We had the draft in Vietnam.  Poor people--a disproportionate number of whom were and are "minorities"--are far less likely to be able to defer or evade a draft than wealthier people are.  Kerry saw who was fighting in Vietnam because he went.  Your chickenhawk Bushies did not.  If Bush is insane enough to attack Iran--and he is and he will--the only way we will be able to get enough boots on the ground is to reinstate the draft.  Then, Mr. Saver, may you be in college or over 30 if you don't want to go.  OR you could just shoot yourself in the foot, which you have shown yourself adept at doing
:D

Kerry went to the Vietnam combat theater.  Bush finagled his way out.  Whether or not Kerry applied for his own Purple Heart for a boo-boo on the arm is not germaine to this basic fact.

George Bush calling for Kerry to apologize?  I don't see a body count to go along with Kerrys gaffe.  Who should be apologizing to whom????

George Bush calling for Kerry to apologize?  I don't see a body count to go along with Kerrys gaffe.  Who should be apologizing to whom????



It really pisses me off when Dubya says that someone insulted our military when it is HE who has been insulting them since Day One! First, send them to a place to get killed for OIL! And without the proper equipment/armor needed.  If they didn't get killed or maimed the first time around, no problem. They will have a chance the second or third tour. And once they come home, no need to worry about V.A. benefits since Dubya and his cronies are cutting funding for the V.A. all the time. Support our troops, my ass!



Cat

It really pisses me off when Dubya says that someone insulted our military when it is HE who has been insulting them since Day One! First, send them to a place to get killed for OIL! And without the proper equipment/armor needed.  If they didn't get killed or maimed the first time around, no problem. They will have a chance the second or third tour. And once they come home, no need to worry about V.A. benefits since Dubya and his cronies are cutting funding for the V.A. all the time. Support our troops, my ass!



Cat

Nicely said, Cat. I never liked the guy at all.

It really pisses me off when Dubya says that someone insulted our military when it is HE who has been insulting them since Day One! First, send them to a place to get killed for OIL! And without the proper equipment/armor needed.  If they didn't get killed or maimed the first time around, no problem. They will have a chance the second or third tour. And once they come home, no need to worry about V.A. benefits since Dubya and his cronies are cutting funding for the V.A. all the time. Support our troops, my ass!



Cat


Applause.

I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but they're blowing this thing WAY out of proportion.

Applause.

I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but they're blowing this thing WAY out of proportion.

But it's all they've got!  Smear, fear, and cheating, that's how they're gonna keep control next Tuesday!
::)

Where's the apology from Bush for starting the war in the first place?

Here's my take:

What he said was intended to be a shot at Bush's intelligence, however, it was mistaken by some (and probably intentionally distorted by others) to be insulting of the intelligence of people in the military.

I honestly believe Kerry meant nothing ill towards the troops, nevertheless, this was a profoundly stupid thing to say for more than a few reasons.

One, it can easily be misinterpreted, as has been shown.  I don't understand, unless he was just doing some kind of improv speech in front of an audience (which would probably be stupid as well), how could he have not foreseen this?

Two, elections are a week away, and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the president are milking this gaffe for all that it's worth.  Once again, seriously, how could Kerry make such a dumb statement without realizing it and then refusing to apologize?

Three, it's getting tiresome listening to Kerry poking fun at Bush's intelligence.  I don't know whether or not he is aware that people are beginning to refer to him as "arrogant" or "elitist".  Granted, our president is a frustratingly stubborn ignoramus, but what Kerry said about the president here is roughly the equivalent of saying "Yeah, well you're dumb!" and it's not even clever.  Do your homework or you get stuck in Iraq?  It's understandable that many people misinterpreted this because, correctly interpreted, this "botched joke" implies that your average student may make the mistake of invading a foreign country.

The fact that Bush demanded he apologize to the troops though blows my mind.  Yes, what Kerry said came off as arrogant, but George W. is the most arrogant politician I have ever witnessed, not to mention that he has little concern over what happens to his troops he drops off in unnecessary military conflicts.

Finally, however, he apologized.  I hope he doesn't win the Democratic nomination in 2008, same with Hillary Clinton.  I've heard a lot about Barack Obama, who as likable as he is, doesn't seem to have left me with any impression
whatsoever besides the fact that he's...likable.  What does he support?  What has he voted for?

If I were old enough to vote in that election, (I'm fifteen now, so I'd be seventeen then), I would want to vote for one of the brave few who actually didn't vote for the resolution to invade Iraq in the first place.  So far, the only ones I know of are Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Cynthia McKinney, the latter of which is
too inflammatory and irritable for my tastes, the former of which I haven't researched much.

Some media (ie Fox News) is misinterpreting this as "John Kerry said all the troops in Iraq are stupid", that's not what he said. I think what he did say wasn't the best best thing to say nor is it correct really, but it's not as serious as portrayed by the media.

Funny thing is, neither Kerry nor Bush is in any race in 2006!

Some commentators say the incident has destroyed Kerry's chances for a presidential run in 2008.  That part doesn't bother me.  He shouldn't run again anyway.  What does bother me is the best the Dems can do for a frontrunner is Hillary, Republican-lite.  I'm so sick of Republican-lite I could puke!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sad4.gif

Funny thing is, neither Kerry nor Bush is in any race in 2006!

Some commentators say the incident has destroyed Kerry's chances for a presidential run in 2008.  That part doesn't bother me.  He shouldn't run again anyway.  What does bother me is the best the Dems can do for a frontrunner is Hillary, Republican-lite.  I'm so sick of Republican-lite I could puke!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sad4.gif


I don't consider Hillary Clinton a person so much as a phenomenon.  She could tattoo a swastika on her forehead and march with the neo-nazis and Rush would still refer to her as a dirty liberal, and then make some lame joke about her nearly decade old "right wing conspiracy" remark.

