That they will have to wait until the summer for the protective armor that could easily mean the difference between life and death?
Read this and tell me what you think: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/opinion/15thur1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
2007-02-15 06:44:15 · 14 answers · asked by Marc Miami 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It does seem a scandal that we send our troops to battle without adequate armour -- why hasn't Bush corrected this, yet -- he's had six years to get it right!??
2007-02-15 06:50:54 · update #1
Our government and President are idiots?
And please don't give me the argument about supporting our troops...you can support the troops but not the war. It wasn't their choice to go!!
2007-02-15 06:47:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
That is why we need more funding for our troops! While the enemies continue to reinforce their forces, we want to maintain there without no aid from mainland? If you did something like this, you just mean to let our men there die in the hand of the enemies!There are only 2 choices left: reinforce and funding our troops so that they can eliminate the blood-thirsty terrorists or pull out so the enemies can establish their camps there and battle us here in our soil!
2007-02-15 15:10:25 · answer #2 · answered by holyfire 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you noticed, this was an opinion page and not the real deal.
According to the Congress at the hearings with the 5 star generals, these men were NOT to be sent in without the proper gear and ALL of what they need for their protection.
Please don't believe this hype. I sat for 6.5 hours listening to the Senators in Congress demanding that they NOT be sent without proper equipment. The generals assured them they'll have EVERYTHING they need to defend themselves. Although the vehicles are in short supply, they do have their armament.
Besides, I have family there and according to them, they are well armored up. They've been there over a year and are still alive and still in special forces. The media is attempting to 'finish off' this administration by making our government and military look like a joke...but do you truly want to believe that they are stupid enough to send these guys in without proper protection?
2007-02-15 14:57:33 · answer #3 · answered by chole_24 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
A'int that just like the NY Times? Blame the President for a decision The Senate has been draggin their arses on for far to long.
If they were truly commited to our Armed Forces these Soldiers would want for nothing!
2007-02-15 14:50:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not all troops will be in Bagdad. Many will be positioned to cut off aid from Iran and Syria.
2007-02-15 14:49:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Oh for crying out loud, you guys yell when the president wants to put more money into the war and you cry when he does so which is it?? Do you want him to send more money or do you side in with the Democrats by cutting the funds so they won't even have food to eat!!
2007-02-15 14:48:05 · answer #6 · answered by Brianne 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
First off, you can't believe anything the NY Times says. And secondly, we shouldn't be there in the first place.
Regarding the protection, I agree, the least Bush could do is provide armour. However, when your goal is to cause the most death possible, providing armour is self-defeating.
2007-02-15 15:04:41 · answer #7 · answered by sirdoctorfine 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ya this actually makes the troops happy and with positive morale. Now if you say bring them home to their families you will break their morale and cause them to suffer emotionally.
2007-02-15 14:55:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
the link you provided was from the OPINION page of the N.Y.TIMES.,so it means nothing but someones opinion.
troops in combat are issued body armor,if you want to upgrade,you can purchase your own-I did.
2007-02-15 14:53:23 · answer #9 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When you stop getting your info from the most liberal media in the world......we can discuss this open-minded.
2007-02-15 15:15:10 · answer #10 · answered by Robert S 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
And then they could wait for the next best thing, and the next and the next until all you do is wait.
2007-02-15 14:49:00 · answer #11 · answered by ? 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