It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Army bans privately purchased body armor.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I wiil rely on the grunts who are taking hits over there on what really can protect them. This company Second Chance should be eliminated.Gauging for inferior products.

www.busrep.co.za...




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
If armor is banned, I'm going to bet it has a lot more to do with the fact that they aren't sure of its effectiveness. It would make little sense for higher-ups to be concerned with lining their pockets. The army is going to buy the armor they want it to buy. There's no risk because some soldiers are spending their own cash on commercial products.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
What's worse is people who don't realize the truth! Hmmm, 2+ TRILLION dollars just disappears, yet they think it was spent on stuff for the war.

Last I checked I don't see to many million dollar foreign cars in Iraq, or Mansions, or 13million dollar parties for 13 year old girls in Iraq.

"It was spent on armor!" Except the troops have to buy their own because they don't have any.

"Spent on armor for Humvees!" Except the troops were yelled at by Bush&Co for using scrap pieces of metal and welding it onto the humvees because they weren't armored.

"Spent on food for the troops!" Except the MILLIONS od DOLLARS that just got charged yet no meals... And not to mention the poisoned water Halliburton used instead of paying an extra 20 cents for clean water for the troops.

Also, how much do you think a TV dinner costs? Not 2 Trillion...

Oh look the President of Halliburton lands at JFK Airport in his new Private Jet that cost 23million dollars, while wearing a 20,000 dollar suit, and drinking 3,000 dollar wine, to bribe, I mean contribute, another 3million dollars to the Republican Party.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
America hasn't spent anywhere near 2 trillion on Iraq...It has, arguably, cost 200 billion. Your credibility was shot from the very start of your post.

Troops do have armor. Every soldier in the war has had armor since the beginning. The armor debate was always about the number who had the latest pieces, which, by this point, is nearly all. Same with armored humvees.

As for Halliburton, I wonder how much they bribed Clinton and the Democrats? There was never any complaining when no-bid contracts were given then...

If people want to get rid of the corporations, the military budget would need to be upped in peacetime. The army can not handle all the operations asked of it without the aid of companies like Halliburton.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


If people want to get rid of the corporations, the military budget would need to be upped in peacetime. The army can not handle all the operations asked of it without the aid of companies like Halliburton.


Really? So where was Halliburton during WW2 or the Korean war or Vietnam or even the first gulf war? Nowhere is where. When the cold war ended and there was talk of downsizing the military and the so called peace dividend, which was really a piece dividend to corporations of the military pie...many of the functions of the military were out-sourced and privatized which is a bogus giveaway in my book and cheney was in the forefront in pushing for this. Downsizing the military was not Clintons idea, it was a fisically conservative Republicans idea at the end of the cold war when they were still the party of saving money. The troops no longer do maintainance or KP or any of the stuff we did when i was in, its all been privatized. According to Chambers Johnson in his book "The Sorrows of Empire" there is a base in Kosovo built for the military by Halliburton that was so overstocked with office furniture by Halliburton that they had to build a warehouse on the base to store it all and that very same base is so overstaffed that the offices and heads are cleaned 4 and 5 times a day, whether htey have been used or not, all of which Hailliburton bills the government for. Of course Halliburton wouldn't consider returning some of the excess furniture and office supplies or downsizing the work force there would they. As a matter of record, there was a shortage of body armour and vehicle armour for the first year or two of this war, not a shortage of quality, a lack period, and from what I have read while it is better it is still nowhere near what it should have been. The big problem as I posted previously in this thread is point of purchase ordering instead of stockpiling like all good militaries should. The U.S. Military is not Walmart and they have no business doing point of purchase ordering....the delays are too great and the urge to cut corners by manufacturers is also too great. The whole idea behind stockpiling is to have enough of what you need now to go into battle now as opposed to going into war with severe shortages. Again Cheney was behind the push for this when he was Sec. of Defense...leave it to a man who had other priorities to screw with things...personally I think it should be required that the the Sec, of Defense be retired military man in my opinion as opposed to being left up to the politicans. Finally the priviatizing of government has reached the point where the oversight and regulation of the process of privatizing has itself been privatized. Yes government sucks but government by corporation sucked even more and is called Facisim or so said the man who should know, Mossulini.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Every time I hear about these shortages of protective armour and bullet proofing I feel that we have let those guys down there. I've even read article of Troops using plates form the insurgents vests on their armoured vest for protection because there werent any ceremic ones. Then we have the lack of armour on the Humvee's, etc etc. The entire logistics and supply chain down there is a fiasco. Soldiers are paying for this war with their lives, I dont think they should be asked to pay for their body armour but banning it completely for those who have a chance of getting better equipment is a bad thing.

