BleacherCoaches.com

Fleaflicker: You can take the word of one platoon and apply what they say to whole armed services in Iraq. Also you said that in WW II the GI's had the best equipment available when they hit the beaches. Well hate to say it but your wrong the Germans had better equipment. A Sherman tank was tin can compared to a German Tiger. An MG 43 machine gun, SG 43 assault rifle, Me 262 jet plane, V2 rockets, 88mm anit tank gun, were all German pieces of equipment that were far superior to what we had in the field. The GI's whipped the Germans because they had more guts and were better trained.

Nonetheless, the Americans had the best equipment available to them at that time. I don't think we had the know how right then to produce tanks quite like the Germans did, and they were armored tanks at least.
And I was reading the news on another person dying in Iraq, and it mentioned that he died upon his vehicle hitting a land mine. The vehicle in question was not armored, and that was likely a contributing factor to his death. Would he have survived in an armored vehicle? Who knows? But the fact that he wasn't should raise a red flag.

Michael Moran received numerous responses to his Brave New World column about the lack of armor protection on U.S. military Humvees in Iraq.Among those responding were soldiers, veterans and parents of troops deployed in Iraq who have seen or heard these complaints firsthand. Here are some examples.

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4758004/

Maybe it is a 'liberal' news source, but I don't think all the army moms and dads are. I think they're more ticked right now more than anything. Surely not all of these letters have been forged.

If anybody is interested in reading the original article, it can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731185/

Flea, next time just put up the link. By the time I got to the end of that, I forgot what the original topic was.

As for voting, I have reluctantly decided to vote for Kerry. My reasoning is two-fold: One, I think Bush has done a poor job and I do not like the idea of re-hiring someone when they have performed poorly. Two, Clinton did a fairly good job as President and he was a Democrat. He is the only Democratic President I have known in my lifetime. Maybe we would be better off with a Democrat in office. I do not like Kerry, but I also do not like Bush, so it is a tough situation.

I am not sure that the "fight in our boys" was the only thing that won WWII. Didn't Germany make some major tactical errors, such as pursuing the Russians so far into the Russian winter and letting a bunch of cornered British soldiers escape? I am not a WWII scholar, so correct me if I am wrong.

wildcat maybe I can change your mind

1. Clinton was a Democrat but a rather moderate one in the WH. Kerry is way way left of Clinton! Clinton is actually closer to Bush than he is to Kerry. So much so why do you think Clinton isn't campaigning for Kerry? Don't buy the spin that his heart surgery recovery is taking longer than expected he personally doesn't like Kerry or his politics. Blame Bush for a poor job governing is a tough one. The economy was tanking when he was elected and tanked totally after the "recount" fiasco and the bottom fell out after 9/11. The economy is recovery albeit slowly with productivity up and job creation. Kerry will take money out of your pocket and Bush will put more back in it if he gets a second term.

2. WW II was won by our GI's. No arguing that point.

Germany allowed the Brits to return home because they were their "blood" allie(Anglo-Saxon), Hitler still had hopes of a joint force of Britains, Italians, and Germans. If nothing else the Brits would mind their own business was the mindset at the time.

Most of the British royalty wanted no part of WW II because they knew that would be the end of their "colonial empire". Some were nogoetiating with the Nazis for that end. Britain started the war as an empire and ended it and island. Or two island if you count part of Ireland as part of "Great Britain".