Pentagon: Better Armor Would Have Saved Soldiers

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

Most torso wounds that killed Marines in Iraq would have been prevented or minimized by improved body armor, a revolutionary Pentagon study found.

The unreleased study looked at 93 fatal wounds from the start of the war in March 2003 through June 2005. It concluded that 74 were bullet or shrapnel wounds to shoulders or areas of the torso not properly protected.

The findings underscore the difficulty facing the Army and Marine Corps in providing the optimum level of body armor protection in a war against an insurgency whose tactics constantly change.

According to a summary of the study obtained by The Associated Press, the 93 Marines who died from a primary lethal injury of the torso were among 401 Marines who died from combat injuries in Iraq between the start of the war and last June.

Autopsy reports and photographic records were analyzed to help the military determine possible body armor redesign. A military advocacy group, Soldiers for Truth, posted an article about the study on its Web site this week. On Friday evening, The New York Times reported in its online edition that the study for the first time shows the cost in lives lost from inadequate armor.

The study found that of 39 fatal torso wounds in which the bullet or shrapnel entered the Marine’s body outside of the ceramic armor plate that protects the chest and back, 31 were close to the plate’s edge. “Either a larger plate or superior protection around the plate would have had the potential to alter the final outcome,” the report concluded.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Get ready to be called a Left Wing, Liberal fanatic - you unamerican communist.

Why don't you try supporting our troops????

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

Get ready to be called a Left Wing, Liberal fanatic - you unamerican communist.

Why don't you try supporting our troops????

True what the fuck are you talking about?

[fishman33]

Good post, JWBL, it's true that better protection could have saved some lives. Unfortunately, there is only so much you can do in the ways of body armor and still be able to perform necessary duties. Maintain sufficient agility I guess would be a better way to put that. What I'd like to see over improved body armor is better protection in the vehicles. A majority of casualties were the result of buried IEDs exploding underneath vehicles and tearing through the unarmored underbellies. And the sides of the hummer are only about 1/2-3/4 of an inch thick.

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

Good post, JWBL, it's true that better protection could have saved some lives. Unfortunately, there is only so much you can do in the ways of body armor and still be able to perform necessary duties. Maintain sufficient agility I guess would be a better way to put that. What I'd like to see over improved body armor is better protection in the vehicles. A majority of casualties were the result of buried IEDs exploding underneath vehicles and tearing through the unarmored underbellies. And the sides of the hummer are only about 1/2-3/4 of an inch thick.thanks fishman

[Quinn]

Good post, JWBL, it's true that better protection could have saved some lives. Unfortunately, there is only so much you can do in the ways of body armor and still be able to perform necessary duties. Maintain sufficient agility I guess would be a better way to put that. What I'd like to see over improved body armor is better protection in the vehicles. A majority of casualties were the result of buried IEDs exploding underneath vehicles and tearing through the unarmored underbellies. And the sides of the hummer are only about 1/2-3/4 of an inch thick.

This is a great point; however, the new IEDs being supplied by the Iranian Pasdaran are very sophisticated and are capable of taking out even upgraded vehicles. About the only thing they can't take out are M1's, and even that is open to speculation now.

-Quinn

[fishman33]

This is a great point; however, the new IEDs being supplied by the Iranian Pasdaran are very sophisticated and are capable of taking out even upgraded vehicles. About the only thing they can't take out are M1's, and even that is open to speculation now.

-Quinn

Quinn, what is more sophisticated about them? I honestly haven't kept up to date on a lot of that stuff. What I was experienced with were basically just 155s burried in the ground and set-off by cell phones. Obviously a 155 is a big bopper, and within a certain range is definately capable of KOing anything, tanks included, but better armoring would greatly reduce the effective blast radius.

[The American Nightmare]

Get ready to be called a Left Wing, Liberal fanatic - you unamerican communist.

Why don't you try supporting our troops????

True what the fuck are you talking about?
She was joking.

