NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 09:18 AM) I've been hearing that many guys don't like wearing them, that they feel it increases their risk because it makes them less mobile, slower, and encourages head shots. Thats what we me and Balta were talking about on the last page of this thread.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) Nuke- I just want to clarify something, and I think you can help. It has been suggested in this thread that having side panels added to body armor would reduce casualties due to IEDs and other roadside bombs and such, particularly for passing vehicles. But the thing is, isn't the armor these troops wearing a Type II(a) or Type III armor? That's what I own, and that is meant to stop pistol rounds, submachine guns, shotgun and some rifles. It does NOT stop most high-powered rifles or edged weapons (except where there is a special trauma plate, over the mid-chest). So wouldn't the armor be pretty useless anyway, for that purpose? Wouldn't flying shrapnel fall more under the edged weapon category? The armor we currently have consists of a vest which, by itself can stop 9mm rounds and such. When you add the ceramic plates that US soldiers wear now they stop rounds up to and including 7.62 rounds which are fired from AK 47'S and RPK machine guns.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 12:37 AM) I'm sure it could also be practical to have different varieties of armor available for different purposes...where if a group actually had to do a foot patrol, those units could go for the lighter armor, and the rest of the forces, the ones being hammered during transit, are able to equip with the heavier stuff. I mean, we've had to buy like 3 different sets of armor now just in this war because the armor just hasn't caught up with the IED capabilities, I'm sure they still have some of the stuff they bought a year ago that's usable. They're working on making body armor more modular so that soldiers can put it on and take it off depending on the situation. Like anything else, however, it takes time to get it from the drawing board to the battlefield. The interceptor body armor platform has saved a ton of lives and it's just a question now of tweaking it so that it fits more diverse situations.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 12:22 AM) In a war of mobility, yes you're right, having too much armor weighs a soldier down to the point that their effectiveness is reduced. However, Iraq has long since passed that point. Iraq right now is a war of surprise guerrilla attacks on either stationary or moving targets. This is not a war where soldiers are marching across a country and need to keep the weight down. In most cases, this is a war where if there is significant movement needed of the troops, its done in vehicles, and the soldiers wind up not needing significant, long-term supplies. In this case...where soldiers are dying not because of lack of mobility but because of lack of protection...yes, the added armor is necessary and is worth the sacrifice of some mobility. When a significant portion of the casualties happen because of improvised, roadside IED's that hit convoys and tear through the sides of the soldiers, mobility is not the concern. The answer to that is yes and no. Often times soldiers patrol on foot through towns and cities and they do, in fact, need the added mobility. I run like a racehorse yet after dashing 100 yards with 50lbs of armor and other gear strapped on my body I was pooped! They also, as you said, take most casualties in convoys. Its a tough call to make but in most circumstances soldiers would probably leave armor behind if they thought it was too much weight.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:33 PM) When soldiers force Iraqis to jump off a bridge to their death, I can question them. When Gen. Taguba's report talks about "widespread" (his word) torture and abuse going on at US run facilities in Iraq, I can question them. When people propel fake myths about spit upon Vietnam soldiers, that makes a person look foolish. Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets. Lembcke conducted extensive research to ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment. What is a disgrace to those who have paid the ultimate price for our country is that our leaders (both the Republican architects of the plans and the warhawk complicit Democrats) sent soldiers into a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not have any of the weapons of mass destruction that we said they did. In fact, damn near every reason that the Administration has given us has been debunked (chem weapons, nukes, WMD, etc.) It is only a further slap in the face that they sent them in without having any post-war plans set up -- not to mention the lack of body armor, etc. Somehow all that seems to sting a bit more than some guy's column in the LA Times. But then again, I guess it is chic to bash the so-called liberal media. Ive told you before and I'll tell you again. The pseudo-support you leftists offer the military is not welcome. Your assertion that soldiers were not spat upon is debateable at best, especially considering your sources, but one thing that is not debateable is that America completely failed to support the men and women in uniform who fought there. It was people just like YOU who poured salt in the physical and emotional wounds caused by the war. Your source, Mr Lembecke, is laughable at best. Lembcke is a s***bag with an agenda that makes him not as dilligent in pursuing things that hurts his agenda. Lembcke was a member of Vietnam Vets Against the War, a