XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.j-garofalo   
   From: stderr@mail.com   
      
   Bill wrote:   
   >   
   > "Bill Bonde"  wrote in message   
   > news:41BBC62D.957D2EA6@mail.com...   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Bill wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >> I don't think the biggest question is whether Rumsfield lied or not, or   
   > >> whether the Democrats would have done a worse job, etc. The main issue is   
   > >> why   
   > >> have not the trucks been up-armored? Apparently 90% of the 5,000, or so,   
   > >> medium weight trucks in Iraq have not been up-armored. WHY?   
   > >>   
   > > This sort of armour has only recently become viable. Even now it is   
   > > rather dodgy.   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > Steel plates. Protective glass. Not true. What exactly are you talking about?   
   >   
   If it was SOP to armour convoy trucks used in the military, we wouldn't   
   be talking about this. The fact is, armour wasn't even standard on   
   patrol humvees. And if you look back through time at our country's   
   military vehicles, you'll notice that was generally the case. The jeep,   
   for example wasn't armoured. It is standard to not have even doors on   
   many humvees. No tops, no doors, what do you think they are doing? The   
   answer is you were to stop and take cover and not having a top or doors   
   meant you could exit the vehicle and seek cover more quickly.   
      
      
      
   > >> The American economy produces many millions of cars and trucks a year.   
   > >> Surely   
   > >> it could have produced 4,500 medium weight armored trucks over two years.   
   > >> So   
   > >> it is not the laws of physics as Rumsfield claimed.   
   > >>   
   > > Of course it really is. Rumsfeld knows what he is talking about. The   
   > > IEDs have literally flipped main battle tanks. Those things weigh about   
   > > 60 tons. How do you armour a humvee against that sort of threat?   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > It depends on the size of the IED. I'll go with the troops on this one. When   
   > they are putting armor on their vehicles they are not doing it for nothing.   
   > You are essentially arguing that the armor on vehicles does no good. Which   
   > makes no sense.   
   >   
   I'm saying what I said originally, that armour is a trade off now just   
   as it was for knights in the Middle Ages. This is a trade off of   
   protection vs mobility, weight and situational awareness.   
      
      
      
   > Also, when Rumsfield was referring to the laws of physics he was suggesting   
   > the difficulty of the logistics involved - not that armor did no good.   
   >   
   The military has been going on a weight diet and down armouring itself   
   so that it can move quickly. Putting armour on everything is a radical   
   change.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of   
   his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy   
   neutral delight in things as they were—an outpouring of his young   
   vivacity which it was impossible to read just now. -+George Eliot,   
   "Middlemarch"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)