She needs to understand that nothing she can do will win her over with the NASCAR crowd. 

I honestly believe Kerry meant nothing ill towards the troops, nevertheless, this was a profoundly stupid thing to say for more than a few reasons.

.....

Two, elections are a week away, and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the president are milking this gaffe for all that it's worth.  Once again, seriously, how could Kerry make such a dumb statement without realizing it and then refusing to apologize?

Three, it's getting tiresome listening to Kerry poking fun at Bush's intelligence.  I don't know whether or not he is aware that people are beginning to refer to him as "arrogant" or "elitist". 


This is pretty close to what I think as well.

I understand that people make mistakes.  In politics, this was normally known as a "gaffe".  And when it is done, the person simply apologizes and moves on.  It happens all the time, and after a day or so it is forgotten.

And everybody does it.  It simply is more obvious when a politician does it, since they are probably filmed and taped more then anybody else.  What burned me about this is that Sen. Kerry too so long to apologize.  His first attempt started with "I have no reason to apologize", then he went on a 2 minute rant against Bush.  That is not an apology, that is attempting to shift the blame.

And even though he made the gaffe on camera, he finally issues a written memo on his web site to apologize for it.  It is not the statement that bothers me, as much as his arrogant attempt to dismiss the outrage some people had over it.  When even Hillary Clinton says he went to far, that is saying something.

I would have preferred Mr. Kerry either decline to apologize or apologize in full without any ands, ifs, or buts about it. 

If he said, "I botched the joke.  I screwed up.  I'm sorry," he would have garnered a bit more respect.  Of course, he's never going to get any respect from the Republican noise machine and those who genuflect to it,

Astute individuals--liberal, conservative, or in-between--concluded long ago Bush is a half-wit and the occupation of Iraq is a disaster.  If Kerry said, "I'm sorry" with no qualifiers, those people would not change their minds on Bush. 

On the other hand, if he beat Keith Olbermann to the punch and declared, "See, Bush is even too stupid to know I was calling him stupid," he would be roundly condemned by the mainstream media and the spokespeople for both parties.  The Dems are still nervous about the other side calling them names, so they would have blackballed Kerry.  However, if Kerry didn't understand last week that his political career on the national scene was toast, then Kerry himself may be a few bricks short of a load!

The thing is, you can't unring a bell.  Once Kerry opened his yap, the damage was done, apology or not.  That's why if I had my druthers, Kerry would busy himself with his polo ponies and his yacht or whatever and refrain from trying to help!  Thanks anyway, John!
::)

I make a point to not watch the news. Unfortunately, this still made it through!
I am not a political debater, nor do I generally take a side. I guess I am a fence sitter, or a swing vote I believe it is called.

I 'got' Kerry's joke. Was it good? Obviously not. His speech writer is an idiot for even putting it in there. Fire him.
Kerry is an idiot for either A) pre-reading it and thinking the joke was funny or B) not pre-reading it and just going with the flow.
His apology came too late, and for this 'stupid, degenerate's Wife'..... SUCKED!

As for it insulting those who enlist in the Military - I think they have every right to be insulted.
There is this thing called Patriotism, that drives an individual to defend and fight for what they strongly believe in and love.
Someone like my husband, for example, was offered sports scholarships to go to college, yet chose to enlist in the Army. And so it isn't confused, he grew up in Prince Georges County in Maryland...... right on the outskirts of DC in the 70's and 80's when suburbs were still double digit miles away!

I took this as a slap in the face and a 'poo poo on you' even though it was meant to be a joke. Not only did it insult the Military.... it insulted their families!!!
I might as well enlighten you with the rest. My husband just started his second deployment to Iraq

I make a point to not watch the news. Unfortunately, this still made it through!
I am not a political debater, nor do I generally take a side. I guess I am a fence sitter, or a swing vote I believe it is called.

I 'got' Kerry's joke. Was it good? Obviously not. His speech writer is an idiot for even putting it in there. Fire him.
Kerry is an idiot for either A) pre-reading it and thinking the joke was funny or B) not pre-reading it and just going with the flow.
His apology came too late, and for this 'stupid, degenerate's Wife'..... SUCKED!

As for it insulting those who enlist in the Military - I think they have every right to be insulted.
There is this thing called Patriotism, that drives an individual to defend and fight for what they strongly believe in and love.
Someone like my husband, for example, was offered sports scholarships to go to college, yet chose to enlist in the Army. And so it isn't confused, he grew up in Prince Georges County in Maryland...... right on the outskirts of DC in the 70's and 80's when suburbs were still double digit miles away!

I took this as a slap in the face and a 'poo poo on you' even though it was meant to be a joke. Not only did it insult the Military.... it insulted their families!!!
I might as well enlighten you with the rest. My husband just started his second deployment to Iraq

Except Kerry did not insult the troops, the military, or the families.

Senator John Kerry served voluntarily and honorably in combat in Vietnam.  The men who are smearing Mr. Kerry this week did not.  Your husband has more kinship with Kerry than with anybody in the Bush White House.  It is the desperate Republicans and their media lapdogs who are perpetually repeating the falsehood that Kerry insulted soldiers in Iraq, and it is they who are making the suggestion stick inside your head.  If the Republicans believe what Mr. Kerry said may be insulting to our troops, they would pass on the story.  They would stifle their remarks on it.  The Republicans have persistently proclaimed that it is bad for the morale of our troops serving in combat for them to hear negative things via the press.  If that's the case, the less said about the misinterpretation Kerry's remarks the better, right?  Wrong.  The Republicans show they don't by their own standards give a tinker's cuss about the morale of the troops.  They use this misrepresentation of Kerry's joke as a political football.  The GOP is desperate.  They are afraid they might not be able to cheat enough on November 7th to retain control of the entire government.

