1 Its exactly because its not new that people are complaining -- by now you'd think they could have fixed this stuff.

2 actus, are they entitled to an invisible forcefield, too?

3 You're right, Rusty ... I have no tolerance for self-inflicted wounds, especially preventable one. SNAFU's funny until you're on the lethal end of one. What's a bit ironic about this is that much of the "support the troops" crowd are all about excusing the Pentagon and rationalizing the delay ... a delay which is costing lives of the very same soldiers they support.

4 Right, but delay is inherent. It's not excusing the Pentagon, but it's simply not clear they could move any faster. It is the nature of bureaucracy.

5 'are they entitled to an invisible forcefield, too?' Depends on how much I want to support the troops, I would guess. I don't want to support them that much. Let them die rather than take as much money from us as would be necessary to make invisible forcefields. Armored trucks? That I'm willing to give them. This whole hoopla has been a good study as an example of the distinctions between supporting our troops and supporting their bosses.

6 Delay isnt inherent. Every day US tax dollars are spent on defense contracts and can they get anything done in the name of National Security by jacking up the DPAS and Program classification requirements ... just because the Government (all entities) want something somewhere yesterday. This can include contracting the russian heavy lifter AN-225 to get the required materials there yesterday. Excuses are like asshole's everyone has one! There are close to 70 armor manufacturers in the US with capabilities on bidding for government/military contracts do you really think if push came to shove they couldnt get this hardware in there? They have the budget, so whats the hold up?

7 Right, but delay is inherent. It's not excusing the Pentagon, but it's simply not clear they could move any faster. It is the nature of bureaucracy.That must explain why, after 2+ years, the army has just placed its first order for armor kits to equip M939 5 ton trucks ... the workhorse of the resupply system (and not usually found tooling only around 'base camps').

8 Hmmm, lessee . . Howcome the HumVee wasn't armored at the design stage? Because they never intended it to be an armored vehicle. It was designed to get troops around in a hurry when they needed to get someplace, hence the original "Utility" configuration. They could get a bunch of 'em in a C-17 or a C-130 and haul 'em, drop 'em and use 'em. Can't do that with a heavy armored vehicle. If you could, they'd be tooling around in M-113's and things like that! So now in less than a year, we have decided to use them as Armored Combat Vehicles, and this calls for literally "Re-Invention of the Wheel" Loading a One ton capacity vehicle down with two tons of Armor and Ballistic Glass is just trading one problem for another. A Humvee runs like a Striped Assed Ape with no armor, but load it down with armor, in a drag race, a slug will win! A RPG used on a Bradley, and in quite a few cases a M1A1 Tank usually either cripples or burns the target. In most cases, with a RPG, an Armored Humvee gets blown up, and the crew is either killed or badly wounded! A mine, or IED, pretty much the same result. The same with armored Five ton Trucks, they'll shed small arms ammo but the IEDs and RPGs are still deadly. Our military design people need to design an Armored Utility Vehicle for use in an Urban Combat situation, that's smaller than a APC but can carry a few more people and has comparable firepower. Probably something like the M-114 track they used to have, pretty quick, small and manuverable. And light weight so they can be air transported. That's the trouble with Armored vehicles, getting them into a combat zone in effective numbers is a logistical nightmare. That's the reason we always maintained the Bases in Germany, to keep a large inventory of Armor, in order to forestall an attack by the Warsaw Pact countries. In order to have a heavily armored force in any part of the world, we have to keep a Division of M1A1s in several places . . Damn, that's expensive! Either that or change the way we fight these local wars. Rummy and Co. have wanted to change it . . but there's always the lobby by the people who make Heavy Tanks, and Aircraft Carriers, and Submarines, and large caliber Self Propelled Artillery Pieces, and Huge Bombers . . . That think we can fight neighborhood wars with them . . . I think they're mistaken, we usually don't have a year's notice, as we have done in Afghanistan, or Iraq. If we got there sooner, and fought more violently and quickly, the resistance would be a whole less on the whole . .

9 'Hmmm, lessee . . Howcome the HumVee wasn't armored at the design stage? Because they never intended it to be an armored vehicle.' More excuses than jobs....

10 Anyone ever heard of Textron? Anyone know what they are building? Working overtime. It's bad. It will replace the HumVee that was never intended for what it is expected to do. LARGE: This baby only carries 3 soldiers because they use most of the room for ammo. launchers, 2 turret machine guns, rocket launchers, etc: Fully ammored, can take a 12 lb mine directly underneath. Don't sell us short. It's under production now. One company in my area just got a $175,000,000 contract and is hiring 400 new workers. Ain't war great. Engineering accelerated. Unemployment solved and we get to kick our enemies asses. Hoohah!

11 Don't have time to say much at the moment, but I wanted to let y'all know that there is some good material on this matter at the current home page of Soldiers for the Truth: www.sftt.org Thanks!