On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm no Michael Moore fan and I haven't read or > > heard anything that > > > indicates the above is true, but as Erik states, I > > have seen a poorly > > > managed occupation actually result in the death > > and maiming of > > thousands > > > of our people. How many kids had to die because > > they didn't have body > > > armor or their vehicles were inadequately armored, > > for instance? > > > > And since they've only spent 2% [*] of the money > > congress gave them, and > > they _still_ haven't procured body armor and vehicle > > armor (and are even > > rejecting flack jacket donations from police > > officers)... > > Fool, try to keep your posts topical. The previous > poster was complaining about equipment to US MILITARY > PERSONNEL, including Interceptor body armor, reactive > armor for the Bradley, and armor rails for the Stryker > (which are ridiculous and further hinders an already > mediocre vehicle). Donated Police vests would be > completely unsuitable for US troops and actually LESS > capable than the older style Kevlar body armor. Any > cursory analysis would indicate this. The article did > not discuss this problem.
I will jump to his defense. That link illustrated his point of so far only spending 2% of the U.S. taxpayer donated money. This is even asterisked above. He did not provide a link for the body armor portion of the post and you indicate it was irrelevant. That many US troops, primarily the reserve and guards, lacked the newest body armor, that there were problems and deaths caused by the lack of armor on vehicles, and that private citizens were raising money and sending them some body armor are all well known. -- Gary Denton #1 on google for liberal news _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
