Shut the FOX up!

[sawyl]

right "But the ceremony was for celebrating democracy and freedom, and you cant say democracy and freedom is bad."

 

[Dakoth]

example:

 

left "Bush spends 40$ dollars on his inaugeration party when soldiers in Iraq lack proper equipment"

 

right "But the ceremony was for celebrating democracy and freedom, and you cant say democracy and freedom is bad."

 

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.

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I'm probably wrong, but I heard somewhere that Clinton only took like 2o days of vacation. If that is true, that explains why he got into trouble around to office...

Oh, and I go to a small Christian school, so yeah, I get to hear a lot about the honestly and integrity of Fox

[taks]

I think this is a perfectly fair juxtaposition. The White House is spending a disgusting amount of money on lavish parties while the troops in Iraq don't have body armor. Bush should look bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first of all, the troops aren't suffering from a lack of supplies. there are certainly isolated cases of problems, but no general lack of anything. you mobilize that many people in the middle of terrorist bombings and tell me things won't be in short supply from time to time. second of all, $40M is 1) a drop in the bucket compared to the billion we're spending every day, griping about it is just as ridiculous 2) not going to outfit our troops with body armor...

 

what's so funny about this is that nobody seems to care when other presidents spend this kind of money (they all do, the numbers increase because of inflation, duh). but bush, nooooo, suddenly it's called a "lavish party." give it a rest.

 

whining is so easy to pick apart.

 

taks

[deganawida]

Bush's inauguration party was funded by private donations, not tax money, as well.

 

Further, I find this all ridiculous. Should we cancel Christmas, the Oscars, and the Super Bowl as well? It's a weak attack being made against Bush, and it just makes the attackers look petty.

 

BTW, anyone else catch the fact that Bush may end up having carried Wisconsin as well? WI allows provisional voting (meaning that you show up and vote, and your eligibility is checked after the fact). Kerry won WI by approx. 11,000 votes. After reviewing provisional votes, over 10,000 have been found to be ineligible, and they're still counting. Could be interesting.

[Dakoth]

2) not going to outfit our troops with body armor...

 

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.

[random evil guy]

I think this is a perfectly fair juxtaposition. The White House is spending a disgusting amount of money on lavish parties while the troops in Iraq don't have body armor. Bush should look bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first of all, the troops aren't suffering from a lack of supplies. there are certainly isolated cases of problems, but no general lack of anything. you mobilize that many people in the middle of terrorist bombings and tell me things won't be in short supply from time to time. second of all, $40M is 1) a drop in the bucket compared to the billion we're spending every day, griping about it is just as ridiculous 2) not going to outfit our troops with body armor...

 

what's so funny about this is that nobody seems to care when other presidents spend this kind of money (they all do, the numbers increase because of inflation, duh). but bush, nooooo, suddenly it's called a "lavish party." give it a rest.

 

whining is so easy to pick apart.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

still, no answer. are you a liar or are you ignoring me? if you don't answer this time, i'll assume you're just trolling and have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about...

 

 

"fox, btw, has more democratic guests than republican. a factoid that few seem to care about."

 

PROVE IT!!!

 

 

 

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0701-05.htm

[Laozi]

Its funny that anyone would think that partisanship at all enters into the corporately owned media. Fox has found a niche that it is "selling" its news to. CNN and everyone else does the samething. I hate liberals because they are just too moderate, see Phil Ochs Love Me I'm A Liberal. The only real problem I have is how the republicans always want to cut funding for PBS and NPR, otherwise they can have there Bill O'Riley and other various Nazi like propagandist.

[sawyl]

first of all, the troops aren't suffering from a lack of supplies. there are certainly isolated cases of problems, but no general lack of anything. you mobilize that many people in the middle of terrorist bombings and tell me things won't be in short supply from time to time. second of all, $40M is 1) a drop in the bucket compared to the billion we're spending every day, griping about it is just as ridiculous 2) not going to outfit our troops with body armor...

 

HA HA HA. Do you ever watch anything but Fox News? Have you ever talked to a soldier from Iraq? For one, they didn't mobilize the troops in the middle of a car bombing. Be serious. They were mobilized and outfitted in the states.

 

oh well, I guess when convoys are blown up and soldiers are killed in firefights because the cars aren't armored/they don't have body armor, that's an "isolated" problem. People--kids, really--dying is such an isolated problem.

 

didn't you see the press conference with Rumsfeld in Iraq, where the National Guardsman stands up and drills him about the lack of body armor? Oh, right--you were watching Fox. You wouldn't have seen that part.

 

what's so funny about this is that nobody seems to care when other presidents spend this kind of money (they all do, the numbers increase because of inflation, duh). but bush, nooooo, suddenly it's called a "lavish party." give it a rest.

 

And it's funny how you seem to have selective reading abilities. (Just like Fox.) I said before, it's a waste of money when any president throws it away like this.