I personally don't think it is stuff in the media that hurts the morale of our troops in Iraq.  I believe what hurts the morale of the troops is being stuck in a futile occupation of a country in ruins and chaos that does not want them there.  That's bad for morale.  Going out every day in this futile occupation knowing you might get shot by a sniper or blown up by an IED, that's bad for morale.  Some journalist thousands of miles away saying, "Gee, we can't win this war" is probably not.  How bad for morale can it be when the soldiers see the same reality every days?

I just watched the video clip. Wow, that was truly left-tarded.


If he said, "I botched the joke.  I screwed up.  I'm sorry," he would have garnered a bit more respect. 


He would have garnered a lot more respect (with me anyway) if he did that or found some witty comeback to his own ineptitude. I can't believe anyone would have scripted that for him: it's simply unfathomable that a speech writer and who-know-how-many proof-readers could have missed that. Is Kerry's writing team Republican?

I also watched a few video clips of Bush, including the "insult" of the blind reporter. While old news, to me, Bush came across as unknowledgable rather than insulting. There was a even a few crowd laughs and a rare glimpse of humor in Bush himself, which helped diffuse the situation. Kerry's comment would have gone over better if he had told a dead baby joke.  ::)

Not that I am pro-Bush; far from it. But when folks like Kerry make statements like this:

"Y'know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

It just makes one cringe.


Except Kerry did not insult the troops, the military, or the families.



Is there some part of the speech I'm missing? What Kerry said on that clip would piss me off if I were still active duty. As it stands, I think Kerry's speech writer is a f***ing moron.


I personally don't think it is stuff in the media that hurts the morale of our troops in Iraq.  I believe what hurts the morale of the troops is being stuck in a futile occupation of a country in ruins and chaos that does not want them there.  That's bad for morale.  Going out every day in this futile occupation knowing you might get shot by a sniper or blown up by an IED, that's bad for morale.  Some journalist thousands of miles away saying, "Gee, we can't win this war" is probably not.  How bad for morale can it be when the soldiers see the same reality every days?


I agree that it is demoralizing to be in such a situation, but having your own people (i.e. some media) publically say that basically "The War is unwinnable", etc. could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

To me, once again the GOP is trying to distract voters from the REAL issues. When you look at what is going on right now, the war, record deficits, major corruption in the GOP, civil rights being limited, etc.  the GOP HAS to come up with something to say about the Dems. And this seems to be the only thing they can come up with in the 11th hour. So they are going to milk this for all its worth. Pretty lame if you ask me.



Cat

With Kerry, you'd never know he was making a joke.
With Bush, you'd never know he was serious.
::)

I agree, Cat, this is a pre-election day red herring.

i think, botched jokes aside, kerry was basically referring to the "poverty draft." yes, some people enlist because they love the idea of the military and want to make it a career, but a lot of other people enlist because they don't have a lot of other options. i think kerry should have clarified but not apologized, because basically what he said was right, he just needed to redirect it a bit and stand by it. by being so contrite the democrats just played, once again, into the perception that they're spineless.

I am hardly stupid.  When I first enlisted (1983), my ASVAB scores put me in the top 15 percentile. 


what was your SAT score?

i think, botched jokes aside, kerry was basically referring to the "poverty draft." yes, some people enlist because they love the idea of the military and want to make it a career, but a lot of other people enlist because they don't have a lot of other options. i think kerry should have clarified but not apologized, because basically what he said was right, he just needed to redirect it a bit and stand by it. by being so contrite the democrats just played, once again, into the perception that they're spineless.

Again, Kerry was referring to Bush's ignorance in starting the war with Iraq.  Bush did not even know the three major divisions in Iraqi society are Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and Kurds.  The president did not know what he was doing or what he was getting into.  He still doesn't and he doesn't care to find out.  This is a man who brags that he does not read. 

The "poverty draft" is very real, but a different topic.


what was your SAT score?

The SAT does not measure intelligence.

The way I see it Kerry botched a joke for those who didn't get it it has been explained and an apology given, and for those who don't get the explanation, well, they will probably end up in Iraq.

The way I see it Kerry botched a joke for those who didn't get it it has been explained and an apology given, and for those who don't get the explanation, well, they will probably end up in Iraq.

I'd like to send Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, the Limbaugh brothers, and the rest of the gung-ho right-wing media to Iraq.  They like the war so much, let them fight in it!
::)

what was your SAT score?


I never took the SAT.  I actually enlisted in November 1982, shortly after I began my Senior year of High School.  Since I was obviously not going to be going to college any time soon, I saw no reason to take it.

I never took the SAT.  I actually enlisted in November 1982, shortly after I began my Senior year of High School.  Since I was obviously not going to be going to college any time soon, I saw no reason to take it.



Oh wow. I enlisted in Feb. 82.  :o



Cat

The "poverty draft" is very real, but a different topic.
well, that depends on whether you believe his story about how it was a botched up joke. i think he said what he meant to say and then made up the botched joke thing when he saw how it went over.

well, that depends on whether you believe his story about how it was a botched up joke. i think he said what he meant to say and then made up the botched joke thing when he saw how it went over.

Nah, I think he just flubbed it.

One of those right-wing clowns did run right out and declare the average soldier's family is in a higher-than-average income bracket.  They've gotta say that.  In GOP-Land you can't be poor and be a good person at the same time!
::)

I never took the SAT. 


...making you inelligible for admission to almost all  institutions of higher learning, thus proving Kerry's point.

...making you inelligible for admission to almost all  institutions of higher learning, thus proving Kerry's point.
Not true.  I've never taken the SAT and I'm currently a student at NIU.  You can also go to a junior college first, then transfer and not have to take it as well since most juco's don't require it to be admitted (basically, all you need a hs diploma or GED).

I would have preferred Mr. Kerry either decline to apologize or apologize in full without any ands, ifs, or buts about it. 