Its typical catch 22 BS going on there and the soldiers know it. They arent given proper equipment and they arent allowed to use any equipment other than that provided by the army. They have to make do with inadequate protection.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Really? So where was Halliburton during WW2 or the Korean war or Vietnam or even the first gulf war? Nowhere is where.


During WW2, the military governed territories taken. You were also dealing with countries that had the expertise to rebuild themselves. Most of the generals turned to the Nazis to get things back up and running again. I have no clue how the commercial sector back here in America was involved.

There was no rebuilding in Korea or Vietnam. There were, of course, large military contractors building the weapons used.


Downsizing the military was not Clintons idea, it was a fisically conservative Republicans idea at the end of the cold war when they were still the party of saving money.


Right. Clinton was so pro-military he didn't even want Marines wearing their uniforms around him...

Clinton had plans for cutting the military further than it was, which were denied by that Republican Congress.


The troops no longer do maintainance or KP or any of the stuff we did when i was in, its all been privatized. According to Chambers Johnson in his book "The Sorrows of Empire" there is a base in Kosovo built for the military by Halliburton that was so overstocked with office furniture by Halliburton that they had to build a warehouse on the base to store it all and that very same base is so overstaffed that the offices and heads are cleaned 4 and 5 times a day, whether htey have been used or not, all of which Hailliburton bills the government for. Of course Halliburton wouldn't consider returning some of the excess furniture and office supplies or downsizing the work force there would they.


I really don't care about whether your claims are accurate or not (judging by past comments, I'll bet on not). However, it's irrelevent. It's a coorporation with goals of making money.

As stated, you want to get rid of them, increasing the militaries budget in peace time. People aren't willing to do that.


As a matter of record, there was a shortage of body armour and vehicle armour for the first year or two of this war, not a shortage of quality, a lack period, and from what I have read while it is better it is still nowhere near what it should have been.


Soldiers have always had armor:


Altogether it weighs 16 pounds, a third lighter than the previous 20-year-old bulky design that protected only against shrapnel but couldn't stop bullets. Even the earlier vests, though, were far superior to the metal plates sewn into cloth worn by World War II aircraft gunners.


www.csmonitor.com...

It was a matter of what they were being given. The soldiers deemed to be at the highest risk were given the new stuff at the beginning of the invasion.


The big problem as I posted previously in this thread is point of purchase ordering instead of stockpiling like all good militaries should.


The armor was a new design, as was the armor being slapped on the humvees. There will always be a stockpile of equipment, it's not going to be there when the stuff is just being introduced...


Again Cheney was behind the push for this when he was Sec. of Defense...


Is Cheney some kind of boogeyman you blame for all the world's problems?


Every time I hear about these shortages of protective armour and bullet proofing I feel that we have let those guys down there. I've even read article of Troops using plates form the insurgents vests on their armoured vest for protection because there werent any ceremic ones. Then we have the lack of armour on the Humvee's, etc etc. The entire logistics and supply chain down there is a fiasco. Soldiers are paying for this war with their lives, I dont think they should be asked to pay for their body armour but banning it completely for those who have a chance of getting better equipment is a bad thing.


This is such nonsense. Stealing body armor from insurgents? Laughable at best.

The whole idea of soldiers complaining about not having enough armor on their humvees (a vehicle already more protected and too expensive for nearly any other military), or not have the most up to date armor is absurd.

