Congressional *Support* for our Troops

foundit66 · 08-16-2006, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Streisand is too busy. She's doing benefit concerts this fall for Al Gore and his phoney baloney global warming crap. Maybe Michael Moore could host a weenie roast. Naw, forget that. He'd eat everything and there'd be nothing to sell.

It's funny how you mock the liberals over this...

When it is the REPUBLICANS who are IN POWER and THEY are the ones who aren't doing their job.
REMEMBER??? It's THEIR JOB to provide the funding to help pay for this crap AND THEY AREN'T.

Remember this statement in the article: "Zitnay asked for $19 million, and 34 Democratic and six Republican members of Congress signed a letter endorsing the budget request."

I just knew you'ld find some way to be an idiot about this.
You really don't give a crap about the military guys or anything. You're just looking for a way to turn this for political advantage.

alias · 08-16-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

It's funny how you mock the liberals over this...

When it is the REPUBLICANS who are IN POWER and THEY are the ones who aren't doing their job.
REMEMBER??? It's THEIR JOB to provide the funding to help pay for this crap AND THEY AREN'T.

Remember this statement in the article: "Zitnay asked for $19 million, and 34 Democratic and six Republican members of Congress signed a letter endorsing the budget request."

I just knew you'ld find some way to be an idiot about this.
You really don't give a crap about the military guys or anything. You're just looking for a way to turn this for political advantage.

Uh, er, yeah, right. Go back in this thread and read it again. You may find where I said I support funding for anything for our troops. Your comprehension problem is kicking in again. I'm mocking the liberals and their phoney causes. I would never mock the troops. Do you know what Hannity does? He holds concerts all over the country and raises money for the children of fallen soldiers so their kids are guaranteed a college education. How many liberals are doing something like that?

sgtdmski · 08-17-2006, 04:27 AM

THis is a bunch of hoopla about crap!!!!!!

Operation helmet provides inserts to troops for their helmets. The inserts protect against concussion. The military provides the basic kevlar helmet to all troops with a suspension webbing that troops can adjust to make the helmet fit. There are several after market kits that troops can buy to make the helmet more comfortable and fit better.

The one that is offered by Operation Helmet is to upgrade the older K-Pot. The Military is currently phasing in new helmets that include this fitting and new helmets that many of the current and future weapons upgrades can be fixed upon. The goal is to complete the phase in by the end of 2007.

More lies!!!!!! Or just more uninformed hype???

dmk

foundit66 · 08-17-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Uh, er, yeah, right. Go back in this thread and read it again. You may find where I said I support funding for anything for our troops. Your comprehension problem is kicking in again.

And again you reply with nothing against what I ACTUALLY said.
You're mocking the liberals for what you perceive as non-support for this, when it is the Republicans in Congress who should be doing the job.

THAT is my issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

I'm mocking the liberals and their phoney causes. I would never mock the troops.

Are you just incapable of reading what is ACTUALLY said?
I never said anything about mocking the troops.
It is CONGRESS which should be doing this. The majority of Congress is REPUBLICANS.
Taking the previous head injury bill as an example, almost SIX TIMES MORE DEMOCRATS endorsed the bill than republicans in a Congress with a republican majority.

Do you understand what that is saying?
Republicans don't give a crap about our troops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Do you know what Hannity does? He holds concerts all over the country and raises money for the children of fallen soldiers so their kids are guaranteed a college education. How many liberals are doing something like that?

I just pointed out that Cher is actively involved in getting the soldiers these helmet parts.
And I'ld be interested if we could ask those kids of the fallen soldiers how many of them would rather have their parent back instead of the free education...

alias · 08-17-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And again you reply with nothing against what I ACTUALLY said.
You're mocking the liberals for what you perceive as non-support for this, when it is the Republicans in Congress who should be doing the job.

THAT is my issue.