If he said, "I botched the joke.  I screwed up.  I'm sorry," he would have garnered a bit more respect.  Of course, he's never going to get any respect from the Republican noise machine and those who genuflect to it,

Astute individuals--liberal, conservative, or in-between--concluded long ago Bush is a half-wit and the occupation of Iraq is a disaster.  If Kerry said, "I'm sorry" with no qualifiers, those people would not change their minds on Bush. 

On the other hand, if he beat Keith Olbermann to the punch and declared, "See, Bush is even too stupid to know I was calling him stupid," he would be roundly condemned by the mainstream media and the spokespeople for both parties.  The Dems are still nervous about the other side calling them names, so they would have blackballed Kerry.  However, if Kerry didn't understand last week that his political career on the national scene was toast, then Kerry himself may be a few bricks short of a load!

The thing is, you can't unring a bell.  Once Kerry opened his yap, the damage was done, apology or not.  That's why if I had my druthers, Kerry would busy himself with his polo ponies and his yacht or whatever and refrain from trying to help!  Thanks anyway, John!
::)


  It is funny, Max...

  Yeah, he's (Kerry) not the best public speaker, and he will never be president IMO, but I don't think he "bashes" the military.  He has advocated for the well-being of our soldiers ever since he came back from Vietnam...

  Our president, however, talks the talk, but doesn't back it up.  He cuts veteran's benefits, sends them to a war of choice without armor or an exit strategy, doesn't attend their funerals, and extends their service on short notice.  He slanders the service of John Kerry, as well as Max Cleland and John McCain, without even having the balls to do it himself, but sends his toadies and minions to do the dirty work...

  But then again, he does wear an American flag on his lapel groove ;) on

...making you inelligible for admission to almost all  institutions of higher learning, thus proving Kerry's point.



That's not true.  I never took the SAT and had no problem getting into either of the 2 colleges I attended. 

...making you inelligible for admission to almost all  institutions of higher learning, thus proving Kerry's point.


As said before you can get into a community college easily without taking the SAT, then transfer to a university. I'm probably going to go this route when I decide continue my education.

That's not true.  I never took the SAT and had no problem getting into either of the 2 colleges I attended. 
Did you take the ACT?  I think that was a little more "popular" in IL than the SAT.  In fact, I don't know a single person in my graduating class that took the SAT ???

I took both the ACT and the SAT.  Then I took the GREs to get my punk booty into grad school :D

I actually got a "Selective Service" (I think that was the term) card when I was a senior in high school...sent it in and stuff but never heard back from the Army folk.  I was considering ROTC at the university or a military academy at some point but decided that I liked science more.

I think I just envied the level of discipline and physical/mental prowess required to be a soldier, and it's probably even harder to be a soldier/student as some of my friends were in college. 

Just providing some viewpoints on the other side of the coin...while it's fun to bark about stereotypes, not all soldiers are stupid, and not all "privileged" kids balk at military duty. 

Did you take the ACT?  I think that was a little more "popular" in IL than the SAT.  In fact, I don't know a single person in my graduating class that took the SAT ???


Yeah, I took it back in April of '99 when I was a junior.  I took it just once.  I know a couple girls took the SAT, but that's because they were applying to out of state schools that required either only the SAT or both the SAT and the ACT.  The ACT is much easier in my opinion.....my sister took the ACT once but had to take the SAT 4 times.  That's extremely expensive.

I took the SAT....I think it's a bunch of shit, personally.  I was nearly a straight A (few B's here and there) student....but I scored fairly low on the test.

   It is funny, Max...

   Yeah, he's (Kerry) not the best public speaker, and he will never be president IMO, but I don't think he "bashes" the military.  He has advocated for the well-being of our soldiers ever since he came back from Vietnam...

   Our president, however, talks the talk, but doesn't back it up.  He cuts veteran's benefits, sends them to a war of choice without armor or an exit strategy, doesn't attend their funerals, and extends their service on short notice.  He slanders the service of John Kerry, as well as Max Cleland and John McCain, without even having the balls to do it himself, but sends his toadies and minions to do the dirty work...

   But then again, he does wear an American flag on his lapel groove ;) on


Amen to you and a karma point!  Rove took a page right out of Machiavelli: Attack your opponent on his strengths, not his weaknesses.  However, in a truly dog-eat-dog Machiavellian culture, Mr. Cheney would have had both Bush and Rove assassinated years ago! 

U-groove on-2
8)

What's all this SAT talk?  Who cares?  That test is a total crock.

Not true.  I've never taken the SAT and I'm currently a student at NIU.  You can also go to a junior college first, then transfer and not have to take it as well since most juco's don't require it to be admitted (basically, all you need a hs diploma or GED).



What are UC's current standardized testing requirements for applicants?
UC requires scores from the SAT I (scores from the same sitting) or ACT (composite score), along with scores from three SAT II Subject Tests: Writing, Math (either level), and a third exam in English literature, foreign language, science or social studies.

http://www.ucop.edu/news/sat/qa.html


BTW, UCLA recieves more applications for admission than any other school in the counntry.

It really pisses me off when Dubya says that someone insulted our military when it is HE who has been insulting them since Day One! First, send them to a place to get killed for OIL! And without the proper equipment/armor needed.  If they didn't get killed or maimed the first time around, no problem. They will have a chance the second or third tour. And once they come home, no need to worry about V.A. benefits since Dubya and his cronies are cutting funding for the V.A. all the time. Support our troops, my ass!



Cat


I'm not exactly an old hand here, but I've been trying to read some of these threads and see where maybe I can get a few words in and start making some posts.

First off..I don't see the big deal everybody seems to be making about "proper equipment and armor" .  Loads of poeple who have never seen the Military way of life squawk about the HumVees not having armor.  How much armor did a Jeep have??  Zilch!!  Canvas doors and a thin metal underbelly was it.  No ballistic plates for the doors, or in place of windows, or on the floorboards, we used sandbags as protection on the floorboards and never cried once.  The bombs/mortars/IED's were just as deadly back then as they are now.