[Quinn]

This is a great point; however, the new IEDs being supplied by the Iranian Pasdaran are very sophisticated and are capable of taking out even upgraded vehicles. About the only thing they can't take out are M1's, and even that is open to speculation now.

-Quinn

Quinn, what is more sophisticated about them? I honestly haven't kept up to date on a lot of that stuff. What I was experienced with were basically just 155s burried in the ground and set-off by cell phones. Obviously a 155 is a big bopper, and within a certain range is definately capable of KOing anything, tanks included, but better armoring would greatly reduce the effective blast radius.

Among other things, the new IEDs use shaped-explosive charges specifically designed to penetrate heavy armor - which is a huge step up from buried 155s and the like. There is an unverified rumor that they were actually able to take out an M1 this month. If this is true, it is a quantum leap forward given that the M1 uses Chobham armor (supposedly the best in the world).

-Quinn

[fishman33]

Among other things, the new IEDs use shaped-explosive charges specifically designed to penetrate heavy armor - which is a huge step up from buried 155s and the like. There is an unverified rumor that they were actually able to take out an M1 this month. If this is true, it is a quantum leap forward given that the M1 uses Chobham armor (supposedly the best in the world).

-Quinn

wow...had no idea they had advanced to that level. thanks for the info, quinn. Interested to know exactly how a shaped charge works after penetrating the ground they were buried in. Are they buried in more shallow holes?

[TrueBeauty TS]

Get ready to be called a Left Wing, Liberal fanatic - you unamerican communist.

Why don't you try supporting our troops????

True what the fuck are you talking about?
She was joking.


Yes. Thanks Amer. Nightmare. I thought my post was dripping with sarcasm. I guess I sounded too much like the real thing! LOL

[Quinn]

Among other things, the new IEDs use shaped-explosive charges specifically designed to penetrate heavy armor - which is a huge step up from buried 155s and the like. There is an unverified rumor that they were actually able to take out an M1 this month. If this is true, it is a quantum leap forward given that the M1 uses Chobham armor (supposedly the best in the world).

-Quinn

wow...had no idea they had advanced to that level. thanks for the info, quinn. Interested to know exactly how a shaped charge works after penetrating the ground they were buried in. Are they buried in more shallow holes?

No problem. Regarding the new Iranian IEDs, they don't have to be buried in order to score a kill from below a vehicle. They can be hidden in just about anything and detonated to kill a vehicle from the side or from behind, sort of like a high-powered Claymore mine. Comparing these Iranian IEDs to earlier ones is like comparing a stick of dynamite to an M60. They are extremely powerful and very sophisticated.

-Quinn

[The American Nightmare]

I guess I sounded too much like the real thing!
Probably. After all, how many times have you read a post from one of the political extremists here and thought to yourself, He's not actually serious, is he?!

[TrueBeauty TS]

I guess I sounded too much like the real thing!
Probably. After all, how many times have you read a post from one of the political extremists here and thought to yourself, He's not actually serious, is he?!


LOL Many, many, many times. Unfortunately. :cry:

[cruiser]

Get ready to be called a Left Wing, Liberal fanatic - you unamerican communist.

Why don't you try supporting our troops????

True what the fuck are you talking about?
She was joking.


Yes. Thanks Amer. Nightmare. I thought my post was dripping with sarcasm. I guess I sounded too much like the real thing! LOL
There she is causing trouble again...LOL

[brickcitybrother]

JWBL

Butterfly is a great AVATAR. She is something else!

[Andrew Johnson]

I guess I sounded too much like the real thing!
Probably. After all, how many times have you read a post from one of the political extremists here and thought to yourself, He's not actually serious, is he?!


LOL Many, many, many times. Unfortunately. :cry:

:roll: The two of you are political extremists yourself.

[TrueBeauty TS]

:roll: The two of you are political extremists yourself.

Actually, not at all. I'm pretty much a moderate. I lean to the left on certain social issues and I am fairly conservative on most fiscal issues. I never vote straight down a party line. I try to look at each issue individually.

