 |
|||
|
|
|
 Bowing to Pressure, Army Adds to Soldiers’ ArmorPosted on Jan 11, 2006NYT: WASHINGTON - Army officials said Wednesday that they had decided to send additional body armor to Iraq to protect soldiers from insurgents’ attacks. The ceramic plates now worn by most members of the military shield just some of the upper body from bullets and shrapnel, and the Army said it would buy plates that would extend this protection to the sides of soldiers. The officials spoke after a closed session of the Senate Armed Services Committee, held after The New York Times reported last week that a Pentagon study had found that extra armor could have saved up to 80 percent of the marines who died in Iraq from upper body wounds. | story Advertisement Previous item: On Second Thought... Next item: U.S. To Rely On Private Sector To Defeat Climate Change CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
The Lowdown on Fracking
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By kerry thomas, January 13, 2006 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
when is talking about winning the war more important than having a plan to win, a mission statement or an exit strategy? the answer is when the goal is to “be at war” indefinitely, which puts us on a ‘horse named GOP’ in the middle of an endless river designated ‘the Global War On Terror.” as any sane person can see this is not WWIII, this is WWE, or WORLD WAR ENDLESS!
Report thisBy John Said, January 12, 2006 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When will someone other then Jack Murtha ask Bush who claims to be the defender of our soldiers why
Report this1. He rushed into Iraq without proper number of troops
2. Why he sent men to die without proper arms and arament
3. Why he started an invasion without a mission statement, occupation or exit plan.
By kerry thomas, January 12, 2006 at 7:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
i don’t get it. the armor is cheaper than the cost of evacuating and hospitalizing the wounded soldier, is cheaper than recruiting and training that soldier’s replacement. i mean the additional armor is cost effective. Let alone what the mother, father, sister, brother of that injured soldier feels about additional armor to shield the soldier they love.
Report this