Are you just incapable of reading what is ACTUALLY said?
I never said anything about mocking the troops.
It is CONGRESS which should be doing this. The majority of Congress is REPUBLICANS.
Taking the previous head injury bill as an example, almost SIX TIMES MORE DEMOCRATS endorsed the bill than republicans in a Congress with a republican majority.

Do you understand what that is saying?
Republicans don't give a crap about our troops.

I just pointed out that Cher is actively involved in getting the soldiers these helmet parts.
And I'ld be interested if we could ask those kids of the fallen soldiers how many of them would rather have their parent back instead of the free education...

Read the reply from Sarge. He knows what he's talking about. You don't.

foundit66 · 08-17-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

THis is a bunch of hoopla about crap!!!!!!

Operation helmet provides inserts to troops for their helmets. The inserts protect against concussion. The military provides the basic kevlar helmet to all troops with a suspension webbing that troops can adjust to make the helmet fit. There are several after market kits that troops can buy to make the helmet more comfortable and fit better.

The one that is offered by Operation Helmet is to upgrade the older K-Pot. The Military is currently phasing in new helmets that include this fitting and new helmets that many of the current and future weapons upgrades can be fixed upon. The goal is to complete the phase in by the end of 2007.

More lies!!!!!! Or just more uninformed hype???

dmk

1) What lies? Can you point out specifically what you claim is a lie?
2) I can't help but notice you stated that "the GOAL" is by the end of 2007.
When are we EXPECTED to actually complete this goal?

foundit66 · 08-17-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Read the reply from Sarge. He knows what he's talking about. You don't.

I realize you want to hide behind Sarge, but Sarge didn't say what you did.
Sarge's claims don't address what you claimed.

My reply TO YOU is not affected by Sarge's statement.

If you want to drop your foolishness, I understand. But Sarge's statements are not a reason for doing so.

sgtdmski · 08-18-2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

1) What lies? Can you point out specifically what you claim is a lie?
2) I can't help but notice you stated that "the GOAL" is by the end of 2007.
When are we EXPECTED to actually complete this goal?

What lies??? The lie that we are sending our troops to combat without the proper helmet. ALL TROOPS have kevlar helmets. No one is using the inferior steel pots.

Like everything else in the Army, when equipment is replaced by newer models it takes time to outfit all the troops, for a variety of reasons, including the simple fact that sometimes it takes manufacturers time to provide all the equipment that is necessary. The Army will phase new equipment in over time, this way, the equipment is getting to the soldiers. Unfortunately, some troops will receive the equipment before others, usually the combat arms is the first to receive it. Right now according to the Army Times around 85% of all troops have received the new equipment, considering that this is well before the end of 2007, it would seem that for once the Army is ahead of its goal.

dmk

onthefence · 08-18-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

1) What lies? Can you point out specifically what you claim is a lie?
2) I can't help but notice you stated that "the GOAL" is by the end of 2007.
When are we EXPECTED to actually complete this goal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Like everything else in the Army, when equipment is replaced by newer models it takes time to outfit all the troops, for a variety of reasons, including the simple fact that sometimes it takes manufacturers time to provide all the equipment that is necessary. The Army will phase new equipment in over time, this way, the equipment is getting to the soldiers. Unfortunately, some troops will receive the equipment before others, usually the combat arms is the first to receive it. Right now according to the Army Times around 85% of all troops have received the new equipment, considering that this is well before the end of 2007, it would seem that for once the Army is ahead of its goal.

Aren't you ex-military? and an officer at that? You should know how that works.....

foundit66 · 08-18-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onthefence

Aren't you ex-military? and an officer at that? You should know how that works.....

Actually, I do know how that works. Thus my question.
I didn't ask about phasing the helmets in. I got that.
I didn't question "2007" as in why it was 2007 and not 2006.

My question was on whether or not the stated "goal" of supply-ing these helmets was going to be obtainable.

Too many meetings and too many supply personnel telling me about the "goal" of something to be taken in by that meaningless word.