Since we are usually talking about social issues here on this board, I end up taking the more liberal view on a lot of things just to balance out the extreme right wing view you and a few others have. If a right wing, conservative republican says something outrageous, or just plain wrong you have to speak up and call them on it. You can't remain silent.

It's all about being fair and balanced.


You should try it! :o

[DJ_Asia]

The troops have been complaining since almost the beginning of the war of insufficient armour for the body and Humvees,to which that big old caring,sensitive teddy bear S.O.D. Donald Rumsfeld replied:

"You go to war with the Army you have,"

Great guy!

DJ Asia

[Felicia Katt]

here is a little fact about the armour. its less than 500 dollars more per soldier. There is a program where the men can buy the armour themselves and expense it, but the Pentagon is taking several months to get them their money back :(

I also saw how the Administration asserted that releasing the study showing how flawed the armour was providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy. I think they had already figured out the armour wasn't working by the body count. What's next, accusing the soldiers of giving up State secrets by dying or getting wounded?

FK

[KD]

I'm a liberal but this is a bullshit thread.

No war no armor

[Andrew Johnson]

:roll: The two of you are political extremists yourself.

Actually, not at all. I'm pretty much a moderate. I lean to the left on certain social issues and I am fairly conservative on most fiscal issues. I never vote straight down a party line. I try to look at each issue individually.

Since we are usually talking about social issues here on this board, I end up taking the more liberal view on a lot of things just to balance out the extreme right wing view you and a few others have. If a right wing, conservative republican says something outrageous, or just plain wrong you have to speak up and call them on it. You can't remain silent.

It's all about being fair and balanced.


You should try it! :o

I thought we established that I was a moderate in an earlier thread. It may have even been you who said I was. I'm not sure.

Actually thanks for this post, it just helped me put my finger on what I find so terribly wrong on this board. The gay and transgender community generally supports the left since socially they are more open to that community's needs. On the other hand on this board there are individuals who tend to vote to the right, and some posters on here say, "What are you republicans doing on a ts board?", instead of saying to themselves, "hey, maybe we are gaining ground since not all conservatives are against us."

Instead, I just see those who fall to the right being called rednecks and pushed away from the social issues at hand faces your community.

PLEASE READ THIS NEXT LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not trying to say all or any of the statements I made above apply to you. Your posts, from what I've seen, tend to make more sense than that. You just helped me put my finger on what I find askew here.

[BlackAdder]

How is hypocrisy "askew" Wtf are you smokin?

Are you a republican?

Do you support the current administration?

Do you support most if not all of the republican agenda?


If you answer yes to two or more of those questions your a great big fucking two-faced hypocrite to come here and post on a TRANSSEXUAL message board.....I would love to know what the rest of your republican friends would think of you if your passion for Tgirls with big cocks was made common knowledge amongst them....Its not even kindly recieved amongst democrats, but im betting you would be ROASTED.......

Hypocrisy is probably the thing i find most repellant in people. Possibly tying with being a two-faced traitor..

[Andrew Johnson]

How is hypocrisy "askew" Wtf are you smokin?

Are you a republican?

Do you support the current administration?

Do you support most if not all of the republican agenda?


If you answer yes to two or more of those questions your a great big fucking two-faced hypocrite to come here and post on a TRANSSEXUAL message board.....I would love to know what the rest of your republican friends would think of you if your passion for Tgirls with big cocks was made common knowledge amongst them....Its not even kindly recieved amongst democrats, but im betting you would be ROASTED.......

Hypocrisy is probably the thing i find most repellant in people. Possibly tying with being a two-faced traitor..

Yeah, your post is exactly what I'm talking about. Just because some one votes for a particular politician, or supports some of a particular administration's agenda, dosen't mean they subscribe to all of their philosophies.

I'm not being a hypocrite by posting here. People can have alternative ideas about sexuality and still support the right side of the political spectrum. You can bet that when the scale was developed it had nothing to do with being gay. I think, if I'm not mistaken, it came about during the French revolution.