Now, THAT # didn't happen during Korea or WW2...

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
2+Trillion wasn't spent on Iraq? Then where did that 2+Trillion go to? Actually, I agree! It went to Halliburton, and bank accounts out in Switzerland, and in the pockets of Oil COmpanies. Bush didn't spend 2+Trillion dollars on nothing. Why do you think they had to raise the Deficit Limit? Because Bush has Spent TRILLIONS on his War in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
This is such nonsense. Stealing body armor from insurgents? Laughable at best.

Well, you would laugh wouldnt you? Well its not like its you or your family out there in the heat biting bullets is it?

I said I read about it, and here it is : 2003 but it did happen


12.18.03 Op Ed. USA Today

I recently received a note from one of the few husbands who knows just what his wife wants as a holiday gift. The Army sergeant (who asked to remain anonymous) e-mailed me from Iraq asking my help in finding him a store to buy body armor for his wife.

Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds. Instead, he said, she had to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers plates of inferior quality that do not properly fit her vest.
The whole idea of soldiers complaining about not having enough armor on their humvees (a vehicle already more protected and too expensive for nearly any other military), or not have the most up to date armor is absurd.

As for Humvees, I dont think you know this but they cost twice as much not because they are twice as better but becasue they are made in some moribund manufacturing plant where they used to make about 52 Humvees in a year, think Rolls Royce or Bugatti !
Then when people started yelling and going crazy they decide to up-armour the Humvee's with 1000lb Armour protection system. Atleast they planned to, there are no numbers on how effective thier claims have been nor are there any numbers on how many troops have proper armour today. They say everybody has them and "in god we trust" !


Yeah but its all good, we're still laughing arent we!



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

2+Trillion wasn't spent on Iraq? Then where did that 2+Trillion go to? Actually, I agree! It went to Halliburton, and bank accounts out in Switzerland, and in the pockets of Oil COmpanies. Bush didn't spend 2+Trillion dollars on nothing. Why do you think they had to raise the Deficit Limit? Because Bush has Spent TRILLIONS on his War in Iraq.


America has been in a cycle of constant debt since WW1. There were about two brief excceptions. One under Nixon, the other under Clinton.

America is in debt because of increased spending. Roughly 200 billion has actually gone to Iraq. Educate yourself, or keep quiet...

I would like a link for this, but oh well...



Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds. Instead, he said, she had to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers plates of inferior quality that do not properly fit her vest.


An Iraqi soldier equipped by America is a lot different than an Iraqi insurgent...

You'll also notice that the talk is only on the new ceramic plates, not armor in general. All soldiers have armor...


As for Humvees, I dont think you know this but they cost twice as much not because they are twice as better but becasue they are made in some moribund manufacturing plant where they used to make about 52 Humvees in a year, think Rolls Royce or Bugatti !
Then when people started yelling and going crazy they decide to up-armour the Humvee's with 1000lb Armour protection system. Atleast they planned to, there are no numbers on how effective thier claims have been nor are there any numbers on how many troops have proper armour today. They say everybody has them and "in god we trust


A humvee is an armored vehicle as is. A humvee itself is too costly for nearly any other nation. Europeans generally use jeeps.

So, yeah, soldiers have no right to complain because they aren't being given extra armor on a piece of equpiment already superior to what anyone else in the world has. That's what I would call spoiled.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I highly recommend Chlambers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire" as a primer to the privatatization and outsourcing of the military. There most certianly have been news reports on the regular evening news and on CNN of soldiers both cutting apart Iraqi military vehicles for Humvee armoring and of them taking armour off dead Iraqi soldiers...when this whole issue first appeared in the news.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Disturbed, would you cut the attitude, this is the News Network.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
you are a fool if you think having some private contractor do for pay what the soldiers did as part of their duty is saving money for taxpayers or somehow making the military more effective. As to the quality of my posts, I could say the same thing about all you pro-war Bush apologists as well. I read everything from the extreme right to the extreme left and much inbetween before I come to my conclusions.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
You can say what you want about me, but I don't think you can show my facts are blatantly wrong. Or, maybe you would you like to prove 2 trillion has been spent on Iraq...

