okay. now it's really starting to hit home :(

[minxnim]

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0,1413,101~7514~1985141,00.html

my friend's husband was killed in iraq

my foster brother (army) was just sent over there 2 weeks ago
my cousin (marines) was sent over there this week.


fucking government bastards.

 

[Baliset]

yeah i still have a friend from college over there who apparently is still alive and well but another one wasn't quite so lucky.

 

[minxnim]

war = shit

 

[lizard]

my lesbian cubemate's ex husband is about to come back (fingers crossed)

and my friend who's a transportation corps major has just wrapped up a few weeks R&R in Amsterdam and is going back to what he calls "the sandbox"

 

[xfer]

my friend matt just cycled home.

my roommate's friend (and my acquaintance) Diddy called from there and just said, sadly, "They blew up my Humvee. I really liked it, too."

 

[Steve]

I'm really sorry to hear that...

I'm sick of hearing people telling me to "SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS". Is trying to give them proper equipment (ceramic plates/modern armor) and getting them out of a dangerous situation we shouldn't be in not supporting them?
Is reading a letter from a five year old kid that their school made them write more support than an adult voter writing a letter to their representatives in congress telling them they will not have you support if they support continuing this war further and asking your friends to do the same?

 

[xfer]

I wonder about the legitimacy of the ceramic plates/body armor complaints. It costs, what, $1,000-2,000 or so per soldier? I mean, sure, I would definitely want to have them if I were fighting over there, but why shouldn't the Army spend $6,000 per soldier giving them all even better equipment? Why not $12,000? Why is $500 "not enough" but $1500 is "enough"?

I dunno, my impression is that you can ALWAYS get better and crazier-tech stuff if you spend more money--I just want to know what the basis of judgment for "not enough" is. (and you guys know I'll take any chance to slap at this Administration)

 

[minxnim]

alex, it's just a matter of what they set for 'military spending'. basically. as my dad used to say: the shittiest equipment gets sent to the people who get shot at the most.

 

[xfer]

yeah, matt is using a pretty elderly rifle (relatively). it barely enables him to commit IRAQI GENOCIDE or whatever that islamic rap video is accusing american soldiers of.

well, if it's a military spending issue, i have to say i come down on the side of "shrink military spending", not boost it. unless you mean a matter of HOW they spend what they have.

 

[Steve]

I think good enough equipment is armor strong enough to save a soldier's life if they get hit by weapons used by the majority of enemy soldiers.

 

[minxnim]

if people could vote on how it was spent, that'd be another thing. but they'll just spend it on some superfluous engineer who doesnt know jack, or some fucking general's new suite or something.

 

[Steve]

if people could vote on how it was spent, that'd be another thing. but they'll just spend it on some superfluous engineer who doesnt know jack, or some fucking general's new suite or something.

or $50,000 on a brand new Escalade, plus another $10,000+ for a uniform USAF paint job, plus another $10,000 for 26" rims, then another $80,000 for a sound system.
The Air Force did this to try to recruit high school students, and the recruiters brag about it saying that "it'll get young men and women to come to us instead of getting an office job or going into the army".

 

[xfer]

They already had armor that stops enemy bullets--it was just heavier. and the new "interceptor" vests we're talking about don't cover the entire torso--why not spend $25,000 on a seamless version if that's your criteria?

 

[Steve]

A good portion of the troops were still equipped with the late 60's kevlar vests that do an adequate job of preventing soldiers from dying when hit with regular rounds or most JHP ammuntion fired from old kalashnikov rifles, but an AK74 with AP bullets could easily penetrate these. sure, these plates don't cover the entire torso, but $1500 for a significant amount of protection which covers the vital organs is worth it. It would also provide soldiers and their families with more comfort. If the army will spend well over $150,000 training soldiers and paying for their education (numbers provided to me by recruiters, including $50,000 after a soldier leaves the army to continue education, or to keep if they already finished their education), why not an extra $1500 to give them and their families piece of mind? if families will buy these on their own and send them, would it not be reasonable to spend $1500 for their sake, even if it meant eliminating the parties held on holidays for soldiers relatives at bases (which are highly publicized on news networks).
If nothing else, this would give a soldier hit an 80% greater chance of living if hit with a bullet (the other 20% being the seams and unprotected areas of the torso).