radical anti-war group, and it's obvious to the reasonable observer that such a man, who in his spare time joined in chorus with John Kerry in calling US soldiers rapists and murderers, would paint his fellow leftist, hippie pieces of s*** in a more positive light than they should be. I guess you freely assumed nobody would check this guys background out huh? You leftists just love to whine and cry about troops not having body armor but you convieniently leave out the fact that literally thousands of troops who would have died in previous wars are alive thanks to the armor they went to war with. Additionally I laughed like hell when you posted that story about the side plate armor that hasn't been issued yet. Many US soldiers, myself included, have made it clear that too much body armor denies them mobility and makes them more likely to be hurt or killed. Recall your ECON 101 about the law of diminishing returns........it applies here also. There is indeed a great disgrace here and thats how leftists like you hide behind dead soldiers to take cheapshots at the President. The people aren't buying it, however, and thats why you continue to lose election after election.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html They want to serve customers on the South Side of the city. The city balks at their very presence. Walmart opens across 95th street, mere feet from the city boundary. Walmart is projected to get most of its employees and customers from the city. Evergreen Park gets the proprety tax and other associated benefits. Chicago gets to eat s***. Nuke laughs.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:48 PM) A pretty sane argument from fark.com: Judging from exit polls, it appears Hamas has won a significant percentage of the vote in Wednesday's Palestinian legislative elections. While it's unclear what this will mean for Palestinians or Israelis, here are a few preliminary observations (based on the hopeful assumption that the PA will not slide into autocracy or total chaos): --It would be a mistake to assume everyone who voted for Hamas was voting primarily for the destruction of Israel. Palestinians have much more immediate concerns-- corruption in the Palestinian Authority, failure of the PA to provide basic services and security, massive unemployment, etc. When voters are unhappy with the status quo, they tend to vote for the outsiders who promise reform. And Hamas wisely emphasized reform more than it did elimination of the Zionist entity. --The outcome of the election is a reminder of Senator John McCain's point: if we in the West truly believe in electoral democracy, we have to accept that sometimes elections will produce governments we don't particularly like. --If Hamas does become part of the PA government, it will no longer have the luxury of being an outside critic. It will have to show it can help make real and positive changes in people's lives. Otherwise it will then become one of the rascals to be thrown out in the next election. --I have no doubt Hamas leaders still believe every word they've said about throwing the Jews out of the whole of Palestine. But I think Israel needs to pay attention to deeds as well words, and not necessarily to assume the worst. It would be a mistake to refuse to deal with the PA on any matter simply because of Hamas's presence in the government. The question is: what happens now? If there is a sharp increase in attacks against Israelis, Israel will know how to respond. If there is a decrease or end of attacks, that's to be welcomed, and Israel should also respond in kind. If the status quo more or less continues, that will hardly be the sort of progress Palestinians are hoping for-- and presumably Hamas will have to pay a political price for that. -- They could learn a thing or two from Sinn Fein -- that political power could give them a voice that they only previously had through accessorizing with dynamite. Like Sinn Fein, they may try both for a while but, as Sinn Fein did, they'll find political power/voice that way is more effective. I really hope you're right. Im not optimistic though.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 04:56 PM) Apparently, it isn't over quite yet... http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html I have to admit, I'm a little surprised at this move. I am not a fan of Alito, but I personally wouldn't blow what I think is a one-shot nuclear deal (the 'buster) on him, if I was the Dems. There are better things to use it for. LOL!! Kerry still thinks its September of 2004. He really needs to get over himself. His filibuster has a snowballs chance in hell with 3 dems joining all the Republicans and other undecided Dems saying that they will not support a filibuster.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) And how are you savings? Imagine if the companies you invested in went bankrupt and your stock is worthless. That is basically (not exactly) what these people may have done. They would have invested in GM, and that seems like a blue chipper to me. Who would have thought 20, 30 years ago that a GM pension wasn't golden? If you are investing in the market, you are relying on corporations. If you are buying government bonds, you are relying on the government. I agree with what you are saying, but it just isn't as simple as that sounds. DIVERSIFY DIVERSIFY DIVERSIFY!!!! Thats the only free lunch thats out there. If you park all your savings in one company like all those Enron people did then you're really asking for it. I have my cash split up between 4 mutual funds ranging from a mixed equity/income to Large, Mid and Small cap funds.

