Dakoth

From the 'Interceptor OTV' body armor manufacturer:

Your point? Surely you are not arguing that soldiers shouldn't be equipped with body armor because it's uncomfortable? Or perhaps you think that since it won't prevent you from getting shrapnel in your face, body armor is totally worthless? spot on. wearing a gas mask is fekkin uncomfortable, but i don't think anyone would complain wearing one during a chemical attack... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well if there was always the possibility of a chemical attack but you were not sure when it was coming being deployed in an area were temperatures regularly get into the 90's would you were your gasmask all the time? Its been proven in the US that not all police officers will wear their vests even though they face the possibility of being fataly shot every day.

I am have not siad it wouldn't help what I have tried to say is the missconseption that people are dieing because they don't have vests is false. As I said the standard vest does not protect against an AK-47 round 7.62mm now maybe had Clinton not cut military funding LVL 4 vests would be in abundance but well that didn't happen did it. As for you Mkreku. Why not give me a chance to post before you supply us with your witty banter.

Here is some interesting info for you. I think this is what most people are asking for right? Puma - Tactical Assault Vest State-of-the-art, high coverage assault protection design for military and tactical law enforcement personnel that demands the highest protection. This vest has versatile utility pouches that are compatible with today's tactical equipment, it is fully adjustable. We are using the newest technology in combination with Spectra Shield

There ae a few problems with this one no support vehicle is armored because it is not designed to be in fighting situations. So if the enemy is fighting a guerilla war they are easy targets sorry thats just the way it is. If you are talking about the humvee well it took the place of the jeep it wasn't ment to be heavily armored. As for body armor well there are my points in the above post to also go along with this are people pushing for full head to toe kevlar? Well remember this for some time when kevlar came out before it was mandatory some officers would not wear it because it was uncomfortable and hot and that was just a vest imagine full armor in the desert. As for national guard well why are they over there I thought they were formed to guard the nation not relieve our military in hstile environments. edit: It seems to me people are pushing for kevlar for the false sense of security it will give them. Kevlar is not impregneble and in a war time situation is much less effective. You have to remember the reason it works for the Police is because people in the US don't walk around with high powered rifles, RPGs, and 50 cal machine guns.

Could someone explain to me what body armor we are supposed to arm the troops with? I am just a little curious as the addition of teflon to a round renders kevlar obsolete. So anyone fighting the US just buys here is a term I know you have heard before "cop killer" rounds rendering all that money spent useless, not to mention the fact it doesn't help against shrapnel, or high powered rounds out of the machine guns used in infantry support. I know it isn't your idea Taks but I have heard it mentioned in the past by Democrats.

That does a lot to clarify, but who would decide who gets sterilised and who does not? That is not something I fell comforatable being in the realm of the government.

Well things usually go in a sequence you insulted then I did so, if it was not meant or said in haste then let me extend the olive branch and say I am sorry. I never said it didn't just that he understood what I had said. I have grown quite used to Volourn's little jabs.

Most likely not, your flaming prevents it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats funny considering I have not flamed you since the first time. I see by this coment Volourn understands what I have said.

I never said I was not guilty, what I said is you are not as innocent as you claim. What you said is the same as if I would have said I hate all crakers. You did it with the express intent to draw a reaction. Sterilisation is quite different from limiting the number of children people can have. It also intones you believe that any one you consider inferior to you are the ones that need to be, remember you said most not some or all. If it was not meant as a genral attack then you need to reword it because that is exactly what it was. What you basically said is those I consider less than I am need to be sterilised. As for the other things you said. 1) I have Pmed others in the past only to be ignored. If you would have responded well sorry but passed experience has shown different. 2)Tell a mod why as I said it was your opinion and you are entitled to it why tell a mod? 3) Well techinically the last thing still has a chance to happen doesn't it?

I agree on illegal imigration, but if the US's population rises slowly while other countries double then what was gained? We are not self suficient. You still have not brought anything to the table that the government doesn't already do so please keep the thoughts coming.

Nice try on twisting my words but just because you didn't aim the insult directly at me doesn't make it any less of an insult. Would you be of a differnt mind if I said people who believe in sterilisation of most people of the world are idiots? Its not aimed directly at you but you would fall under that category. Is I hate (insert any plural form of a racial slur here) any less offensive than I hate you ( insert singular form of racial slur here)? You implied I need to be sterilised as I said you didn't say some you said most. As for ignoring me good because if you truly believe most people need to be sterilised I would rather not talk to you.

