http://www.soldiersangels.org/heroes/armor.php:
"Armor is necessary protection for our deployed heroes . Although the Army is now aggressively sending Armored Humvees into the combat theatre, we still have many unarmored vehicles which do not provide adequate protection from sniper fire and IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices)."
I'm not talking about care packages or other personal stuff, I'm talking about protection equipment. And if wounded, should he/she have to pay army for damaged equipment? Don't laugh, it has happened! http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-08-armor-bill_x.htm
2006-09-07 12:40:21 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Charles D...why was he charged in the first place? And did you just call a U.S. soldier a dumbass? I like how some conservative like to support troops until one does something human, like oppose war or won't pay for armor. I've yet to view a fellow liberal's demeaning comment about a soldier.
2006-09-07 13:02:00 · update #1
No they should not have to supply their own protective gear..that is such crap and I am appalled about that whole thing! Shame on the gov't for not supply them adequately!!! It just shows how very little the gov't thinks of these brave people who *volunteer* to protect our country!!! My prayers are with them always....and I pray that they return home very soon!
2006-09-07 12:48:03 · answer #1 · answered by auntcookie84 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is what happens in war. We come out with armor, they come out with more powerful guns. We bring out more armor, they bring out depleted uranium bullets. It goes back and forth, and there is never "adequate protection".
It is sad, and a testament to the general efficiency (or lack thereof) our government has in implementing changes in our military. There should have been more armor available, but a lot of the guys, when they got the armor, didn't want to wear it. It's cumbersome and they need to move freely. Armored humvees are a different story of course, but in general people don't join the Army to be "safe" anyway.
2006-09-07 12:49:04 · answer #2 · answered by hawk22 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NIO NO
I BELIEVE THAT IS A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE FOR ALL TO UNDERSTAND
THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION TO POLL.
Just an opinion from the daughter of a Retired United Nations Peace Keepers daughter....... I'm fortunate to have my father alive today, he turns 77 Friday. I'm a relative of the oldest vet here in Canada who recently passed away this year, they fought not just for freedom but also for peace, safety, family and honour. To send our troops into battle without proper armor is a National Disgrace and it has been a bloody shame has it not? Notice I mentioned safety!
again just an opinion.....
2006-09-07 12:56:46 · answer #3 · answered by kat 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The story you quote is pretty old - it turned out that that guy was a dumbass and he never filed the paperwork for his vest as a combat loss. As soon as he did, he got his money back.
Now, as for people buying vests on their own - The US Gov't rembursed people who bought their own equipment up to $1500. And now, the gov't is guaranteeing every soldier a vest and helmet, so there is no need to buy your own. In fact, now that we have enough, they've made it illegal for a soldier to wear a non-Army-issued vest.
So there no need to buy equipment, and no one has to pay for combat-damaged equipment. You're a dummy.
2006-09-07 12:56:17 · answer #4 · answered by Charles D 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Many soldiers don't even want to wear heavy armor. It hinders movement, and in many cases may be the cause of death rather than the preventing factor.
2006-09-07 12:53:53 · answer #5 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The soldiers should pay damages?? Crickey, do the soldiers get paid extra if they get damaged?? I dont think so!! It goes from the bizarre to the totally effing ridiculous doesn't it??
2006-09-07 12:48:53 · answer #6 · answered by tracy r 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government should pay for the plane tickets armor etc...
2006-09-07 13:05:09 · answer #7 · answered by shorty_curly28 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i know many soldiers had to pay for their armor n stuff like that... but i think that the military should have supplied them with that kind of stuff...
2006-09-07 17:30:50 · answer #8 · answered by Dont get Infected 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
HELL YEAH! In a free market the government should only pay for roads and basic needs. Libertarians believe that no one should be on welfare of any kind! If they have special needs they should pool thier money and get together and buy what they need. Free market Capitalism is the answer to all life's problems, every child should learn this in private schools in first grade.
If they get themselves wounded why should we pay for it?
It is Un-American to ask others to pay your welfare check and support your private decisions. Let them fight, I never signed on it was thier choice.
It is this FREEDOM that they are fighting for in the first place!
2006-09-07 13:12:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
No they shouldnt. People who work in an office dont pay for their computers.
2006-09-07 14:43:47 · answer #10 · answered by Curt 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