 

$40M is 1) a drop in the bucket compared to the billion we're spending every day, griping about it is just as ridiculous

 

I wasn't just talking about body armor. You know, if we gave part of that $40 million to every person under the poverty level in the U.S.... well, they would all have ten dollars in their pocket, so to speak. Which is better than it being spent on champagne for the ruling class.

 

And hey, why don't you answer random evil guy's question? From everything I've ever seen or read about Fox, he's right.

[sawyl]

PS @ Dakoth: Here's a good place to start.

[mkreku]

It's odd. Everytime one of these discussions occur, those who are called "left-wing" always seem to be the ones with links and facts, while the ones who are referred to as "right-wing" claim things but very seldom back it up with any links or proof. Why is that?

[Dakoth]

oh well, I guess when convoys are blown up and soldiers are killed in firefights because the cars aren't armored/they don't have body armor, that's an "isolated" problem. People--kids, really--dying is such an isolated problem.

 

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.

[sawyl]

If you are talking about the humvee well it took the place of the jeep it wasn't ment to be heavily armored.

 

The problem is that in this situation it needs to be heavily armored. (It's a different kind of war.) Troops are getting killed by one guy with an RPG hitting a vehicle in their convoy.

 

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.

 

well, that was the original idea, until Bush and co. figured that they could fight this war on the cheap. And when that didn't work...

 

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.

 

I'm no expert, but I think the plates in the kevlar that reinforced sensitive areas (torso) could stop more "war-like" ammunition. It's true that nothing's going to stop an RPG hitting you, but troops were dying from being shot with more low-powered weapons that could have been stopped with this armor.

[Dakoth]

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

[213374U]

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. 

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?

 

 

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.

And you have to remember that the militias in Iraq are not a professional, well equipped army, either. Obviously, body armor is not designed to be effective against machine gun fire, but that's not reason enough not to have every soldier well equipped. Body armor is an efficient protection against small caliber firearms and it appears to offer a certain degree of protection against rifle rounds. And it's definitely a lifesaver against shrapnel.

 

I really can't understand how you are defending the idea that US troops shouldn't be equipped with every possible protection measure, even if that protection only provides a small chance of getting out of a combat alive. I am inclined to believe that if you were over there, you would want some body armor for yourself, too.

[Dakoth]

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.

 

It's odd. Everytime one of these discussions occur, those who are called "left-wing" always seem to be the ones with links and facts, while the ones who are referred to as "right-wing" claim things but very seldom back it up with any links or proof. Why is that?

 

Why not give me a chance to post before you supply us with your witty banter.

[random evil guy]

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. 

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...

[213374U]

Now when you take into acount that level 3 protection will not protect against the AK-47 witch is 7.62 caliber, or a .50 cal machine gun how effective would the armor be?  Now to be fair you can get the vests that will protect up to a .30 cal armor pircing bullet but at an extreme cost, some where around 1100.00 for front and back.  Now imagine our government buying them I see them easily costing 2200.00 or more.  Also take into account that the arms and legs are not protected fatalities can occure from damage to these areas.  One last interesting thing I didn't know untill I went to an encylopedia is that body armor has been around since WW 1 but wasn't used because the drawbacks out weighed the benefits.

From the 'Interceptor OTV' body armor manufacturer:

 

Standard Features:

[*]Hydration system compatible

 

[*]Compatible with MOLLE, ALICE and other load-bearing systems

 

[*]Modular configuration with removable yoke/collar, throat and groin protection allows the user to tailor the battle equipment to the specific threats

 

[*]Exceeds NIJ Level IIIA 9mm protection

 

[*]2, 4, 16 and 64 grain fragmentation protection provided by Aramid, Fusion

[Dakoth]

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. 

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.

[random evil guy]

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. 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

have you ever been in the army? you don't wear the mask all the time; you have it with you. it takes about 10 seconds to put it on.

[Dakoth]

Now when you take into acount that level 3 protection will not protect against the AK-47 witch is 7.62 caliber, or a .50 cal machine gun how effective would the armor be?  Now to be fair you can get the vests that will protect up to a .30 cal armor pircing bullet but at an extreme cost, some where around 1100.00 for front and back.  Now imagine our government buying them I see them easily costing 2200.00 or more.  Also take into account that the arms and legs are not protected fatalities can occure from damage to these areas.  One last interesting thing I didn't know untill I went to an encylopedia is that body armor has been around since WW 1 but wasn't used because the drawbacks out weighed the benefits.

From the 'Interceptor OTV' body armor manufacturer:

 

Standard Features:

[*]Hydration system compatible

 

 

 

[*]Compatible with MOLLE, ALICE and other load-bearing systems

 

 

 

[*]Modular configuration with removable yoke/collar, throat and groin protection allows the user to tailor the battle equipment to the specific threats

 

 

 

[*]Exceeds NIJ Level IIIA 9mm protection

 

 

 

[*]2, 4, 16 and 64 grain fragmentation protection provided by Aramid, Fusion

[Dakoth]

have you ever been in the army? you don't wear the mask all the time; you have it with you. it takes about 10 seconds to put it on.