You are close minded based on that post.

[BlackAdder]

Ahh okay....So you hand me some bullshit sophistry in defence of your hypocrisy??? Did you answer yes to two of those questions???

And YOUR post is exactly what IM talking about....

Go tell your bullshit to some wavering democrat with much less IQ then I have.

[Andrew Johnson]

Am I a republican? No, I'm listed as unaffiliated.

Do I support the current administration? Since I voted for the current administration in both elections they won, I'd have to say yes. However, I don't support their stance on everything. I don't agree with their stance on same sex marriage, or their stance on abortion. In general you can say any of their religiously motivated postions I do not support.

Do I support most if not all of the republican agenda? Well, as I stated above concerning same sex marriage, and abortion no I don't support that agenda or any other religiously motivated agenda. Things like prayer in school and all that nonsense are not the types of things I endorse.

I do support the war in Iraq, and all of this administrations foreign policy agenda. Note that this has nothing to do with anyone's sexuality.

I do support the republican agenda concerning all things financial, like welfare, social security, etc... Again I'll point out that this is not an issue of sexual oppression in any way.

I do support the republican parties general stance on my right to keep and bear arms. Last time I checked this had nothing to do with who likes to suck what.....

One last thing I'd like to say, the friends I keep are so diverse that some would have an issue with my interest in transexuals, but most would not. Infact, my wife is quite liberal. The fact that we have very differing views on many issues dosen't stop us from having a wonderful marriage. And yes, she knows about my love of t-girls. I'm just not the kind of person that makes friends based on people's political ideals. I find people a lot more multifaceted than just how they view government in the civilized world.

So, I'd like you to point out to me, based on my answers to your questions how I'm a hypocrite for posting on this board.

[Andrew Johnson]

One other thing I'd like to point out. My interest in some of the political threads that take place here has little to do with the point counterpoint of this is what my side says and your side is wrong. My motivation for joining these threads is to dispell the ideas a lot of you have about those of us not as far to the left.

To push people away from your community by calling them hypocrites and rednecks because of the way they vote is really doing your community a disservice. I'd like to say "our" community but many of you refuse to accept me for who I am. Which is quite ironic considering the struggle with acceptance that people with any sort of alternative sexuality face.

As a community you can either embrace people who are different and accept them for who they are, or you can discriminate against them and ostracize them because they don't fit your mold.

It's your choice, but discrimination is discrimination. Just take a look at yourselves and make sure you aren't the pot calling the kettle black.

Don't put all of us who have more conservative views in the same box. Take it on a case by case basis. Generalization is unfair.

[Felicia Katt]

As a community you can either embrace people who are different and accept them for who they are, or you can discriminate against them and ostracize them because they don't fit your mold

Does your chosen political community embrace difference? I can't believe you are claiming victim status here LOL Do you really feel discriminated against when people call you on your personal hypocrisy? You can say all the things about the Republicans you like, but it won't change that they are the ones who fully and zealously work to perpetuate discrimination against gays and transgenders.

I'm sorry, but claiming you are being discriminated against here for being a Republican is too much like killing your parents and then expecting leniency because you are an orphan.

FK

[Andrew Johnson]

I never said I was a republican.

Let me ask you a question. Do you whole heartedly support the political ideals of everyone or everyparty you place a vote for?

If I don't support their zealous work to perpetuate discrimination against gays and transgenders, how can I be a hypocrite? (I'll also add that this is a generalization, and not true of all members of the republican party.)

By the way, generalizing the way you do is a form of discrimination rather you care to admit that or not.

I can say with out a doubt, I conduct my life in a manner that is accepting of all people. I believe all people have a right to live life however they see fit. Which is all I ask of everyone concerning my own life.

You'll also notice that I never refer to anyone offering differing views than my own with derogatory "buzz words". I find those to be tools of discrimination as well.

