How many more body bags?

[carpro]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
I remember the guy now. He's the National Guardsman that had never set foot on a battlefield but was complaining about the armor of humvees.

I remember him , but I can't remember the name of the reporter who gave him the questions to ask.

Edward Lee Pitts.
How nice of you to question Thomas Wilson's service to our country. Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]It's not his service to his country I question. It's his motivation for asking the questions. But I don't expect you to understand the difference.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by carpro:
It's not his service to his country I question. It's his motivation for asking the questions.

Oh, really?
Then exactly why did you offer that he had not "set foot on a battleground?" Those are your words, carpro. Please tell us why you willingly introduced that into the discussion if you weren't questioning his service. I certainly never brought it up. Nope, you did that for a reason, didn't you?

But I don't expect you to understand the difference.

Aw, come on: we all know why you did it. Are you backpedaling?

 

[Dragoon68]

I don't know what the soldier's motivation was for asking about the Humvee uparmored status. I don't know whether or not he was put up to the question or just wanted to know. It could be taken as a fair question but, like Carpro, his tone did rub me a bit wrong. Maybe that assessment was incorrect and, without one on one conversation, it's impossible for me to know his motive.

Regardless, the part I didn't like was the news media playing off his question in a way that implied no one up the chain of command carried about providing uparmored Humvees for the troops. That's the fallacy that was projected.

The fact is things like that take time and money to work out. The Humvee has continued to evolve since it was first introduced and it's become even more of a workhorse than first expected. I don't think too many people anticipated that all of them would need to be armored. Initially only selected units were scheduled to have them.

We could argue that every solider should have a heavy armored vehicle - a tank - but that's just not practical. Everything becomes a matter of priorities, logistics, and expediency. Some folks just don't have very realistic expectations or understanding of what's involved. There's no such thing as a risk free war. Sometimes individual soldiers don't see that from where they are. That's understandable but doesn't necessarily mean the system is broken!

Troops today are fortunate to have much better vehicles - including armored ones - and personal armor than previous warriors. There's no comparison between an uparmored Humvee and an old M-151 jeep for example. If you ran over a mine in an M-151 you were history whereas in the Humvee you have a much better chance. Even the M-113 APC wasn't very good to be inside if you hit a mine. For convoy escort and defense the Guardian will likely prove even better but it takes time and money to procure them.

Troops have always improvised with field modifications. You should see some of the contraptions we came up with to add firepower and protection to otherwise plain vehicles. Even those old M-151 jeeps were made into weapons platforms. Some of those ideas get turned into standard issue and others do not. Things are learned and unlearned in the field according to necessity and availability.

I'm glad our country has the resources to provide our troops with some of the best equipment and weapon systems of any military force in the world. It's a tribute to both the military and the civilian industries that supplies them. We should keep striving to give our troops the best we can. We shouldn't waste time beating ourselves up over temporary short comings and problems. We should constructively work to resolve them. That's what the system does.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
It's not his service to his country I question. It's his motivation for asking the questions.

Oh, really?
Then exactly why did you offer that he had not "set foot on a battleground?" Those are your words, carpro. Please tell us why you willingly introduced that into the discussion if you weren't questioning his service. I certainly never brought it up. Nope, you did that for a reason, didn't you?

But I don't expect you to understand the difference.

Aw, come on: we all know why you did it. Are you backpedaling? </font>[/QUOTE]Because, at the time he asked the question, he had not yet stepped foot on the battlefield.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
It's not his service to his country I question. It's his motivation for asking the questions.

Oh, really?
Then exactly why did you offer that he had not "set foot on a battleground?" Those are your words, carpro. Please tell us why you willingly introduced that into the discussion if you weren't questioning his service. I certainly never brought it up. Nope, you did that for a reason, didn't you?

But I don't expect you to understand the difference.

Aw, come on: we all know why you did it. Are you backpedaling? </font>[/QUOTE]Wilson having not set foot on the battlefield yet is merely a statement of fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Hi Joseph:

Hope you are doing well.