Hades I didn't go after Darque until she made the coment about most people need to be sterilised. Now that that is adressed what good is it for the US to have population control if say Mexico and Canada do not? That sort of limit needs to be a world wide thing to have any impact.

Not really you stated your opinion: I stated mine: 2) If that is your opinion you are entitled to it. My opinion is that you are an idiot. Main Entry: id

The more you post the more foolish I begin to think you are. 1) The government can not be every where even if our income tax rate was at 100% if you believe they can be you are quite foolish. 2) If that is your opinion you are entitled to it. My opinion is that you are an idiot. 3)No the problem lies with the general populace not just the parents. Why learn if I can throw a ball over a 100mph and my parents (notice the government never does this) push me to spend all my time practicing baseball instead of learning. Why learn when I can just skip school and hang out with friends (truancy has been against the law for as long as I can remember). Why learn when my parents don't care how I am doing in school.

So what are your plans for when the nukes start to fly?

A perfect example of how the left reports. What about all the parties and vacations Clinton took when Somalia happened under his administration. What about the fact that it was Clinton that cut the military's funding. Its not that its wrong its just that they show bias to thier side no different than Fox. The problem is they are usually the first to start complaining when the right does it.

Sorry but you are wrong in a society that is as free as ours the government can only give and enforce laws. It is up to the people wether they follow them or not. Let me ask you this Darque do you speed, how bout roll through stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, how bout cross the street when you are not in a cross walk. Those are all laws people break every day and really except give tickets and arrest people how can the government stop those things? Shows how little you know do you relise because of that it has become acceptable to kill little baby girls in china because you are only allowed 1 child unless the government oks more. What about accidents that means abortions are manditory not a choice. First off for the underlined portion you must have went through a very different school system than I did because we were never taught that. In fact we were taught if we don't go to college we would never acheive much more than a minimum wage job. Now it is not the governments job to inspire us to learn that is the job of your relatives, and the teachers. At least with your comments I see where you stand because you don't have guts to make your own choices, or is it becauseyou are afraid of personal responsibility you think the government should make all your choices for you. You don't want a government you want parents.

Its just to bad that the government has no control over any of those things Darque. Lets start with crime as long as there are people that have and those that don't there will be theft, as long as there is bigotry and anger there will be murder, as long as people have personal problems or curiosity there will always be some kind of drug traffic, and it has been shown here in Illinois and in Texas that even under our current penal system even a death sentence doesn't deter all wrong doers. What more do you want the government to do since these things don't work. Now for over population so are you telling me the government should decide who has childeren and who doesn't? You know there is a country that already does that its name is China. As far as the education system please I went to public schools my whole life the tools are there unfortunately you can not teach those that don't want to learn. No amount of money can make some one learn that doesn't want to or just doesn't care.

As should the democrats when they do the same and a thing like Somalia happens on their watch. The news is about the facts and not whos opinion you can sway to your "side". If they want to run the story fine but since the inaguration parties really have nothing to do with them leave them out of it.

It shows they have an agenda and that is to make Bush look bad, after every inaguration there are parties both sides do this when they win the election. Now how does that make Bush look when the head lines show him going to all the parties when one of the major news networks runs a story on the funerals of the casualties. The sad matter is if it was just coinsidence no one would think twice but that seemed a tactical move by ABC with the express intent to make Bush look bad.

Well if I was about to use very heavy handed tactics to squash a rebellion in an area where a severe natural disaster happened I wouldn't want any foreign troops around either. Naturally because they start to cry foul if anyone is less than humane. <_< Also notice while they said no troops they didn't say anything about monetary aid.

That picture said it all B5C even though Rather couldn't see the tree's for the forrest someone from CBS corporate should have stepped in and made them investigate more. That story didn't just make Rather look bad it made CBS look bad because it showed either one they don't have control over what an obviously biased newscaster does on their news program, or that they let their biased get in the way and let a story run for political and monetary reasons. What you have to relise is Rather is a representative of CBS by default and he was running a potentially damning story not against just any jo blow but the President of the United States I would think CBS would want to make damn sure the allegations were true.

You can try first for a Public Health System like in Europe <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As if everyone in the US wants something like that.

Thats funny considering the American government told its citizens crude oil reserves would be depleted sometime in the 1970's. <_<