PadreSantiago Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 WASHINGTON (AFP ) - A secret Pentagon study reportedly found that as many as 80 percent of Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. "Such 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," The New York Times reported citing unnamed military officials. "For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops," the report said. The United States has "maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets," the report stressed. "Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds," the report added. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yup we are in this war yet our president refuses to supply our troops with basic supplies needed to win...assuming we can win a war on an ideal...which we can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdgboomer Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 And we all know how reliable the New York Times is. Come on folks, the Times is one of the most absolutely biased papers in the country. And lately their sources typically involve not much more than reports that nobody can produce, and sources who can't be named. If the Pentagon, as the Times portrays, has a warehouse full of body armor sitting around, they would have absolutely no interest whatsoever in not sending it. Neither would the President. Logical conclusion? There's more to why soldiers and marines don't instantly have the best gear. I agree that it's a bad thing that they don't have the best body armor available, but I find it [i]absolutely ridiculous [/i]to accuse President Bush of "refusing" to supply it. Besides the obvious fact that Bush's approval rating would be higher if the troops had the better gear (so why would he "refuse to send it"), the accusations which seem to imply Bush doesn't care or even wants our young men dying is simply an evil thing to say. The world would be a better place if people didn't believe everything they read. And by the way, we can win, it just takes finishing what we started, and not second guessing the strongest nation in history. [quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Jan 8 2006, 10:08 PM']WASHINGTON (AFP ) - A secret Pentagon study reportedly found that as many as 80 percent of Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. "Such 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," The New York Times reported citing unnamed military officials. "For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops," the report said. The United States has "maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets," the report stressed. "Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds," the report added. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yup we are in this war yet our president refuses to supply our troops with basic supplies needed to win...assuming we can win a war on an ideal...which we can't. [right][snapback]849887[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I saw a show recently about which stocks are hot and such...and the leading buy was the company that manufactures the armor. The military has ordered it, but its not there yet. If it was already delievered to the military it would already be a sale for the company and thus no reason to buy the stock. Yet it is a hot 'Buy' because they expect more sales, :. it has not been delievered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Yay! The New York Times is very straight on … aside from reporting on national security leaks to slam the right and President Bush without reporting on the REAL STORY of the national security leaks and leftist slanted news and all this… So very little money goes to bulletproof vests claims the NY Times (as if liberals support our military)… If this is true, how about writing on Senator Ted Stevens’s (R – AK) earmarking $435,375,000 from the defense spending bill… or Senator Daniel Inouye (D – HI) $463,825,000 from the same bill… Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) $341,300,000… Rep. James Moran (D – VA) $409,056,714… If they really cared about this story (and assuming this really is a story) instead of a blanket statement that the GOP isn’t supporting the military … which is false, and would imply that the Dems do support the military today – which is impossible because of the liberals steering the party today – instead of reporting the partial story, they nead to report the basic who how why how come and what the friggin hell are the dems doing ? But the basic journalistic laws be damned I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReinnieR Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 this is bull carp this stuff don't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='ReinnieR' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:31 AM']this is bull carp this stuff don't happen [right][snapback]850180[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I really hope it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifescanticle Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Sadly, the New York Times lost all credibility a long time ago. Hopefully I will see responsible journalism again and be able to change my view of their reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='amdgboomer' date='Jan 8 2006, 08:34 PM'][snip] The world would be a better place if people didn't believe everything they read. And by the way, we can win, it just takes finishing what we started, and not second guessing the strongest nation in history. [right][snapback]849902[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Lovely... might is right? Typical typical typical. We should not second guess the second strongest nation in history. What a shallow, self loving, self endugling, arrogant point of view. tisk tisk Ils sont fous ces americains! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) [internet trouble - tripple pst... I feel shame] Edited January 9, 2006 by Didacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) [internet trouble - tripple pst... I feel shame] Edited January 9, 2006 by Didacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 There were some blunders before. The process for getting things to the front lines can be slow at times. Since this is a Catholic Web Forum, why don't we pray that our troops are safe and that there is an end to this violence ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Posting something from the New York Times is like posting something from The Onion. ahahaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty_boy Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 How about a date for the arcticle, a writer's name, etc. Padre Santiago is using the NYT to support his point of view, so we can only assume that his point is as incredible as the NYT. Where can we find the article Padre? Was this written in April of 2003, May? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God's Errand Girl Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 One of the arguments against the armor, from military members themselves, is that the armor causes a huge loss of mobility in combat situations. If a soldier can't move in a way that he needs to for protection in a combat situation, it very much decreases his ability for survival, whether he is wearing body armor or not. I'm not necessarily arguing against body armor, but the previous is a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akalyte Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 [url="http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/kerrys-airforce-cuts/"]http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archiv...-airforce-cuts/[/url] [url="http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/kerrys-infantry-cuts/"]http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archiv...-infantry-cuts/[/url] [url="http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/kerrys-naval-cutbacks/"]http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archiv...naval-cutbacks/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now