Michael Moore

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) so who are they protecting my freedom from? who is attacking my freedom? (a question that may open more domestic issues now than foreign) Who is attacking your freedom? You must have slept in on 9-11. :rolly Whenever this country has needed its Armed Forces a bunch of guys with US Army, US Marines, US Air Force, US Navy and US Coast Guard showed up and did the job. You may not think we do a whole lot with our time in that small little world you live in but if you'd open up your eyes and look around you you'd realize that we do a whole hell of a lot to keep this nation safe.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:07 AM) :o This was a big debate when I went back home. Everyone in town is afraid that GM is going to declare bankruptcy to shed the pensions, etc. A lot of those people in Marion's stamping plant are very close to retirement age. If they all lose their pensions, WOW. They just worked 30+ years for NOTHING. With these kind of #'s, it's even more of a concern. Some people were of the opinion that the government wouldn't let GM declare bankruptcy because all the suppliers, etc that would get screwed over would cause a HUGE ripple effect in the economy. Being that most of the midwest is some sort of supplier to GM, etc. somehow, it would definitely send shockwaves into the economy. Relying on government or corporations to provide for you in your old age is looking more and more like folly these days. Thats why Im saving as much as I possibly can without sacrificing too much of what I want.

Unfortunatley a whole lot of nothing aside from newspapers and a few magazines. School and work are taking a big wet bite out of my time. Next book I read is going to be "Winning" by Jack Welch. I already have it, just have to wait for the next semester break to have sufficient time.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:24 PM) My memory of SoxNRoll during the season: Drunken hollering: "I'M f***IN' NUUUUUKE CLEVELANDDDDDD! AAAALALALALALALALALAA!!!" LOL!!! I remember that. I think that was a rain delay game and we were drinking Jack rather heavily that afternoon.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:04 PM) Funny you should mention that, since one of the main reasons Japanese automakers have opened plants in the U.S. was a Reagan-era requirement that a certain percentage of those companies' vehicles had to be built in the U.S. for them to continue doing business here. Once the Japanese automakers met those requirements, they started opening their new plants up in Canada, because the population is much better educated and because their state-run health care system provides dramatically lower costs to the company than down here in the States, despite the fact that the tax rates are higher to pay for the health care system. They're still creating factory jobs here although not at the same rate they once were. Reason for that is, as you mentioned, cheaper costs.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) Hurray for the jobs, I was pointing out those that complain about some worker sending money abroad is like complaining about someone spitting on a sidewalk during a hurricane. BTW, those jobs are a small way of saying NAFTA works, and isn't the giant sucking sound that Kap's fellow Texan, Ross Perot theorized. I dont care if they're sending their money to Mexico. My issue is that they're chewing up hundreds of millions of dollars in the affected states with social services that they do not deserve.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:51 PM) Most businesses that hire illegals would hire legal workers if they were available and willing to work. What we need, is what Bush proposed, a guest worker program. There are not enough Americans willing to do the manual labor jobs in the US. As Bush supporters have pointed out, our unemployment rate hovers at 5% and under. So it doesn't appear as if these workers are displacing anyone. Check http://themonitor.com a border newspaper and see all the job offers for migrant labor and meat processing plants. And finally, there are sizable communties of retired Americans liuving in Mexico. They take their Social Security checks and adios across the border for sun, surf, and cheaper living. So illegals aren't the only ones taking US dollars and spending them abroad. We also allow stock ownership overseas, so even more money is flowing out of the country. Which is worse, illegals sending $100 south or Nissan America sending their profits to Japan? Funny you should mention Nissan America when the Japanese automakers are creating jobs here in the US while the "US" automakers are taking jobs to Canada and Mexico.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:45 AM) But of course, you're missing the key point...it's a very positive impact to the Walmart and the rich celebrity who can employ them...it's negative to everyone else...but since the government still refuses to provide actual strong penalties to the folks who do employ them (except denying them high-level cabinet posts), there's no reason for a business owner not to take advantage of the situation. Thats why I like that new immigration law thats working its way through Congress right now. It would impose stiff fines against businesses who hire illegals.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) The answer to that I think is quite obvious...a significant amount of money comes into Mexico through the fact that people do cross the U.S. border, either find jobs or occasionally sell drugs or commit a crime...and then send a significant fraction of the profits back across the border through banks which allow easy money transfers to Mexico. These sort of border crossings pump a lot of cash into Mexico's economy, cash which then recirculates as those families spend it on food, etc. Not to mention the fact that the US taxpayer is paying to educate the children of illegals as well as paying for their health care. Those 2 alone are enough to offset the positive econoic impact of their presence several times over.

Im not for cutting off immigration as Tex suggests but rather to control it. As long as we know whos coming in and going out then Im ok with it. We cant, however, have people running willy nilly across the open border as is the case now.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 12:16 AM) :headshake Tex is disqualified as a judge.

Organized labor has sunk to another new low.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/...p.ap/index.html Yeah, the Mexican government is really doing its part to help secure the border. Frankly Im sick of the Mexican government and groups within the United States helping these people commit the crime of illegally crossing the border. -I think we need a wall along our Southern border similar to the wall Isreal is building and use units of the National Guard of the affected states on a rotating basis to augment the Border Patrol. -Additionally, we need to end any and all foregin aid we give to Mexico until they take serious action to stop this. -Also, the FBI should move in and close down any groups who aid these people. They are aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. That is illegal for those who didn't already know. Raid their offices, shut down their operations and throw their members in jail. I dont have a problem with Mexicans coming here to do certain jobs that nobody else wants but there has to be control. There has to be a way to know whos coming and going. This is an open and festering hole in our national security and its gotta get fixed......you know...like yesterday.

This is a bunch of horses***. I'm sick of these frivolus appeals delaying justice and after 23 years its clear this bastard has filed a bunch of em. I dont care if the drugs cause pain. I dont care if hes retarded. I dont care if he had a rough childhood. One thing that DOES bother me is that this piece of human filth hasn't suffered enough for killing a police officer. It also bothers me that people like this are allowed to tax the legal system literally for decades when his guilt is clear. Say hi to Tookie for me when they finish you off.........ASSHOLE!

This is a really close race..........unlike the Rush Limbaugh category. All of the candidates still in the running are very well qualified.