Personal armor-my first "flak jacket" had fiberglass (1/8 inch thick) plates that overlapped somewhat in many folds of the jacket.  Had about all the protection of a Saturn car fender, in other words, not much.  As a former Marine with ground combat experience, I'll tell you that the worst thing you can do to an infantry soldier is weigh him down with useless junk and that includes the new body armor.  A soldier on the ground survives by being fast and being able to keep moving fast without having his butt weighed down and increasing fatigue.  I would daresay that I can probably count the number of people on this forum with both hands who have experienced either combat, or the dreaded 26 mile long force marches we used to practice religiously in the Corps.  Anybody who has been on one, or who has had the pleasure of having truly being in harms way will tell you that the last thing they think about is excess weight and making sure their body armor is secured and being worn properly.  They want to be lightweight and highly mobile, thats how you stay alive in combat.  Start wearing a few of those 10-15 pound metal plates on top of the nearly 100 pounds of gear you carry in a normal combat situation and you'll be dropping whatever excess you can fast, those plates included.

Soldiers have survived wars for generations with less than perfect technology.  Men (and women) are going to die in combat, no matter how good the equipment is, no matter how much crying we do about what the troops don't have, etc.  It's all well and good to want the best for our servicepeople, but sometimes making sure they have the best is more detrimental than it is beneficial.

General Patton didn't fight the Axis forces with Jeeps.
::)

General Patton didn't fight the Axis forces with Jeeps.
::)
naw, he did it with a bunch of inflatable tanks in the english countryside. :)

General Patton didn't fight the Axis forces with Jeeps.
::)


Yes, he did.  Patton was in command of approximately 200 M4 Sherman Tanks (which were so bad, they were nicknamed "Ronsons", because they were "guaranteed to light up every time"), and thousands of jeeps, pickup trucks, and 2 ton trucks.  In fact, a normal Armoured Division has roughly 20 "support vehicles" for every "fighting vehicle".

In fact, to give an idea how slow it is to make equipment improvements in military equipment, look at the M4 Sherman.  It was known before it entered service that the use of gasoline was a deadly hazard in the event of the armour being penetrated.  And tens of thousands were made anyways.  And thousands of crewmembers died because of this.

And after WWII, the successor (the M46 Patton) still used gasoline, even though almost every other army in the world switched to diesel.  The army did not start to use diesel as fuel in tanks until the M48A3 in 1962.  It took over 20 years for the beaurocracy to make the change from gasoline to diesel fuels.  This is because the military really has very little say in what equipment they are given to fight with.  That is mostly made by civilian beaurocrats in the Pentagon and in Washington DC.


First off..I don't see the big deal everybody seems to be making about "proper equipment and armor" .  Loads of poeple who have never seen the Military way of life squawk about the HumVees not having armor.  How much armor did a Jeep have??  Zilch!!  Canvas doors and a thin metal underbelly was it.  No ballistic plates for the doors, or in place of windows, or on the floorboards, we used sandbags as protection on the floorboards and never cried once.  The bombs/mortars/IED's were just as deadly back then as they are now.

Personal armor-my first "flak jacket" had fiberglass (1/8 inch thick) plates that overlapped somewhat in many folds of the jacket.  Had about all the protection of a Saturn car fender, in other words, not much.  As a former Marine with ground combat experience, I'll tell you that the worst thing you can do to an infantry soldier is weigh him down with useless junk and that includes the new body armor.  A soldier on the ground survives by being fast and being able to keep moving fast without having his butt weighed down and increasing fatigue.  I would daresay that I can probably count the number of people on this forum with both hands who have experienced either combat, or the dreaded 26 mile long force marches we used to practice religiously in the Corps.  Anybody who has been on one, or who has had the pleasure of having truly being in harms way will tell you that the last thing they think about is excess weight and making sure their body armor is secured and being worn properly.  They want to be lightweight and highly mobile, thats how you stay alive in combat.  Start wearing a few of those 10-15 pound metal plates on top of the nearly 100 pounds of gear you carry in a normal combat situation and you'll be dropping whatever excess you can fast, those plates included.


Semper Fi.  And I know exactly what you are talking about.  Most civilians have absolutely no concept what being in the military (let alone an Infantryman) is really like.  They see some Chuck Norris movie, and think that is how it is.  Bullet wounds are clean wounds, and you ran run around in full gear like it is nothing, or go through a combat zone in little more then a tank top and never get hurt.

I have done the MCCRES myself, and it is pure torture.  A 26 mile hike in 8 hours with a full combat load (60-75 lbs).  Doing 2 week long war games in North Carolina in the summer.  Spending a month living in the jungle of Panama, or in the desert in California to learn how to fight under extreme conditions.  The fact that most of us love it seems uncomprehensible to most civilians.

They also have no concept of what inspires people to join the military, let alone a group like the Marines, or go in the Infantry.  As a 10 year 0311 (Marine Infantryman), I find it almost laughable when people try to give advice to our Military how it should conduct and equip itself.  I talk to a lot of guys who refused to wear the "trauma plates" in Iraq, because of the heat and the weight.  Who think that "Armoured Hummers" are just something that the Pentagon can pop out it's bottom and prevent anybody from being killed.

The majority of people who join the military know exactly what they are doing.  And considering that the majority in uniform at this time joined after the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq, they also knew it was likely they would go into harms way.  We accept that as the risks of the job.  Just as a cop knows he may get shot in the line of duty, or a firefighter knows that he or she may get horribly burned or killed in the line of their duty.

