Do you agree with Republicans that it was good to send our troops into harm's way without adequate armor?

Question

Or do you agree with Democrats, that it was negligent at best, and possibly criminal?

The majority of Democrats voted AGAINST Bush's lie-based quagmire.

126 Democrats in the House and 21 Democrats in the Senate voted against the lie-based Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Only SIX REPUBLICANS in the House and ONE Republican in the Senate voted against the LIE-BASED QUAGMIRE.

So, the notion that Democrats SHARE RESPONSIBILITY because a MINORITY OF DEMOCRATS BELIEVED THE LIES ABOUT WMD, is patently RIDICULOUS.

Every single member of Congress voted to cut off funding for the troops. The Republicans voted against a bill that the Democrats sponsored and the Democrats voted against the bill that the Republicans sponsored. The only difference between the bills was that the Democrats bill would have rolled back the tax cuts on the richest 1% of Americans so that they would pay for the war now, instead of having the next few generations of hard-working Americans pay for it WITH INTEREST.

And by the way, we are borrowing money from CHINA to pay for Bush's failed war.

Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows
By Michael Moss
The New York Times

Friday 06 January 2006

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that s

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16790

Answer 1

I don't agree with sending our troops into a battle they cannot win, period. The fact that they are lacking sufficient armor just illustrates the fact that our troops are not a priority to this government--money is!!!
This war makes me sick, and I am wondering how long it will take until EVERYONE realizes that this is a war that is impossible to win, another Vietnam.
This administration is a disgrace, and is a disgrace to the America that my father and grandfather fought for.
I wish Mr. George W. would go hunting with Dick Cheney...

Answer 2

No seperating them this time, they all demos, repubs, and the military genuises had a part in this one.When will someone come up with an idea to get out of this "thing" going on in Iraq( I say thing because the war was over when Saddam was captured). All I see is one group of fools ( demo's) critisizing another group of fools (republicans) for doing something they ok'd them to do. Now it's a big mess and no resolution just more STUPIDITY from both sides and tonight KING STUPID speaks so the other stupids will have something to cry over but do nothing about. Round up the illegal immigrants and send them over there and let them rebuild the place. They need jobs and we need rid of them. Oh yea then the liberal crybaby's will flood us with their tears. No one to cut their grass and repair their roofs. Or maybe the big buisness here will have to start paying a reasonable salery, and we wouldn't want that now would we. Who's gonna pick the watamelons?

Answer 3

when you're previous adequate to undergo in concepts lower back that far, at the same time as Clinton become in workplace, he decreased the size of the military and the military funds to exceedingly a lot zip. See, human beings do not want to undergo in concepts, or their too youthful to undergo in concepts. in case you observed the Senate hearings, they're attempting to get the warriors the finest of the perfect, even though it takes more suitable than an afternoon to construct it. we are no longer speaking about an 'automobile production line'...we are speaking a good element...and maximum specialties take time. Congress utilising the dollar to end the President did not help issues. as well, this military plan become drawn up on the Pentagon with civilians playing armchair warrior with a stupid threat pastime for crine-out-loud. military conflict plans must be left as a lot because the military. no longer a collection of wanna-be chiefs.

Answer 4

Look buddy, it wasn't their fault! The Republicans couldn't send the troops with enough body armor because of the humongous tax cut given to their billionaire friends. Bush's billionaire buddies really needed all those extra yachts and summer homes. And everyone knows (if you've been educated at an expensive private school anyway) that yachts are more important than armor for the troops. Fudge, I'm surprised you even had to ask!

Answer 5

Why don't they have adequate armor? Could it be that they money for military gets cut at every increase in funding for social services such as welfare. If health care reforms pass you can also bet more will be taken from the military but they still have a job to do and the president still must use them as necessary. BTW the republicans were not the only ones to vote for sending troops. Look up the voting results on congress.org and see for yourself.

BTW fergi how can I give you 2 thumbs way up?

Answer 6

Its not negligent or criminal, it does suck though. Not for nothing to deploy 300,000 people 10,000 miles across the globe into a war zone might have a glitch or two. Why doesn't everyone keep there eye on the ball and realize that....yes, a few hundred even 1000 men didn't have the proper armor but 299,000 DID!!!! That's pretty friggin good in my book.

Answer 7

Of course the Dem's said that it was negligent at best and possibly criminal. What they are doing right now is negligent and a slap in the face to our troops and the rest of us. I would agree with Republicans anytime, any day over a democrat. If the Dem's thought a thing about our troops they would get off their collective backsides and support them, instead of passing resolutions that make this country look weak.

Answer 8

possibly criminal? George bush has been spending a billion a month on this war since it has started, now I could try for the rest of my life to figure out where that money is going and so could you as well, I just kind of figure that the man we have in office is evil, and for a billion a month I could have just launched a nuke and been done with it

Answer 9

The Dems voted to go into Iraq. They want us to forget that.

No, it is not criminal. Lots of Dems trying to say it was, but they are blowing in the wind according to what makes them look good. But it only serves to show them for what they are: power to the Dems regardless of the harm, regardless of the truth.

Answer 10

Maybe negligent, but not criminal. It's not illegal to send troops in with light armor. After all, a soldier can be ordered into murderous machine gun fire.