That is simply a false statement:
Military.com

I'm not a "Bush apologist," you're just wrong.

Military contractors don't make things more efficient. If you cared to actually read what I said, it was that it's naive to expect anything better from these companies. You are bitching about this now, but during peace time I doubt you or most Americans will be willing to pay for a better military.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I personally have absolutely no problem paying taxes, they are the price to live where and as we do. What I have a problem with is either somebody who makes 10 times what I do paying less, or the government wasting it in BS like out-sourcing and privatizing what should be done (and used to be) in house.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

What I have a problem with is either somebody who makes 10 times what I do paying less


A guy who makes 10 times more then you will never pay less, either as a percentage or a total. The wealthy carry a huge amount of the tax burden. America has a "progressive" tax system. The wealthier pay a greater percentage of what they make.

That's fair, though. I mean, they should have to give up more of what they worked for because they were more successful then you...


or the government wasting it in BS like out-sourcing and privatizing what should be done (and used to be) in house.


The government doesn't send jobs overseas. They have no control over it. Do you understand economics at all?

And, at no time has the American military been equipped, or had to, rebuild a nation on its own as it now has to in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I would like a link for this, but oh well...


Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds.


Here you go,
USA Today- US soldiers lack best protective gear


An Iraqi soldier equipped by America is a lot different than an Iraqi insurgent...

Absolute nonsense.
The soldiers that the editorial speaks about is not about the Iraqi National Army under the Coalition but the Iraqi ARmy under Saddam Hussein because the article is dated 2003 december which would mean that this is pretty much at the beginning of the US troop deployments in Iraq when there was no iraqi national army which began operating quite recently.


You'll also notice that the talk is only on the new ceramic plates, not armor in general. All soldiers have armor...

What do you think the ceramic plates do ?
Ceramic plates that go into the Kevlar armour making it bullet resistant. Without the plates, they might as well have handed out Vietnam era flak jackets. The plates make it armoured.

The plates they wanted to use instead of the ceramic plates US forces use are those post WW2 ballistic Steel plates that every 3rd world nation and mlitia uses. They are bulky, awkward and do not provide the right protection. In fact they would provide lesser protection than the actual Iraqi armour because the plates would have been designed for them, not the armoured vest that the US troops use. Early Armour- Personal Protective Armour

It would be more than likely that some insurgents leaders might even have the ceramic armour on them, making them stand a better chance than our troops.



A humvee is an armored vehicle as is. A humvee itself is too costly for nearly any other nation. Europeans generally use jeeps.

Have you not understood a word that I written above ? What are you talking about? HAve you ever been in the Army ?

Read:
MSNBC: Hillbilly Armour
CBS News: GI's lack Armour, Radios, bullets...



So, yeah, soldiers have no right to complain because they aren't being given extra armor on a piece of equpiment already superior to what anyone else in the world has. That's what I would call spoiled.

They arent asking for grade 5 body armour dammit, they just want what is due to them from the army, nothing more. Just to give them what they have trained with and are trained to use. Let them fight to best of their ability by giving them what the govt has promised to give each soldier deployed. How do you expect the team to win if you dont give them proper equipment ?

As for better than every other military in the world, how come the IDF dont have this problem ? Are they just so clever or are we just stupid not to provide our boys with what they need to get the job done ?
[url=http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000874.html]

But according to you they must be whimps, were's the fun in riding in properly armoured vehicles when you can get shot at and blown to bite by landmines, must be all a bunch of sissies, cant handle the thrill of danger !



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
hang it up disterbed diliverer is going to keep blungeoning everybody who disagrees with him with his opinion and belittlements until we shut up and let him have this thread all to himself.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
This is not only happening in the US.

I bought my son some body Armour before he went out to Afghanistan.

The shortage of body Armour within the UK troops is stupid. He is allowed to wear it, as he is allowed to wear his own boots. The lack of kit these guys have to put with is stupid. We are at War for Gods sake. Why the hell are they not equipped with the right gear?