And the equipment our troops have now is incredible compared to what I used when I was in.  Everything from weapons, uniforms, boots, body armour, gas masks, even packs have been streamlined and improved immensely.  But no matter what, people will still be killed.  And they even die in peacetime, due to accidents, equipment failure, and just plain stupidity.  If you want to be safe, do not join the military.

I'm trying to figure out the comment about "no jeeps"...they were used extensively in WW2.

I carried an M16A1, never got the opportunity to carry the A2 or A3 in combat, the A1 served me well.

I had a plain jane flak jacket, steel pot(not the kevlar nazi looking thing they use today)  no additional armor plating for the FJ...the same boots that troops used in Vietnam, saw plenty of combat action and managed to not need any of the stuff people cry we need today.  Todays Military man is far better equipped, and in most instances, doesn't need all the crap they're being offered.

I went into battle loaded with ammo, my bayonet, 2 canteens of water, grenades wherever I could strap them on or shove them into pockets, and the basic combat load on my ALICE pack that weighed about 60-65 pounds...did I need any additional armor plating to have to drag along??  No friggin' way!!  I lugged enough.  What I did want for "additional weight" was stuff that would do me more good and had a far greater chance of saving my life...like a few aditional grenades, a few extra loaded 30 round magazines, etc.  What was I supposed to do with that armor plate??  Wait till they got close enough to me and throw it at them??  I valued my e-tool as a last means of killing an individual more important than a couple pieces of boiler plate...Semper Fi!!

A Q? for the Marine-type dudes...if they were able to develop efficient and lightweight body armor, would you think that would be useful or not?  Just wondering.

I figure that you guys know what you're talking about though, since you actually served and experienced it and such.


That is a pipe dream.  I doubt anything like that will come along in my children's lifetime.  You might as well hope for the "Powered Armour" from Starship Troopers.

The body armour we have now is pretty damned good.  It weighs about 25 pounds, and is thick and heavy.  Most of the time the front is not even closed, so you can cool off a bit better in hot climates (like Iraq or Afganistan).  If you add the Ballistic Plate, add another 8 lbs, and forget about opening it up for cooling, because it covers the entire front.

Can you say "Heat Stroke"?

In fact, a few months ago I was reading the "Marine Corps Times", and they gave an interesting statistic.  Of the casualties who were shot in the front torso, less then 40% of them had their armour properly closed.  And I can understand it.  Imagine wearing 25 lbs of sweaters, jackets, and longjohns in the middle of summer.  Then march around in the sun for 4-6 hours, with another 20-50 lbs of equipment (and don't forget the 6 lb Kevlar Helmet).

The body armour the military uses is far superior to what is used by law enforcement.  Of course, most law enforcement expects to be shot with nothing more then a 38 special or 9mm pistol round.  A 7.62mm round from a modern light machine gun would cut through them like a hot knife through butter.  Even the 5.56mm round of the M-16 would pass through the front, through the person wearing it, and quite possibly out the back.

The military stuff on the other hand provides almost total protection against 5.56mm rounds, and roughly 75% protection against 7.62mm rounds.  Nothing made will protect a wearer against .50 cal rounds, so it is not even worth trying.  And if it was made any heavier, it would be worthless on the battlefield.

I was in the service from 1983-1993.  I started with the same stuff esoxslayer did.  Kevlar on the top, and overlapping "balistic fiberglass" plates on the bottom.  It was heavy (about 30-35 lbs), did not move well, and had a zipper on the front (which was never used).  We also used the good old M-1 "steel pot", basically unchanged from what my grandfather used in WWII.  In fact, body armour was available throughout the Vietnam War.  But how often did you see people wearing it?  Almost never.  About the only times I can really remember seeing soldiers and Marines in Vietnam wearing body armour was either the attack on the US Embassy during Tet (in which the Marines were stationed there at the embassy), or at the seige of Khe Sahn, in which they were stationed at the base which was under attack, and did not have to go out "in the boonies".

During my time in, we went to the Kevlar helmet, and the Kevlar vest.  Much lighter, it also provided much more protection.  The stuff in use now is an improvement over what I used, but it is still a trade-off.  To thick and heavy, and the troops will not wear it.  To thin, and it does not provide enough protection.  We have also finally dumped the venerable ALICE backpack and equipment carrying system, which dates back to the beginning of the Vietnam War.

If the military is one thing when it comes to equipment, it is that they are very conservative.  When you have the lives of people at stake, you do not take risks, for fear that they will not work.  The "Trauma Plates" is an example of this.  The military did not want them.  Most of the troops did not want them.  However, you had some that complained, and a bunch of others got their panties in a wad and insisted that they be rushed to the battlefield, untested.  And now over 75% of them sit in the barracks, because the troops refuse to wear them because of the added weight, loss of mobility, and danger of heat injuries.

Not to mention the "horror stories" of the results of a 7.62mm round penetrating the armour and plate, then entering the body.  If you think gunshot wounds are bad, picture a gunshot wound that brings in shreaded fiberglass into the body.  Dirty, sweaty, germ infested fiberglass because it has been used in the field for months on end.

There is simply no way to make a "perfect" body armour, that is both light weight and able to protect the wearer.  We might see something in 50-75 years, but nothing until then at least unless some major miraculous breakthrough occurs.

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of something that was lightweight but strong...very difficult to incorporate the two.  I read an article about some researchers attempting to incorporate a synthetic spider web fiber into body armor as web fiber is extremely strong, but I don't know what became of that.

I guess it's mostly a practicality issue.  If the military experts believe that stronger body armor is impractical, that's good enough for me. 

I guess it's mostly a practicality issue.  If the military experts believe that stronger body armor is impractical, that's good enough for me. 


In reality, it is what the people on the ground think that matters most.  Just look at the "Trauma Plates".  A lot of "Military Experts" thought it was a great idea, a lot of bubble-headed political pundits screamed and hollared that our troops were sent in "unprotected".  A year or so back they went on and on and on about it.