1. Again, please show us where he ever mentioned "the Administration" in his questions.

2. Since when does one have to "set foot on a battlefield" to have any credibility? President Bush never "set foot on a battlefield," are you ready to throw him under the proverbial bus too? I never said anything about this in my posts, and it offers absolutely no support for the claims that carpro made.

I never thought I would live to see the day when a soldier's credibility is questioned simply because they have never "set foot on a battlefield."

Notice that Dragoon68 made a very intelligent post without attacking the soldier. Good job, by the way - Dragoon68 - don't know if I agree with you but I respect your opinion.

Regards to all of you ,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by carpro:
Wilson having not set foot on the battlefield yet is merely a statement of fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

I am not the one who brought this issue into question - YOU DID. That is an attempt at misdirection. Please go back and answer my questions.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Hi Bitter in Richmond (I made that one up myself... ),

Exactly who here said anything about his credibility, and where is that quote?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Come on, Joseph: you're better than that.

I asked carpro for the reason he offered that into the discussion. I am waiting for carpro to expound upon the rationale for introducing this into the discussion.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
Wilson having not set foot on the battlefield yet is merely a statement of fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

I am not the one who brought this issue into question - YOU DID. That is an attempt at misdirection. Please go back and answer my questions. </font>[/QUOTE]I take that to mean you have no evidence to prove that anything I said at all was not 100% true. If that is not the case, please provide me with the facts that contradict what I wrote.

Now would you please furnish the quote wherein I actually questioned Wilson's service?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by carpro:
I take that to mean you have no evidence to prove that anything I said at all was not 100% true. If that is not the case, please provide me with the facts that contradict what I wrote.
Now would you please furnish the quote wherein I actually questioned Wilson's service?

Carpro, please do me a favor and cease with this foolishness.
YOU are the one who introduced this topic into the discussion. I never discussed it. I asked you why you introduced this into the discussion and you have yet to answer it. Since YOU were the one who made the statement that he never "set foot on a battlefield," it is up to YOU to tell us why you did this.
Thus far, you have offered that it is a fact. So what? What is your point? What are you trying to say? What are you trying to imply? That doesn't explain what this brings to the discussion. Since YOU said it, tell us why you said it.
The validity of your comment was never questioned. Now please explain why you introduced this into the discussion.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I believe it is so that all the facts could be told. Question asked and answered.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I believe it is so that all the facts could be told. Question asked and answered.

I couldn't help but notice that you never answered my question to you, Joseph.....

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

What was your question?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Are you now saying that he was not criticizing the administration? Interestingly enough, many in the media seemed to think he was at the time.

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Did he mention the Administration?
I seem to recall he asked a question about armour for their vehicles.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The way it was portrayed in the media, he was criticizing the administration because of the lack up uparmoured vehicles. Perhaps he was portrayed incorrectly by the liberal media desperate to find a Iraq War Kerry. Who knows?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Here is how CNN reported it.

I don't see where they are portraying it as mentioning "the Administration."

 

[just-want-peace]

Notice that Dragoon68 made a very intelligent post without attacking the soldier. Good job, by the way - Dragoon68 - don't know if I agree with you but I respect your opinion.

Regards to all of you ,
BiR

One of the very few points you've made that I agree with!

Now, if you would follow his example-----

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
I take that to mean you have no evidence to prove that anything I said at all was not 100% true. If that is not the case, please provide me with the facts that contradict what I wrote.
Now would you please furnish the quote wherein I actually questioned Wilson's service?

Carpro, please do me a favor and cease with this foolishness.
YOU are the one who introduced this topic into the discussion. I never discussed it. I asked you why you introduced this into the discussion and you have yet to answer it. Since YOU were the one who made the statement that he never "set foot on a battlefield," it is up to YOU to tell us why you did this.
Thus far, you have offered that it is a fact. So what? What is your point? What are you trying to say? What are you trying to imply? That doesn't explain what this brings to the discussion. Since YOU said it, tell us why you said it.
The validity of your comment was never questioned. Now please explain why you introduced this into the discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]Fine. You agree that everything I wrote was factual.

Now would you please provide proof that I was "questioning " Wilson's service? Or you can admit you made it up. Your choice.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Please read my comments that you produced in that reply.