[Felicia Katt]

Sweetie, of course I don't agree with everything the Democratic party stands for. I'm a free thinker with strong libertarian leanings. The difference is that my supporting Democratic politicians isn't supporting discriminatory policies. Those are built into the Republican agenda. When you support a Republican just for his Second Amendment views, he takes your support and vote as absolute. Do you really think he cares about your nuanced views? No, he claims your vote as a mandate for all his extremist policies. If I support a Democrat for her pro-choice or gay rights views, maybe I might not care for her position on a "guns or butter" type issue. But at least I know my core values are being represented and advanced.

The true meaning of discrimination is to make a distinction. I admit wholeheartedly to that. I'm drawing a distinction between a party that is opposed to individual choice and liberty and one that that supports it. You are conflating my pointing out your inconsistent and hypocritical political viewpoint with invidious discrimination. That is, to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Thats wrongful discrimination. I don't know you as a person. Since you are anonymous and only relate to this world on the downlow, I never will.

The old saying is "By his acts, ye shall know him". You are being judged on your admitted actions. If you don't like the verdict here, imagine what it would be if you tried to make this case to a jury of your Repubican party peers.

FK

[Andrew Johnson]

... No, he claims your vote as a mandate for all his extremist policies. If I support a Democrat for her pro-choice or gay rights views, maybe I might not care for her position on a "guns or butter" type issue. But at least I know my core values are being represented and advanced.

Sweetie, here's where you show me that you are not as reasonable as you are intelligent. Your statement that the entire republician party inlists "extremist policies", but yet it seems to you that every member of the democratic party supports your core values.



... You are conflating my pointing out your inconsistent and hypocritical political viewpoint with invidious discrimination.

My political viewpoint is not at all inconsistent or hypocritical. I'd be a hypocrite if I just came to this board and browsed all the tranny porn while I sat back and listened to people say those who have any right wing philoshopy at all don't belong on this board.





That is, to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Thats wrongful discrimination. I don't know you as a person. Since you are anonymous and only relate to this world on the downlow, I never will.

The old saying is "By his acts, ye shall know him". You are being judged on your admitted actions. If you don't like the verdict here, imagine what it would be if you tried to make this case to a jury of your Repubican party peers.

FK

You don't know me as a person, you can only know me from statements I've made here on this board. I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that I support the rights and freedoms of this community.

I am anonymous on this board, but not totally on the downlow in relation to your world.

As far as my actions, I speak my mind always in discussions in all facets of my life. Whenever any of the topics concerning the transgender community or the gay community come up I voice my support. Who do you think could better change the minds of the ones with the extremist views you speak of? Someone like me who shares other "core values" with them? Or someone like yourself who is far removed from them on many levels?

I think the old adage that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar holds true here. It seems to me that people like myself should be seen as an ally, rather than an outcast.

I'm sure if you did know me on a personal level you'd be happy to have me on your side.

[Felicia Katt]

There is an old Italian saying. All the honey a bee gathers during its lifetime doesn't sweeten its sting.

here is the Democratic Platform on gay rights


Our commitment to civil rights is ironclad. We will restore vigorous federal enforcement of our civil rights laws for all our people, from fair housing to equal employment opportunity, from Title IX to the Americans with Disabilities Act. We support affirmative action to redress discrimination and to achieve the diversity from which all Americans benefit. We will enact the bipartisan legislation barring workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. We are committed to equal treatment of all service members and believe all patriotic Americans [/code]should be allowed to serve our country without discrimination, persecution, or violence

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.

here is what they have to say about pro-choice issues


Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare

Contrast this with the Republican Platform.

On gay rights


Republicans favor aggressive, proactive measures to ensure that no individual is discriminated against on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or other characteristics covered by our civil rights laws.

(Notice that they expressly left out sexual orientation. Transgender status is already not recognized by Federal civil rights laws)

We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage

We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service

and women's reproductive rights:


We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life

There may be some Democrats and Republican who are out of step but those are the parties' different marching orders. Deciding who you walk with is the choice that confronts us all. You can voice your support all you like, but ultimately, its your vote not your voice that counts. You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. The people you stand with who fashioned the hateful platform I quoted can't be persuaded. They can only be unseated.