Now here we are a year or so later, and what is the result?  All of the troops have the Trauma Plates, but very few of them use it.  It is just to heavy and hot to wear.  You had some Supply types that sat in the rear who thought it was a good idea, but nobody asked the infantrymen who walked through the city streets every day to see what they thought.

Myself?  Well, if I knew I was going to be involved in a firefight, of course I would wear the thing.  But when your job is composed of doing a 6 hour patrol for months at a time - and you might see a firefight once or twice in 6 months, you don't bother.  After all, why risk heat stroke on a daily basis because of something that has maybe a 1-2% chance of happening?

Duly noted.  It's too bad you guys can't have the best of both worlds and get the "perfect" armor, but I guess that'll have to wait.

Yes, he did.  Patton was in command of approximately 200 M4 Sherman Tanks (which were so bad, they were nicknamed "Ronsons", because they were "guaranteed to light up every time"), and thousands of jeeps, pickup trucks, and 2 ton trucks.  In fact, a normal Armoured Division has roughly 20 "support vehicles" for every "fighting vehicle".


Oh, OK, Patton fought the Axis forces with Jeeps.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/sleepy1.gif

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of something that was lightweight but strong...very difficult to incorporate the two.  I read an article about some researchers attempting to incorporate a synthetic spider web fiber into body armor as web fiber is extremely strong, but I don't know what became of that.

I guess it's mostly a practicality issue.  If the military experts believe that stronger body armor is impractical, that's good enough for me. 


The two things an infantryman needs today to survive:  mobility and speed....if you can evade and maneuver quickly, everything else will fall into place.....men are going to die no matter what we are protected with, we all agreed to that when we signed on and took the oath....

I've suffered from heat stroke...it's not pleasant, and personally, I wouldn't wear half the crap some rear echelon pogue or politician thought the troops "had" to have.....I'll take my combat load and nothing more....

Oh, OK, Patton fought the Axis forces with Jeeps.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/sleepy1.gif


Without Jeeps, Patton would never have made it across the Seine, let alone across the Rhine.  They were critical in the operation of a mobile force.  Command & Controll, passing secure orders, evacuating wounded, and reconisance were just some of the tasks the M151 "Jeep" did.  Without them, Patton would have been blind and mute.

Most people really have no idea what all goes on in a military unit.  It takes approximately 100 people to keep 1 Infantryman (or tanker, or fighter pilot) "operational".  And a unit must work together as a team.  A break-down in any one area leads to a total balls-up operation.

But I will not bore you with such things as details about how the military operates, since it really does not matter.

Just as a side note for all who never served and wonder about this "armor protection"..none of the equipment when it was originally designed was made to stop a bullet, it was meant to stop injuries from shrapnel.  The helmet, flak jacket, etc, was intended to reduce those type injuries, not bullets.  Don't be fooled by those that say we are ill equipped.

With the adoption of the belgian SS-109 round as the standard NATO 5.56 mm round in the 80's, the capability to pierce a US "steel pot" helmet at 800 meters became possible.

What's all this SAT talk?  Who cares?  That test is a total crock.


Actually, I pretty much agree with you there.  SAT to me seems mostly to be a test of your "cram ability".  Most of those that take it for scholarships or placement in pretegious schools, they take pre-tests, multiple "study guides", and even spend large amounts of money ($3,000+) on courses that teach the person how to get the highest score possible.

And when it is all said and done, it has little bearing on real-life experience or what you will learn in college.  And some people are better/worse then others in passing tests.  I am actually one of those that most people hate.  In school I almost always found it easy to take tests, frequently screwing up bell curves because everybody esle would score in the 60's, and I would almost ace a test.

And even today, I have that ability.  I took my ASVAB with 15 other people, and about 1/3 of them failed.  The requirement for enlistment is to score 31 percentile or higher, and most of the people who take it take pre-tests or buy study guides in order to prepare.  I took it blind, with absolutely no study or review before hand, and scored in the 88 percentile.

When the percentile is compared to a percentile breakdown of the SAT, I would have a score of 1920.  Makes me wonder what might have happened if I had studied for the thing.  But with an 88, I am eligable for any job I want.  The MOS I am entering is 21U, Topographic Analyst.  The required score for that is 65 percentile and is one of the highest minimal scores in the Army for enlisted personel.

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanksCompositeCR_M_W.pdf

But I will not bore you with such things as details about how the military operates, since it really does not matter.
oo!

SARcasm!

you hardly EVER see any of THAT around here! ::)

With the adoption of the belgian SS-109 round as the standard NATO 5.56 mm round in the 80's, the capability to pierce a US "steel pot" helmet at 800 meters became possible.


Actually, it's 600 meters with a 10-gauge piece of plate steel, but anyway...

The hotel where I work has hosted many military groups heading to Iraq/Kuwait, mostly for customs duty. It isn't like these men and women have a free pass though, they still are issued extremely heavy body armor that is Class 4, which is able to stop 5.56X45 (AR-15) and 7.62X39 (AK-47) rounds. It will not stop close range shrapnel, and was never made to do so.

I have seen these soldiers lug this armor around, on smooth, flat, easy ground (i.e. carpet in an air-conditioned hallway), and it's still a huge PITA. I can only imagine what walking in sand, with 30-60 pounds of armor, a 7 lb rifle, and who-knows-how-many lbs of provisions, in desert heat is like.

IED attacks will easily defeat body armor. Only the head, torso, and groin are covered by the armor our troops wear. If you HumVee runs across an explosive device, only its armor and luck are going to save you.

Even if someone managed to make full body armor that weighed practically nothing, absorbing 1200 ft-lbs of energy in a spot less than the size of a postage stamp is still going to hurt like a mother******, and temporarily stun a troop. Not to mention that heat stroke is a serious risk to all troops: back in June/July here, when temps were 100*+ here (and 90% humidity), roughly 10% of soldiers were in need of medical care after a day of training.

