilities that the governement has 'sold' to them. Now whether you blame the government for the 'spin' or you blame the general public for being naive enough to be duped is up for debate. Ever notice how its always the military men that are the last to push for the use of force??? Its because they know the consequences and are quite familiar with them,,, unlike the governments and general public who are quick to call for a 'military ' solution . One thing I think we agree on is.. this is all about oil, always has been.....Oil will continue to be a problem for years to come..... beyond that the next "problem" will be water.......... clean drinkable water.
Posted by: thud
The number of KIA's suffered by the coalition forces is extremely low in Iraq if you were to compare it to past wars. More soldiers are surviving their injuries because of the battlefield medical treatment they recieve. One thing I've never seen published is the number of causualties. If it were ever published,along with a summary of the types of injuries I'd bet that we'd all be surprised. The body armor and protection from vehicles such as the humvee has greatly increased the chances of surviving an attack. When it comes to the IEDs though I think you may be a bit confused. These IEDs ,from what Ive gathered, are not small bombs. Sure there have been instances of dead Iraqi soldiers being booby trapped but the resulting deaths from these have been relatively small, at least from what Ive read. The truly deadly IEDs are the road side bombs. These are not small bombs. Many are composed of artillary rounds or anti tank mines. About the only thing thats going to survive one of these larger IEDs is an Abrams tank. A bradley AFV will likely offer some protection to its crew but if its close enough even a bradley will be disabled ( tracks ). Put all the armor plate on a Humvee you want, if an arty shell goes off 20ft from it, the humvee is toast and so is its crew. Have you seen footage of destroyed humvees? Generally theres nothing left but a smoking heap of twisted metal. I'd argue that the humvee gets alot of bad press that they dont deserve. They were never designed to be used in the way they are being used. IMHO its more a command/doctran failure that the humvees are being used in the manner that they are , rather then the humvee itself thats leading to all the casualties. I think by time this whole thing is done in 5 years or so theres going to be alot of lessons learned. In the mean time. the death and destruction if going to continue regardless of equipement issues. It is after all a war.
Posted by: mystereid
"I'd hazard a guess the Iraqi's have lost more then 5000 innocent civilians in the same time frame." It's closer to 15,000-20,000.
Sadly, there are to many Thuds running the war in Iraq. The bill Kerry voted down was for 70+ billion loaded with pork, only 300 million was for military spending and only a portion of that for armor.
Over 3/4 of the deaths and injuries we have sustained over there have been from Improvised explosive devices (I.E.D.s). Roadside bombs waiting for convoys of lightly armored or non armored vehicles. We can spend a billion a piece for stealth bombers and joint strike fighters but the guys on the ground get left behind.
I'm not sure that a many of those guardsmen and reservists signed up planning to go to war anywhere. I'd gladly give up a few fighters and hang so much armor on those vehicles they could hardly move.
This war has litlle to do with terrorism or creating a democracy. It is all about making sure we get a steady flow of oil. If it had been explained that way from the beginning I think alot of people would be for it, I know I would be. Someone just explained it the other day. China and India have billions of people in rapidly developing countries and to continue that they need oil! It won't be very many years and the competition will be very stiff for oil supplies. It comes down to "follow the money"
Leno " with that reply Rumsfeld hopped into his armored car and left"
Posted by: mystereid
We all can be naive, especially when we're in our youth starting out and looking for money for college or whatever. The gov't is deceptive with these ads still, showing National guardsmen cruising around in helicopters fighting forest fires, not getting blasted in Iraq. What would you say is the percentage of regular military enlistees that think the're signing up for a war, I mean before this started? Do you know why this is always compared to Vietnam? That would be the last war where we were losing casualties like this. A war that ended long before most of these guys were born.
Small bits of metal can be stopped with proper armor, these guys aren't getting killed and wounded every day by high tech missiles, but by bombs with small shrapnel.
A local woman was on the news the other day who just lost her son in Iraq. She said he inlisted recently to get revenge, I wonder if he found it.
Posted by: dirthead
The men (and women) who have been over and that I have personally talked to dont seem to be angry that they had to go over there, most see it as doing their duty for their country. I have heard of a lot of frustration with troops not getting the proper supplies and gear they need to accomplish their mission. I fully support our troops, and our President for making the tough decission to go over there, for the job they have done. What does bother me is when our troops dont get the body armour and armour plating for the vehicles that they need......Our troops have and will get the mission done, and done right, but lets make sure they are as best equiped as they can be....there should be no cutting corners.
Most people are so short sighted that they dont see the long term ramifications of what we are doing over there in Iraq and Afganistan, we have the opportunity to help these people realize true personal freedom....its just going to take time and effort. I am truly grateful to all our service people, may God bless you and your families.
