Rationalizing away the lack of body armor.

[redqueen]

Heard these excuses from a kool-aid drinker today (well he claims he's not, but... )

Apparently, although the armor has been available, there is a "cost-benefit factor" that the NYT didn't take into consideration. Armor means extra weight, which decreases speed and maneuverability.

Also, armor could affect how soldiers aim their rifles.

[NorCalDem]

1. It could also give them a mean rash

when worn in the desert heat. Oh well, guess they shouldn't wear any armor then, in fact, let's put our troops our there is sandals and swim trunks. That would make for a highly mobile and maneuverable military force. :sarcasm:

This guys an idiot, the only "cost-benefit" analysis taken into account in the decision made by our government with respect to body armor is whether or not it is worth $1000 per soldier to save a few lives. They obviously felt that it was not!

[Selatius]

2. So I guess body armor is too much to ask for US servicemen?

Oh, let me get this right. You can be born and raised in a crime-infested poor neighborhood, spend years in sub-standard public education facilities and come out with little chance of a good future, spend time and effort joining the Army because you have no money for college but not be considered worthy of body armor even after you spent all those years getting that far?

Gee, I guess if I spent 100 years suffering, I earn three free music downloads from iTunes while I'm at it, right? I know I'm spoiled and asking for much, but man, I gotta have me some tunes playing on the battlefield before I get blown up by a bomb or gunned down in an ambush and sent home in a wooden box.

[gizmo1979]

3. Ask this person if he was

being shot at daily if he would give a flying rats ass about any of these excuses if it was his life on the line!What a load of shit.