 

Uh I knew you were going to say that it was bait. Now how do you apply that to a bullet proof vest. AS I said it has been proven here in the states not even police officers will wear them unless made to.

[213374U]

As I said in my post you can get armor that will stop a 30 cal armor piercing round I don't deny that please read the whole post.  At what cost?  We can not have it both ways if the left wants the armor then increase the spending for the military and get it to them now.  Don't cut the budget and then complain our troops are ill equiped haow hard is that to understand.

Don't give me all that politics crap man, I'm just discussing facts here. I'm not interested in politics. And so far, you haven't posted any figures about the prices of body armor, so I'm just not going to take your word for it. Usually Defense contracts reduce the price of the acquired product due to the large numbers bought, so I don't think the same price you can get an armor vest for is the same price the US government is getting.

 

 

Also please don't try to tell me you think that body armor is the magic bullet that will keep our troops from dieing when going to war.  I have said in the past with the simple adition of teflon kevlar is rendered basically useless now since these guys seem to have an abundance of weapons we can not find, and are at least intelligent enough not to get caught don't you think they would eventually aply this knowledge.  They are good enough to get a suicide bomber in to a US base after all.  Oh wait thats right body armor the troops would have been wearing during chow time would have saved them.

Will body armor prevent all soldiers from dying? No.

Will body armor save lives? Yes.

You lose.

 

And um, about teflon coated rounds, I suggest you do some more thorough research. It appears that while armor-piercing ammunition is effective against soft armor (the lower scales of the graphic you posted), its effectiveness against heavier types of armor is greatly reduced. Most hunting/assault/sniper rifle ammunition is considered AP per se, so if the armor protects against rifle fire, it most likely affords protection against teflon coated handgun rounds.

 

You might find this read informative on 'Cop-Killer' bullets.

[Dakoth]

Well since your reading comprehension is a little bad.

 

http://www.blackarmor.com/Vest/Tactical.htm

 

http://www.blackarmor.com/Vest/Plates_Inserts.htm

 

Now as far as the links random evil guy gave let me give you the ballisrics chart again.

 

 

A 9mm pistol round differes from a 7.62mm rifle round notive 9mm pistol round falls under IIIA protection while the &.62mm falls under type III.

 

Will body armor prevent all soldiers from dying? No.

Will body armor save lives? Yes.

You lose.

 

Wrong you are claiming victory over something I am not arguing as a matter of fact it seems you understand quite well what I am arguing. The addition of armor will naot save everyone wich is unfortunately what a some proponents believe.

 

 

While I was wrong on the coating you are also somewhat wrong. Here are some importent excerpts from the article.

 

As police officers know, the vests that they wear are "bullet-resistant," not "bullet-proof." The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives explains that "armor protection is rated in accordance with a specific threat. There is no such thing as 'bullet-proof' armor."

 

Manufactured from Kevlar (a synthetic fiber that is five times stronger than steel), body armor comes in a variety of grades. The higher the grade, the bulkier and less comfortable the armor is to wear, but the more ammunition it can stop. The highest grades of armor are often called "tactical armor" or "hard armor," and may contain steel or titanium. At the top of the scale is Threat Level IV armor, which can stop even a high-powered rifle bullet. It takes a very strong vest to stop a big-game hunting-rifle bullet: The bullet travels at a high velocity, due to the long length of the rifle barrel; and has a large mass, since a hunting-rifle bullet must be large enough to bring down a moose, elk, or other large mammal.

 

Almost the only people who wear hard armor are SWAT team members on high-risk missions. Far more common for ordinary police use is "soft" body armor, made from Kevlar, and rated at Threat Levels IIA through IIIA. Level IIA armor can stop most handgun ammunition, while Level IIIA can stop almost any handgun bullet. Handgun ammunition is much easier to stop than rifle ammunition, since the handgun barrel is much shorter (less velocity) and handgun bullets are smaller (less mass).

 

So even your own article states that the standard armor issued is not protected against 7.62mm rounds the standard round for the AK-47 and the SKS assault rifle.

 

Don't give me all that politics crap man, I'm just discussing facts here. I'm not interested in politics. And so far, you haven't posted any figures about the prices of body armor, so I'm just not going to take your word for it. Usually Defense contracts reduce the price of the acquired product due to the large numbers bought, so I don't think the same price you can get an armor vest for is the same price the US government is getting.

 

Politics play a huge roll in it because unless the funding is aproved by both congress and the president this is all a pipe dream.

[mkreku]

What an argument.. because ballistic armour doesn't protect against all types of calibers it's somehow an excuse for the government to not buy armour to their troops? Uh.. ok.

 

Most armour won't protect you if you're hit spot on from close range. But most shot wounds aren't that clean (unless you somehow find yourself on an open field, the wind stops blowing and a sniper gets his sights on you). Most often the shooter has to fire from the side or misses his aim a little or even misses completely but the ricochet hits the target instead. That's when ballistic armour is a lifesaver.

 

Against high velocity weapons, there's not an armour in the world that will save you, since even being hit in the hand means your intestants come flying out of your groin.