Is 'nt home a better body armor for our marines and g.I.'s.!!
2007-02-02 05:40:40 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
1) Our marines and soldiers are out there. They want to finish what they've been sent to do
2) Too much body armor is just as bad as too little! Wearing every possible peice of body armor makes it almost imposable to move. It's HEAVY. And it's awkward. Now add a 70lb pack. And a 10lb gun. Plus ammo. Now, go march 10 miles. Oh, and fire the gun with shoulder armor that restricts your movement so you can't hold a gun properly. So, don't worry about getting shot, worry about getting your head cut off when you get overrun because you can't defend yourself because of the stupid body armor!
I would love it if the armor was made out of "dragon skin" but that is still under development.
2007-02-02 06:02:15 · answer #1 · answered by eileengallia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We had all the body armorer necessary when the war started. This was all propaganda and the dems went wild with it. There was some different body armor out there that the military did not but, did not have a contract with that company. So some guys bought their own. But as far as what we had over there, it was more than sufficient and it got blown up like crazy on how bad we had it. What a joke!
2007-02-02 06:13:32 · answer #2 · answered by tbird 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Home is a wonderful, but Pie in the Sky idea right now.....
If we pull out of Iraq too quickly the domino effect will probably be harder then when we abruptly pulled out of Saigon....
There is a WHOLE LOT at stake here....and I'm not just talking OIL!!
The sad & scary truth is that most American's don't see the whole picture and who it would effect...Not just USA, either....
This is a very slippery slope we are on, but the Iraq's also have to step-up to the plate and bat for them selves, for which many of them have NEVER had to do as they were always under a DICTATORSHIP!!!
2007-02-02 05:57:17 · answer #3 · answered by nuroticmom 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well sure, but when you're in the military it's your job to defend our country on foreign ground (wether you agree with it or not) I think perhaps she is in the mind frame that if the guys have to be there they need to be protected to the best of our country's ability. You'd be suprised how many of our guys who are over there don't have all of the protection that they need..and have to pretty much make their own armor for vehicles and such. I say, if our guys are going to be over there we need to make sure they're safe while doing so.
2007-02-02 05:49:31 · answer #4 · answered by Tiffany D 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree with every thing they said. but if we keep them over there, then we need to upgrade there body armor
there some civilian armors out there that aren't accepted but are better
take sov (3000x = Dragon skin body armor)
2007-02-05 09:41:17 · answer #5 · answered by DRAGON 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
...but they can't come home right away, no matter what, though i support them coming back as soon as humanly possible.
the main point though, is that our country put those men out there and didn't want to spare the expense of body armor???? How ridiculous is that? Bush gave us all that support the troops propaghanda and didn't even want to spend the money to keep them safe!
2007-02-02 05:49:18 · answer #6 · answered by Crystal P 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Anything that woman does from now to the election is to win votes, if she could get elected president by lining all the americans troops up against a wall and shooting them, there would be alot of dead american troops and she would be president
2007-02-02 06:09:32 · answer #7 · answered by DukeofDixie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
she is probobly doing it for no other reason than to have evidence on record so she can say that she is "tough on terrorism" but fear not my friend i'm sure as soon as her campaign for the nomination comes to a end she'll suddenly say iraq is a mistake and we should get out like any other liberal.
2007-02-02 09:46:48 · answer #8 · answered by puffdaddy_1969 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it would be best if they were at home; but while they're there (and it looks as if they will be for a while, even with withdrawal discussions), they should be as safe as possible.
2007-02-02 05:48:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it doesn't mean she's a hypocrite....
sure, it'd be great if teens weren't fornicating and having babies all over the place, but they are, so the least we can do is set up planned parenthoods and try to protect them from STDs and offer birth control.
get it??
2007-02-02 05:50:13 · answer #10 · answered by joey322 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