Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WHy did George Bush send our troops to war without protective armor?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:15 PM
Original message
WHy did George Bush send our troops to war without protective armor?
Why blame any single vote when Bush sent them to war without armor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jtjathomps Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. what kind of armor do you mean? /NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Armoured Humvees , kevlar vest , Bullets , water and food n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. probably cut into their war profit margin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Body Armor
The available "good" body armor was only available to "front line" troops (infantry, combat engineers, etc). But once you begin an occupation, there is no front line so everyone from cooks to typist need body army so there was an emergency to get more and better body armor for all the troosp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. God told him that the soldiers would be protected...
because killing brown muslims is doing Jesus's work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Elections Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. So what? Should we increase military spending?
Should he have lobbied for even MORE money for the war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. No he should have used the money
to protect our troops instead of Halliburtons interests...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. No, we should spend the money more wisely.
A missile defense system that doesn't work? Bush supports that.

Sending our troops into battle with adequate body and vehicle armor? Sorry...we spent that money on the missile defense system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elections Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Non-working missle system
Didn't know about that one - thanks for the clarification. I'd like to use that sometime - do you have a source? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Sure! Here:
Edited on Wed Sep-01-04 11:06 PM by MercutioATC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefty48197 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. He sent them without bullets too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Troops are expendable.
The more that are killed the better for the economy. More will join making unemployment stats better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
14. The Cakewalk Theory?
A thread by nostamj that I saved from March 28, 2003:

"Cakewalk" - * administration hypocrisy ON RECORD
"Cakewalk"

Bush administration officials and their hawkish supporters now say they never promised an easy war -- but the record shows otherwise.

March 28, 2003 | Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:


"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "


Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."


Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16:

"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
"My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN March 23:

"The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time. And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."


Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars March 11:

"Over and over, we hear reports of Iraqis here in the United States who manage to communicate with their friends and families in Iraq, and what they are hearing is amazing. Their friends and relatives want to know what is taking the Americans so long. When are you coming?"
"In a meeting last week at the White House, one of these Iraqi-Americans said, 'A war with Saddam Hussein would be a war for Iraq, not against Iraq.'"

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan -- as President Bush has said -- is to 'remain as long as necessary and not a day more.'"


Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breakfast meeting March 4, 2003:

"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."


Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.
"The president will give an order. will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."

original from Salon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID66/12484.html#8

-----
Lies. So many lies. How do they sleep at night? How can they live with themselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
16. Because Bush never walked a mile in a soldier's boots
he's a phony vet with no appreciation for such basics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
17. these are facts.... and as usual ..they make bush look like an ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC