Originally posted by an0n
No. He was expecting to have both. But he should've been prepared to go in using only his training.
He did go in using only his training. but frankly, you can't blame him from being pissed off at being ordered to give up the piece of equipment that, it turned out, would have saved his life.
And on the dealing with mob thing, how many riot shields do you think were in the gulf? I mean,
now you're expecting them to have the right equipment to that sort of thing? Not only that, your 'solution' requires the sort of overwheming force that you say the army shouldn't need to operate.
Not to mention you still haven't answered whether you would have accepted having body armour taken off of you before entering a warzone. You don't have to be a soldier to answer this, it's not a hard question. In fact i'll rephrase it; to make it nice and clear an umambiguous.
"If you had to go into a warzone and were equipped with protective equipment, would you accept being forced to give it up?"
All i'm asking is for you to simply place yourself in a situation thousands of soldiers, as well as numerous civillians (TV crews, charity workers such as Red Cross, etc) found themselves in during the war. you don't need to have any degree of miltary training or experience to understand the question, it;s a simple matter of risk assessment.
And unless you state that, in that position you would have no qualms over surrendering protective equipment - even with the knowledge that it may save your life - your argument holds no weight.