FK

[Andrew Johnson]

There may be some Democrats and Republican who are out of step but those are the parties' different marching orders. Deciding who you walk with is the choice that confronts us all. You can voice your support all you like, but ultimately, its your vote not your voice that counts. You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. The people you stand with who fashioned the hateful platform I quoted can't be persuaded. They can only be unseated.

FK

I guess when I donate money to glaad that's just talkin' some talk. (my wife is a member.

You are sadly mistaken about changing peoples minds, because I have changed more than one persons view on these issues. All it takes is for someone to plant a seed that questions their stance, and when that seed is planted by the guy sitting next to you in the duck blind rather than someone waving some purple flag in San-Fran, it takes root a lot better.

Don't view me as an enemy of your cause just because the issues that motivate me to cast my one vote the way I do, aren't your motivating factor. You don't vote based on certain things that are more important to me, but I don't assume you are against me based on that. It's just clear to me that other issues are more important to you. We only have one vote, it needs to be used to best voice what is paramount to us as individuals.

Fortunately, none of you have changed my stance of support for your community through your unaccepting actions toward me and my political ideals. You may not be so lucky in the case of others like me though. As I've stated before, I find it very ironic that people who stive so hard to be accepted by others, are so bankrupt in their ability to accept those who don't fit their mold to a "T".

[BlackAdder]

You dont have to fit a mold to a T, but you cant support an agenda like Felicia posted and expect not to be scorned here man...Or are you just not getting it???

[TrueBeauty TS]

There may be some Democrats and Republican who are out of step but those are the parties' different marching orders. Deciding who you walk with is the choice that confronts us all. You can voice your support all you like, but ultimately, its your vote not your voice that counts. You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. The people you stand with who fashioned the hateful platform I quoted can't be persuaded. They can only be unseated.

FK

I guess when I donate money to glaad that's just talkin' some talk. (my wife is a member.

You are sadly mistaken about changing peoples minds, because I have changed more than one persons view on these issues. All it takes is for someone to plant a seed that questions their stance, and when that seed is planted by the guy sitting next to you in the duck blind rather than someone waving some purple flag in San-Fran, it takes root a lot better.

Don't view me as an enemy of your cause just because the issues that motivate me to cast my one vote the way I do, aren't your motivating factor. You don't vote based on certain things that are more important to me, but I don't assume you are against me based on that. It's just clear to me that other issues are more important to you. We only have one vote, it needs to be used to best voice what is paramount to us as individuals.

Fortunately, none of you have changed my stance of support for your community through your unaccepting actions toward me and my political ideals. You may not be so lucky in the case of others like me though. As I've stated before, I find it very ironic that people who stive so hard to be accepted by others, are so bankrupt in their ability to accept those who don't fit their mold to a "T".

You guys just don't understand. We are LUCKY to have AJ on our side. He saves our asses. He and his wife (Wife??? Does she support your attraction to trannys?. Never mind, I'm sure she does.) give lots of money to GLAAD.

Other issues that are important to "us" (civil rights, etc...) just aren't as important to AJ. He already HAS his civil rights, the right to get married, etc., so he's on to other things. We should understand that and be accepting of it.

He's doing more for "our" cause because he is deep undercover in a duck blind, not out in public. We just don't understand that. It's a good thing he has such strong moral character to withstand our unaccepting actions against him because he votes for a party that denies (or wants to deny) us certain basic rights. What he does privately, in secret, does far more good for us. We should love and be accepting of all people, even those who would do us harm. Blacks and the KKK, Jews and Nazi's - they should have loved everyone against them just as we are supposed to.


AJ, I don't view you as the enemy. But I don't view you as the great, brave hero to the TS community you try to make yourself out to be, either. It's hard for people that have never experienced discrimination to understand it. (And yes, here is where you say you have.) I had never faced it until I came out as a TS and then it was an eye opener. I thought I knew what it was like but reality is different. And it isn't nice.