Its our relevant governments that are Penny pinching. Its about time they looked at the facts ,and got down to some real thinking as to what these guys need. But then again, why would they know? Have any members of our Governments actually served in the forces? I very much doubt it.

They just don't have a clue, and they don't listen to the people on the ground. These people make me sick to the stomach. Idiots, all of them.........................
Eddie out..........................

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Bikereddie]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Absolute nonsense.
The soldiers that the editorial speaks about is not about the Iraqi National Army under the Coalition but the Iraqi ARmy under Saddam Hussein because the article is dated 2003 december which would mean that this is pretty much at the beginning of the US troop deployments in Iraq when there was no iraqi national army which began operating quite recently.


The attempt at putting together an Iraqi security force started shortly after the invasion. The story you posted was over half a year after the actual invasion itself. December is not practically right after the troops were deployed. It's a 9 month difference.

Not that it changes the story much. She's a member of, what, the Army Reserve? Frontline troops all had the stuff going into the invasion. The majority of the forces had it.



What do you think the ceramic plates do ?
Ceramic plates that go into the Kevlar armour making it bullet resistant. Without the plates, they might as well have handed out Vietnam era flak jackets. The plates make it armoured.


They still have protection. They aren't defenseless. I believe America has fought numerous conflicts without the use of armor that can stop AK-47 rounds. Judging from the small (yes, small) deathtoll, it doesn't seem to have been a large problem, either.

Your suggestion that some insurgent leaders may be equipped better is what's laughable. American forces have over a 10:1 kill ratio on these guys because they have the superior equipment and training.

Most of the militias and insurgents are lucky to have any real equipment, as they are going mostly off what they could scavenge from Saddam's old army.


Have you not understood a word that I written above ? What are you talking about? HAve you ever been in the Army ?


What exactly is your point? They are adding armor to a humvee, which is luxury most in the world simply do not have. Many of the allied nations fighting with America in Iraqi don't have access to humvees. They use simple jeeps. Which would you rather be in?


They arent asking for grade 5 body armour dammit, they just want what is due to them from the army, nothing more. Just to give them what they have trained with and are trained to use. Let them fight to best of their ability by giving them what the govt has promised to give each soldier deployed. How do you expect the team to win if you dont give them proper equipment ?


The government never promised to give them anything. Nor have they all been training with armored humvees and the very best body armor.

America is constantly phazing out equipment and introducing new pieces. When, exactly, is it ok to go to war? Every soldier is never going to have the top of the line material. The kevlar and armored humvees are both new.

America was completely unprepared heading into Korea, WW2, and Vietnam. Who would you like to blame for that? Soldiers in those wars didn't have humvees, yet faced many of the same dangers. They rode around in jeeps. There were no APC's or humvees.



As for better than every other military in the world, how come the IDF dont have this problem ? Are they just so clever or are we just stupid not to provide our boys with what they need to get the job done ?


The IDF is a force trained specifically to fight low-tech, guerilla conflicts. In case you haven't noticed, they have a little spat going on with the Palestinians, and have for some time. At the same time, I'm going to doubt you have any actually clue what they are equipped with.

I don't know if the Israelis have armored humvees and the interceptor armor. Going to bet you don't, either.

Your link was a nice joke. Nothing short of a propaganda piece.


But according to you they must be whimps, were's the fun in riding in properly armoured vehicles when you can get shot at and blown to bite by landmines, must be all a bunch of sissies, cant handle the thrill of danger !


There's nothing wrong with a soldier who wants the safest equipment. At the same time, there is something wrong with a soldier who complains or refuses to follow his orders because he doesn't have an armored HUMVEE.

It's a war. Soldiers have to risk their lives and often times die. Find me a conflict in history where the percentage of the total force killed is as low as it is in Iraq (American forces took a higher percentage killed in Grenada). No soldiers in the world are better equipped than the American army on the whole.

Equipment failures, and shortages happen. # happens. It's a #ing war. Every soldier in a battlezone will not have equal equipment. It will NEVER happen.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join