[LetsRok]

I don't care how you take this, but soldiers get shot at. If body armor is standard issue then fine. If not, then join then Navy and spend the war 30 miles offshore out of harms way.

[Flightdeck]

I don't understand why you disagree with body armor for soldiers, #1. #2, Naval aviators, SEALS, submariners, and yes, sailors, are not out of harms way during a shooting war.

[AndyTheBear]

I don't care how you take this, but soldiers get shot at. If body armor is standard issue then fine. If not, then join then Navy and spend the war 30 miles offshore out of harms way.

The new stuff is great, and should be standard issue for infantry period. The only problem is that anti-military types like Clinton, Kerry and other Rats don't like funding such stuff.

[military cop]

I think you've missed the point again.

Body armor makes and impact. It reduces casualties and increases combat effectiveness.

Don't make a comment that you know nothing about. I've been in the army for 16 years. Seen Central America, saw the desert in GW I, stood post in Korea, dodged bullets in Bosnia, and made another tour of Greater Iraq. I know first hand that soldiers get shot at. Kim Orlando was a personal friend of mine (if you don't know, do a search on this site)

I don't take those comments lightly. Body Armor should have been issued back when other Euro coutries were issuing it for their own soldiers. X42 refused to finance it. My President did. The bottom line is that it should have been standard issue long ago. Unfortunately, it takes an operation like this to loosen purse strings.

And I'm a bit too impatient to join the Navy. Too much waiting.