BTW, "running" while wearing class 4 armor, gear, and weapon is virtually impossible.

Begging your pardon, and sorry if I misunderstood, but the SAT I exam maxes out at 1600.  Do you mean what would have happened if you had adjusted your score to today's standards?


I really do not know how the SAT works.  I found that chart I linked to and compared my percentile score against what they said the percentile score ranked.  They give the maximum score as 2400.

According the the header of the chart, this is how they computed the score:

Critical Reading + Mathematics + Writing

And because the ASVAB is graded by percentile, it does not score the same way as the SAT.  But it does give a decent gauge to compare around where I would have placed if I ever bothered to try and prepare myself to take the SAT.  And remember, I graduated from High School 23 years ago.  A lot of the stuff on the ASVAB was stuff I have not had to bother with in over 20 years.

After all, I can't remember the last time I had to divide fractions or use much math beyond basic algebra.  But I found I was able to remember real fast when I took the test.  Even the advanced algebra, geometry, and basic calculus came back to me real fast when I was taking the test.

Begging your pardon, and sorry if I misunderstood, but the SAT I exam maxes out at 1600.  Do you mean what would have happened if you had adjusted your score to today's standards?

I agree with your other points though.  The SAT is a test of how well you take the SAT, nothing more.  Most of what you learn in high school unfortunately has no bearing on real life issues.

I scored a 1450. 



The SAT was extended to a high score of 2400, I believe.

Ah, okay, they changed the test since I took it then.  They also changed the GRE quite a bit.  I don't know if it's to make the test more all-encompassing, or to make it easier for people to get a better score on it.

I think they changed the test to give each section an equal number of points, I believe.

My friend Paul spent high school in a purple haze, if ya know what I mean.  He was an unmotivated, rebellious student who barely graduated after getting D's and F's.  He took the SATs three years after high school.  He just walked in, no prep, and scored a 1500! (and that was before you got 200 points for signing your name) You see, Paul was an extremely bright guy who was great at taking tests.  Psychiatric and substance abuse problems caused his abaysmal academic record in HS.  Unfortunately, his bipolarity and drug problems plagued him in college, and he never graduated.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif

Did anybody on here watch that series "Over There" in it's debut season?  I have no idea if people believed some of the tripe he portrayed on there or not.  I think it was the first episode where the convoy pulled over to the side of the road and the truck hit a mine, he made sure he showed the trigger mechanism of the mine and the tire slowly driving onto it.

No military commander I can think of would drive to the shoulder of a paved highway and take a chance such as this, just for this reason.  They'd park in the middle of the road, staying on the paved surface.  Oncoming or following traffic would wait until the convoy started rolling again.

I don't mind both viewpoints of a war being portrayed, but I wish that both views would be at least close to factual.  To show a scene like that is a ploy, in my opinion, designed to make the public misinformed about how our troops conduct themselves on a daily basis over there.  I can't believe that any former military person would do anything other than laugh at the point he was trying to get across.

Did anybody on here watch that series "Over There" in it's debut season?  I have no idea if people believed some of the tripe he portrayed on there or not.  I think it was the first episode where the convoy pulled over to the side of the road and the truck hit a mine, he made sure he showed the trigger mechanism of the mine and the tire slowly driving onto it.

I don't mind both viewpoints of a war being portrayed, but I wish that both views would be at least close to factual.  To show a scene like that is a ploy, in my opinion, designed to make the public misinformed about how our troops conduct themselves on a daily basis over there.  I can't believe that any former military person would do anything other than laugh at the point he was trying to get across.


Generally, I refuse to watch either movies or TV shows, or read books about the military unless there were great pains taken in research.  Most of the times, I end up just sitting back and complaining about all of the things they got wrong.

Some of my favorite "war" movies are Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket.  Thy makes of these movies took great pains in doing their research, and making sure that things were protrayed as accurately as possible.  This is unlike the Arnold, Sylvester, or Chuck Norris movies.  These are the ones where a guy runs bare chested through artillary explosions, and never gets a scratch.  Or if he is shot, it is always a "flesh wound" and he keeps going.  I view those more as "comedies" then war movies.

And sadly, it happens in books as well.  I just finished the first 2 books in an "Alternate History" series by an Australian author, John Birmingham.  The plot is pretty good, but you can tell he did zero research, because he got almost every aspect of the military (and US culture and history) totally wrong.  This made it very distracting to read, since with every other paragraph, I was finding huge mistakes.  For example, he has people looking at the I-405 in Los Angeles in 1942.  But the Interstate freeway system was not even started until 1954, and the section of I-405 he talks about was built in 1959, and opened in 1961.  You might as well write a history of Julius Caeser and give him muskets.

  For example, he has people looking at the I-405 in Los Angeles in 1942.  But the Interstate freeway system was not even started until 1954, and the section of I-405 he talks about was built in 1959, and opened in 1961.  You might as well write a history of Julius Caeser and give him muskets.

Uh, that's a glaring anachronism if I ever saw one!  Just google "Interstate highway system," first entry:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/
Federal Highway Administration.
Now, when was Eisenhower president?
:P

Uh, that's a glaring anachronism if I ever saw one!  Just google "Interstate highway system," first entry:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/
Federal Highway Administration.
Now, when was Eisenhower president?
:P


1952-1960.  He also started the largest Public Works project in history when he ordered the construction of the Interstate Highway system.  Even 54 years later, it is still under way.

In 1942, the closest thing to an Interstate System in the world was the Autobahn, in Nazi Germany.  It would be over a Decade before anything like it appeared in the US (not counting the 110 mile Pennsylvania Turnpike, finished in 1940).

53-61, in fact.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/graphics/kerrysign.jpg
Funny sign whether or not these soldiers support Dubya.
(Joke's on them if they do!)