If our administration really support the troops, how come they never give them the supplies they need?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/armored_vehicles_iraq

yet another example of our troops not getting what they need.

Seriously, if you care about the troops how can you support an administration that sends them to war without equipment that could save lives?

actually Lavadog I did serve, so you guessed wrong.

Answer 1

because they obviously dont care. after all they have someone doing the dirty work for them, why should they care if they need more supplies equipment etc.

Answer 2

as an engagement drags on, the opponents get better and better -- esp. if Iran is helping them under the table.

that means we need to get better and better and so new equipment is invented. naturally, Congress isn't about to appropriate big sums for unproven gear, so they don't until it is proven. And then it takes a while for the maker to produce and deliver the new armored vehicles -- it isn't like they can do 3000 of them a month, ya know [Congress hasn't bought a big enough factory and equipment for that].

this whole bit started with what the Army and National Guard had available in 2002. Since it takes years to build 10,000 AFV [armored fighting vehicles], they had to make do with what President Clinton left 'em.

And our guys did a great job, especially as they probably needed another 100,000 troops minimum to try and seize all the ammo dumps, etc. in Iraq [Saddam had spent 30 years building ammo dumps in darn near every out of the way corner of the Sunni part of the country and some of the other areas, too].

{of course, we didn't have another 100,000 troops to spare for this because our Army just wasn't and isn't that big. Allies?? We had approximately one.}

***
what would you do, oh great sage? put the war off until you have every possible bit of gear ready to go? and what do you suppose the opponents will be doing while you spend years getting ready??


hehe

Answer 3

Hmm... I see you got bit by the lavadog... poor guy. lol

I think you are confusing this administration with the Clinton administration. This administration has pulled out just about all the stops in getting supplies to our guys as soon as the need and answer has been revealed.

Also the issue you brought up with the link is not an issue of the administration falling short. It is the over-paid civilian contractors slacking off on the job... go figure.

Answer 4

I hear this from many of our troops that are going over to Iraq. It is so sad that not only do they not make alot of money for what they do, but they also have to pay out of their own pockets for better armor that the military wont supply.
Many families like my own are willing to do it in hopes that it will assist in bringing our loved ones home.

Answer 5

According to William Arkin of the Washington Post, our troops have "obscene amenities". So which is it? Under supplied or "obscene amenities"?

BTW, I live in a major military community, and the soldiers I've talked to have said they are not under supplied. They also all think our media is totally full of ****.

Answer 6

"I support the troops" is just something people who don't actually support the troops like to say.

Answer 7

They would have to tax rich people who paid for Bush to be president

Answer 8

Im guessing you never served