You seem to mock the marches in San Francisco, however, I believe that progress has seldom been made by quietly going along with the status quo.

When you say one thing, but then act against that, it's hard to cheer for you with the zest you think you deserve.

[Felicia Katt]

Andrew, I think if you bring up your personal intimate support for alternative lifestyles in a duck blind, its likely there will be a hunting accident LOL

There is an old Chinese proverb:“A closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood”

That block of wood was used to fashion the planks in the Republican platform that you support. Those minds can't be changed. For no good or valid reason at all, Republicans not only refuse to accept us, but go beyond that to actively working to keep us as second class citizens. You openly vote that way, and then you act like you are being treated unfairly here when you are not embraced? You have been treated with respect, more so than we have by your chosen leaders, but for you to expect more is unrealistic. And for you to try to make us feel guilty for not accepting you uncritcially is unfair.

“If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, I help you become that”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

FK

[Andrew Johnson]

I can clearly see I'm much more open minded, and probably a much better person than the two of you.

I don't think I'm saving anybody's ass by the way. I also think closed minded people on the left such as yourselves are no different than those on the right who are closed minded. (not all of us are close minded over on the right)

I never fucking said I don't care about your civil rights. The kicker is, that even though you refuse to accept me for who I am and not treat me as your enemy, I still care about your civil rights.

[yourdaddy]

Jesus H. Chist. The libs really obfuscated this thread.

[Andrew Johnson]

You dont have to fit a mold to a T, but you cant support an agenda like Felicia posted and expect not to be scorned here man...Or are you just not getting it???

I think you're not getting it. I don't support all of that agenda. How many times do I have to say that?

[TrueBeauty TS]

I can clearly see I'm much more open minded, and probably a much better person than the two of you.

Ah, yes. Open minded people put everyone in the same box. Also, you don't know me. You have no way of knowing how good of a person I am. Now you're just down to name calling.


I don't think I'm saving anybody's ass by the way. I also think closed minded people on the left such as yourselves are no different than those on the right who are closed minded. (not all of us are close minded over on the right)

I thought we already established I was a moderate. Go back and read the posts.


I never fucking said I don't care about your civil rights. The kicker is, that even though you refuse to accept me for who I am and not treat me as your enemy, I still care about your civil rights.

You just don't vote for them.

Stealing a page from Felicia's book, here are a couple of quotes that I think may apply here. One takes the high road and the other take the low road. LOL

"It is not enough to have knowledge, one must also apply it. It is not enough to have wishes, one must also accomplish" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


And one of my favorites... I think it's by Goethe as well. LOL

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, my friend."

[Felicia Katt]

Sweetie, did you read the Platform? What do you do, write on your ballot that you don't support that part of the agenda?? Cross your fingers when you pull the lever in the voting booth? You can claim to be open minded all you like, but your vote is your vote. A vote for Bush was a vote against gay rights. Who can you say you voted for recently that supports this alternative lifestyle?

Other than not being particularly open to people who vote for those who would deny me basic fundamental civil rights, or who would deny women reproductive freedom, how am I closed minded? As far as being the better person, all I have done is attack your position, not you as a person. If you feel attacked or inferior, its because of the position you have taken, not anything I said against you or about you.

To put it all into some persepective, you are feeling frustrated and misunderstood and vilified and I hope you can understand why your admissions might cause you to face some rejection here. Now imagine you are treated that way everywhere, everyday for no reason. How open and good are you going to be when someone who helps keep you down shows up?

FK

[Felicia Katt]

Jesus H. Chist. The libs really obfuscated this thread.
For once I agree, the thread has unravelled, so without meaning to needle anyone, lets pin down some facts.

