XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.j-garofalo   
   From: stderr2@backpacker.com   
      
   Bill wrote:   
   >   
   > "Bill Bonde"  wrote in message   
   > news:41BC86F8.F3DB1D0F@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.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > However, for almost two years the need has been clear. And it remains clear.   
   > Why has it not been met in that time? That was the question I was asking.   
   >   
   It isn't clear that armour everywhere is the way to go.   
      
      
      
      
   > >> >> 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.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > Again they had two years. In my original post I gave the benifit of the doubt   
   > on not forseeing the impact of the insurgency. My question is why over this   
   > period, after the IEDs became promenent, were not 4,500 medium weight armord   
   > trucks made and shipped to Iraq. WHY? Why are only 10% of these trucks   
   > armored?   
   >   
   They don't even have armoured medium trucks except what they are   
   producing now. We've been spending our money on smart bombs and billion   
   dollar B2 bombers and not on the back 90%, the part of the sword that   
   isn't sharp, the support infrastructure. It isn't just that we need   
   armour on the trucks, it's that we need a wholesale rethink of the   
   entire system.   
      
      
      
   > >> 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.   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > That is true. Essentially they were not prepared for this. But WHY did they   
   > not turn around quickly when the need became apparent?   
   >   
   They put the Striker into Iraq. That's an attempt to get something light   
   and mobile while still being armoured. I think I'd rather have that than   
   a humvee. How about you?   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   "When my comfort was at stake, there was no trouble I would not go to."   
   -+Samuel Beckett, "Molloy"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)