Posted by: bsb64
<<<The number of KIA's suffered by the coalition forces is extremely low in Iraq if you were to compare it to past wars. More soldiers are surviving their injuries because of the battlefield medical treatment they recieve. One thing I've never seen published is the number of causualties. If it were ever published,along with a summary of the types of injuries I'd bet that we'd all be surprised.>>>
Yeah,Instead of dying, there will be thousands of guys coming home blind and limbless, not pretty
Posted by: maddog56
Very well put coyotechaser.
Posted by: Coyotechaser
Quote
Originally posted by: alwaysride
Today, when rumsfeld went to a rally in iraq, one soilder stood up and asked a question. He wanted to know why they were not properly equiped with military vehicals and so on. He asked why they had to go searching through out looking for stuff to use. After a brief pause, the whole place started to cheer and clapp wanting answers. Rumsfeld had to ask for a repeat of the question. I think the troops are getting very angry with this war and how long they have been there and how long they will be staying.
I don't think that the question asked means that the soldiers are "getting very angry with this war". The soldier asked about a very specific question. Why their vehicles were not armored properly and why do soldiers have to dig through dumps to fix the vehicles?
There is a much larger concern about this question. Why should soldiers be afraid to ask questions that they are concerned about? The question the news stations are asking the soldiers wife- Are you afraid that his question will effect his career? There is a fear from the soldiers that if you speak up then there will be consequences. The soldiers are coached on what they should or should not say.
Here at home, if you speak out against the war or anything about the war then you are not supporting the troops.
Seems like there are a lot of concerns that the people at home and the soldiers both have. It's a shame they cannot express their concerns without a fear of being chastised.
Freedom of speech. Just watch what you say.
Posted by: Coyotechaser
The sad thing is that it took the soldier to ask a question before they start to ACT like they're doing something. They'll act for a while until it's just not news anymore.
I had watched a show about this a couple months ago. It wasn't an issue until now. Now they're going to do something to save face.
Posted by: Scootergptx
Maybe that would have been a good question to ask John Kerry.
Posted by: Quad4Fun
I agree, hopefully they will fix this problem and help keep the boys and girls safe.
The funny thing is that a reporter actually put the soldier up to asking the question.
Just glad he had balls enough to follow through and ask, atta boy to him. After seeing what a big deal this turned into, maybe more will ask some hard questions.
They are taught and trained to follow orders, and do what they are told nad not really question anything. I think there is a point though where they have the right to ask questions, especially concerning safety issues.
img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif" border="0">
Posted by: alwaysride
Today, when rumsfeld went to a rally in iraq, one soilder stood up and asked a question. He wanted to know why they were not properly equiped with military vehicals and so on. He asked why they had to go searching through out looking for stuff to use. After a brief pause, the whole place started to cheer and clapp wanting answers. Rumsfeld had to ask for a repeat of the question. I think the troops are getting very angry with this war and how long they have been there and how long they will be staying.
Posted by: hondabuster
latest story
Now it looks like theres gonna be some action...that soldier did everyone a favor.....by questioning authority.
Just goes to show the military is just like the rest of america....the middle managers and supervisors, dont pass on the concerns of the grunts for fear of being the one who presents a disenting view. The republicans have everyone so scared, to voice the truth...because they will label the messenger as being unpatriotic or unamerican.
I appaude the courage of that soldier. Anyone who stands up against our leaders, and holds them accountable, is a hero in my book.
Posted by: hondabuster
wounded
Heres a site with the number of wounded soldiers. Its approaching 10,000, and thats only military....no civilians (for either side), and no contract employees.
Posted by: tencubed
Some good points on armor and vehicle use. Keep in mind, however, that any armor is better than none when that chunk of metal is comming at you. More is better. Armor, no matter how thick, is not bullet proof. Armor, thick or thin, will stop or defelct an object in direct relation to the shape, mass, angle of attack and velocity of the projectile. Thicker will, of course, do more to protect than thin.
Most of the people I have talked with, one was a returning vet, are of the opinion that lives would be saved if all the light vehicles had a bit more armor. If a Hummer is right next to an exploding bomb that Hummer and the people in it will be destroyed. A vehicle 30 or 40 yards back could benifit from even light armor.
My oldest son was in the M1A1's and is of the opinion that the Hummers and trucks should all have what he called "shrapnel protection" armor. Not ment to stop a tank round but able to deflect a lot of stuff.
We need to be sure our troops have all the beans, bullets and other stuff they need to do the job we are asking them to do.
A few letters and phone calls to our representitives in Washington DC would seem to be in order.
Posted by: Cheapass
When I heard that question, my first thought was "That Doggie wouldn't make it as a Marine."
Why? Because far, far too much of our stuff was hand-me-down from the Navy, or so underbudgeted that we had to get a second or third life out of anything we had.
Digging in the dump would be useless, as nothing that made it to the dump could be used for anything. Anything even remotely useable had already been reused.
Posted by: Freddy22
What do you suggest should happen?
Posted by: Freddy22
Well put !
