Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats have been calling for extra body armour all along. The anti-soldier Republicans blocked the US soldiers from getting them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?ei=5088&en=b13c10bd70ee9190&ex=1294203600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Why do Republicans hate the troops?

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I see nothing in the article about Democrats having called for this body armor prior to this.  Source please.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I see nothing in the article about Democrats having called for this body armor prior to this.  Source please.

Here's a Democrat from 2003. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/11/1/84231/5664/28?mode=alone%3bshowrate=1#28

[AuH2O]

Of course the GOP likes casualties, it's not like they are the party in power and thus are responsible for the war. I'm sure they all want it to go badly. Must be it.

[opebo]

These troops are anonymous poors, whose deaths only have any importance at all if they effect public opinion - as AuH2O rightly points out.

[MODU]

Of course, the same Democrats could have voted for military funding increases in the past rather than push for cutbacks. 

[opebo]

Of course, the same Democrats could have voted for military funding increases in the past rather than push for cutbacks. 

If the military were a reasonable size - say 1/10 to 1/4 its current bloated size, the pointless agression in Iraq would never have been possible.

[J. J.]

Let's be clear.  It is the design of the armor, not the lack of it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Either party can send them as much of these pieces of this body armor as they want to; it still won't do the job.

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I see nothing in the article about Democrats having called for this body armor prior to this.  Source please.

Here's a Democrat from 2003. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/11/1/84231/5664/28?mode=alone%3bshowrate=1#28

While that one anonymous Democrat from two 2.5 years ago did make a passing reference to it, frankly it's not enough for me.

In any case, did you read the part of the text that I quoted?  Who's to say that if the body armor had been used, there would have been more casualties instead?  I expect you'd be here arguing that sending the troops out to war with excessive armor caused increased inefficiency, which indirectly led to their deaths.  Which would also be the Republicans' fault.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I see nothing in the article about Democrats having called for this body armor prior to this.  Source please.

Here's a Democrat from 2003. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/11/1/84231/5664/28?mode=alone%3bshowrate=1#28

While that one anonymous Democrat from two 2.5 years ago did make a passing reference to it, frankly it's not enough for me.

In any case, did you read the part of the text that I quoted?  Who's to say that if the body armor had been used, there would have been more casualties instead?  I expect you'd be here arguing that sending the troops out to war with excessive armor caused increased inefficiency, which indirectly led to their deaths.  Which would also be the Republicans' fault.

Stupid Republican apoligist.

[Blue Rectangle]

Stupid Republican apoligist.

AHHHH!!!  I can't take it anymore!!!!

Forget the spin, Bush apologists...

LOL at the pathetic DeLay apologists...

Damn crook apologists...

Hey, you mindless Rove apologists...

LOL at the pathetic spin by the corrupt Republican apologists...

...is just a Republican apoligist.

...you Republican apoligist.

Quit being such a Bush apoligist.

There are several more examples, but this should be enough to show how you overuse the word.  Also, you can't spell.  It's not like you haven't been corrected before:

Yes, the Republicans were challenging people like no tommorrow, you apoligist.

"Tomorrow," "apologist".

Try harder.

Stupid Bush apoligists.

...before you call others "stupid" you should note that the word is spelled "apologists".

Knock it off!

[GOP = Terrorists]

Its sad. But again thats why the Democrats have like 30+ vets running in 2006 and the GOP has what one? two? =)

Republicans support the war not the troops.
Democrats support the troops not the war.

[John Dibble]

Republicans support the war not the troops.
Democrats support the troops not the war.

And you're not partisan at all.

[MODU]

Republicans support the war not the troops.
Democrats support the troops not the war.

And you're not partisan at all.

Of course he's not.  He's just acting out the final stage of life (and death) cycle of a political party.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Armour could have saved you from the horrible beatings you recived in your childhood years for being a gigantic a-hole too...

[GOP = Terrorists]

And you're not partisan at all.

Well you are right...  The Lieberman Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Its sad. But again thats why the Democrats have like 30+ vets running in 2006 and the GOP has what one? two? =)

Republicans support the war not the troops.
Democrats support the troops not the war.

You must support generous glue sniffing

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I see nothing in the article about Democrats having called for this body armor prior to this.  Source please.

Here's a Democrat from 2003. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/11/1/84231/5664/28?mode=alone%3bshowrate=1#28

While that one anonymous Democrat from two 2.5 years ago did make a passing reference to it, frankly it's not enough for me.

In any case, did you read the part of the text that I quoted?  Who's to say that if the body armor had been used, there would have been more casualties instead?  I expect you'd be here arguing that sending the troops out to war with excessive armor caused increased inefficiency, which indirectly led to their deaths.  Which would also be the Republicans' fault.

Stupid Republican apoligist.

I'll take that to mean "Hmm, I guess I can't think of anything to counter that with."  My, you really are the worst debater I've ever encountered.

Oh, and as Blue Rectangle already pointed out, if you're going to over-use a word you could at least spell it correctly.

[ATFFL]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I see nothing in the article about Democrats having called for this body armor prior to this.  Source please.

Here's a Democrat from 2003. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/11/1/84231/5664/28?mode=alone%3bshowrate=1#28

While that one anonymous Democrat from two 2.5 years ago did make a passing reference to it, frankly it's not enough for me.

In any case, did you read the part of the text that I quoted?  Who's to say that if the body armor had been used, there would have been more casualties instead?  I expect you'd be here arguing that sending the troops out to war with excessive armor caused increased inefficiency, which indirectly led to their deaths.  Which would also be the Republicans' fault.

Stupid Republican apoligist.

I'll take that to mean "Hmm, I guess I can't think of anything to counter that with."  My, you really are the worst debater I've ever encountered.

Oh, and as Blue Rectangle already pointed out, if you're going to over-use a word you could at least spell it correctly.

Should I send him the stupid ohio head link?

[Joe Republic]

Please do.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I see nothing in the article about Democrats having called for this body armor prior to this.  Source please.

Here's a Democrat from 2003. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/11/1/84231/5664/28?mode=alone%3bshowrate=1#28

While that one anonymous Democrat from two 2.5 years ago did make a passing reference to it, frankly it's not enough for me.

In any case, did you read the part of the text that I quoted?  Who's to say that if the body armor had been used, there would have been more casualties instead?  I expect you'd be here arguing that sending the troops out to war with excessive armor caused increased inefficiency, which indirectly led to their deaths.  Which would also be the Republicans' fault.

Stupid Republican apoligist.

I'll take that to mean "Hmm, I guess I can't think of anything to counter that with."  My, you really are the worst debater I've ever encountered.

Oh, and as Blue Rectangle already pointed out, if you're going to over-use a word you could at least spell it correctly.

You'd rather bash Democrats than do what is best for America. Screw you.

[MODU]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That works equally as well if you replace ith with "Republican" or "Bush."  *laughs*  I'll have to keep that in mind.  hahaha

[John Dibble]

And you're not partisan at all.

Well you are right...  The Lieberman Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans.

Do you honestly believe that Republicans don't support the troops, that only Dems support them?