Armor only costs 1500 per soldier but not every solider is being provided with it. Enhancements to existing armor that cost only a few hundred dollars could have prevented 80 per cent of Marine deaths but were not funded. Humvees are not adequately armored and ones that are are only trickling into Iraq because the Pentagon waited 2 years before ordering more heavily armored vehicles. In April 2004, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, criticized the Army's efforts to get more armored vehicles or armor kits to Iraq, telling Army officials they were afflicted by a "case of the slows." One combat death in four occurs to personnel in a Humvee. Without supplies, soliders are using sandbags and scrap metal to try to armour their vehicles on their own.

"There was a reluctance on the part of the Pentagon to take it seriously and get as many of these vehicles as quickly as possible," Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, says. "It was almost as if they were in a defensive posture, that to make any changes or to acknowledge any shortcomings would somehow be an acknowledgment that the planning had not been perfect.

A stitch in time saves 9. Too bad this Administration is apparently more concerned with saving face than lives.

FK

[BlackAdder]

I think you're not getting it. I don't support all of that agenda. How many times do I have to say that?



Like it or not, your supporting ALL of it by voting for it dumbass......No, I really think its YOU who is not getting it...


Thats like saying hey, I believe in X number of values that said administration supports, but those other X things well...there fucked up.....But fuck it, ill vote for them anyway..


Get bent Mr. Freethinker.

[Felicia Katt]

Here is something on topic. The US is not letting our troops in Iraq use armor they had to purchaced themselves!!! Soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514

Its bad enough that thet aren't being given the tools they need to survive, but to refuse to let them supply those tools for themselves is pretty shameful. If this is being done to shield the army or the administration from criticism, its more than shameful, its criminal.

FK

[chefmike]

Besides the armor, we're running out of soldiers...

A Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq By The Associated Press
Mon Jan 23, 8:10 PM ET

As of Monday, Jan. 23, 2006, at least 2,231 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,751 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers. The figures include six military civilians.

more-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_deaths;_ylt=Avt1u5l5KlQOmkzG56Fa_QoLewgF;_ ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Study: Army Stretched to Breaking Point By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
1 hour, 4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview.

more here-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/army_breaking_point;_ylt=Aouh5axe8UtTOItm1sa19aus0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[Jamie Michelle]

Get ready to be called a Left Wing, Liberal fanatic - you unamerican communist.

Why don't you try supporting our troops????

Those troops are aggressively invading a country. Going by the natural rights held by all humans, they deserve to get shot and killed for their aggression. The proper thing to do is to not invade other countries, then we wouldn't have to worry about them being killed over there. But being that they are over there, the Iraqis have every bit as much right to kill said invaders as Americans would to kill Iraqi invaders.

[KD]

What a dumb fucking article. Would the Armor save your arms and legs?

KD

[chefmike]

Wounded Soldier Gets a Bill from the Army
Paul Reickhoff

Body armor and pay problems continue to be an issue for our Troops in the field and our wounded Veterans back home. For more, read this piece from Michael John Hurst, a member of IAVA who was comissioned to conduct a study into pay problems for wounded soldiers:

Although the sky is the limit when it comes to funding government contractors, the Pentagon always manages to get its money's worth out of the troops.

Eddie Rebrook learned that lesson the hard way - after getting a $700 bill to pay for the body armor that was destroyed in an IED attack that left him severely wounded.

To read the full story, Click Here. (http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006020623)

When pressed by Sen. Robert Byrd, Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker said that the story was unusual. But, Gen. Schoomaker promised Byrd to "correct it if there's any truth to it." Apparently, Gen. Schoomaker isn't a regular viewer of ABC's Nightline. On last Tuesday's episode, the Army admitted that 5,549 soldiers had payroll problems after being evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons.

Last week, the Chief of Staff did find time to join the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in firing off an admonishment to the Washington Post for its depiction of a wounded soldier in a political cartoon that was critical of Sec. Rumsfeld.

We can only hope that our nation's leaders will soon stop playing political games with cartoon soldiers and start making sure the proper systems are in place to care for the real ones.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/wounded-soldier-gets-a-bi_b_15305.html