Standard Lefty response:

But if they were in Kansas they'd all be fine so John Murtha is still right. Even though Saddam would still be in power killing, raping, torturing (the US does all that too) and draining the ecologically sensitive marshes.

Facts don't matter to the A-holes who 'support' our troops by calling them murderers who create more terrorists.

You know, our troops are so precious, that we should not only lock them all in Fort Knox, so they never have another combat or training casualty, there should be a group assembled whose job it is to protect the troops. Say, we arm these guys and give them training.

Reality-based answer: it was in the paper (WaPo I think) today that the Marines have ordered the wider-coverage armor.

They want the armor.

Don't be afraid of the facts.

tubino cares about those bigoted, insensitive troops.

Duh - we could solve this by issuing each soldier with his own personal tank, if Chimpster peeResident sElect wasn't obsessed with killing them all with helpless Iraqis acting under the mind control of Dick Cheney for coffin photo ops with their widows and children to get shots he can hang on his bathroom wall.

Why is it noone else sees these things (other than Liberal Larry of course)?

Time to ratchet up the nano-armor production!!!!!

Don't forget the plastic turkey photo shoots! He feeds plastic to the troops!!!!!!

I don't know if troll thinks he made a blistering point or not, but it is interesting that the army and marines diverge on this point. I think it (it=troll) is trying to say - "nuh uhn, it was right for Hillary to freak out on this issue"

Two different institutions, two different philosophies. Sort of like how different states may have different speed limits. We could save thousands of lives if we just make sure noone goes about 10 mph, ya know. Damn you, Bush for not lowering the speed limit to 7.5 mph.

This seems an odd issue for either side to get worked up about. There are marginal benefits and marginal costs to additional armor, which are pretty obvious and have already been covered. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there isn't an obvious ideal point balancing protection and mobility. In this way, armor's like a lot of other spectrum issues: you might think the ideal tax rate is 37%, and you might be right, but if another person suggests 38% is a better level, that's a defensible position.

When I see anyone getting that worked up about how one level of armor is "clearly" the best level, I immediately assume that person is more concerned with political point-scoring than actually reaching the best compromise between competing goals.

I realize that joeindc44 made pretty much the same point, except earlier and more concisely. Thus, my comment was pretty much superfluous and a waste of everyone's time. I'm practicing for my bid to join the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The point of the armor effectiveness study was to help guide the military in making "mobility vs. protection" decisions. Using it to condemn their decisions after the fact is the worst sort of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Tubino, in this thread, I told you that I think you're smart but you're a troll, so it's a waste of time getting into a discussion with you. You seemed surprised.

Then, in this thread, you demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about. Please read my three posts in response to your post there, and think about it. Your lack of a response to my criticism there is very telling.

Do you want to be intellectually honest and share a liberal perspective with us, or are you going to continue being yet another leftist troll? Looking forward to your comments here...

SJKevin, check out what he said on yesterday's 4:47 post on that military montage.

As long as there's been organized warfare, or even sinlge combat, it's always been a struggle in finding the right balance between armour, and speed & mobility. It's a hard balance to achieve, but it sounds like the Army's doing as good a job as can be expected. But pushed to choose between one or the other? I'd always choose speed & mobility.

Put another way: which do you find dead more often on Texas highways - jackrabbits, or armadilloes?

Put another way: which do you find dead more often on Texas highways - jackrabbits, or armadilloes?

I wish jackyrabbits, thay taste lots beter.

Yeah, I saw that, Lauraw. That was disgusting, and typical.

The guy's a troll. The thing that's so annoying is that he's informed and intelligent enough to know better, unlike trolls like PLV who are obviously just snotty kids. So, It must be how he chooses to be. But it must be a pretty empty kind of satisfaction, patting yourself on the back when nobody responds to you, convinced that it's because they can't win the argument. At least part of him has to know better.

I keep beating the same dead horse with him because I'm tired of him always changing the subject when he's cornered. I'm hoping that he'll either address my comments or go away. Being somewhat liberal myself, I wouldn't mind having some honest left-wing perspectives in here, but I'm not counting on Tubino to provide them.

Tubino himself said, "I have argued points, and have retreated from claims when I overstated them." Well, I'll believe it when I see it. He's dishonest and spiteful. He isn't even honest with himself.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Marine Corps did order more expansive body armor for each troop. That certainly doesn't mean they are going to wear it. The Army issued me these ridiculous cold weather boots in Korea that would have kept me warm on the moon. They weren't worn once. No combat soldier is going to wear gear that makes him combat ineffective. You can wear enough armor where you can't even engage your rifle, therefore making you useless.

I'm just getting up to speed on today's posts, so sorry if I'm a little behind the curve.

I've had it with Tubino. He is as bad or worse than Cedarford. He and the person posting as PLV should be banned. They add nothing to this blog except wasted bandwidth.

Why on earth is anybody responding to these people?

And ace, seriously, why do you placate this troll, tubino?

The troll is all too quick to pick up and post on the latest reason "why we will lose." We know the left hates Bush and is willing to believe any theory that can arguably be used to make Bush look bad. So can you blame the left for hating the military? They are, after all, not dying fast enough to really help the left blame Bush for whatever the hell it is a lot of dead soldiers would prove about Bush.

He and the person posting as PLV should be banned.

Eh, Tubby's fun to bitch-slap. PLV, though, is totally worthless.

Wasn't John Kerry accused of creating a body armor shortage during the election and, furthermore, wasn't that considered a bad thing at the time?

Someone needs to dig up Henry V and ask him how those heavily armored French knights fared against unarmored archers at Agincort.

Heavily armored immobilty invites armor defeating technology, period.

In fairness to the knights, they were French, after all.

Wasn't John Kerry accused of creating a body armor shortage during the election

Don't think so. The big issue then was armor on Humvees, not body armor.

and, furthermore, wasn't that considered a bad thing at the time?

There is no shortage of body armor. The supposed (i.e. fake) problem is that the body armor is defective, which it is not. The current body armor can be configured to give nearly full torso protection, but it comes at the cost of mobility and comfort. Mobility and comfort can be more important in combat than sheer protection, hence the past allusions to Agincourt and the Mongols.

My 8 year old can understand this stuff, but supposedly fully grown leftists can't. Pathetic.

It doesn't matter, I guess. The MSM and goobs like troll will simply repeat it until it becomes a fact. I guess its hard for Dems to understand that American soldiers are dying in "combat" where bad guys shoot at you, or blow up bombs at you, until one or the other is dead.

What, do they expect the GWOT to be like a bad sci-fi show where each bullet is deflected by some sort of shield? We just need to remodulate the pulse phase shield capacitators and the enemy can't lock on to our image, cap'n.

The safest place on the battlefield, for a soldier, is behind his weapon. When its being fired accurately.

"What, do they expect the GWOT to be like a bad sci-fi show where each bullet is deflected by some sort of shield? "

I'm remembering Dune, wherein soldier's hi-tech force field armor is still defeated by a blade.

Yeah, slow beats fast. Its can the benegesserrit hates soldiers.

It's all because of that bastard Tony Stark holding out on us. So what if the Guardsman armor causes violent insanity in a percentage of its users?

It's all because of that bastard Tony Stark holding out on us.

And drinking all our booze. I'll "repulser ray" his ass . . .