Silly String Goes to War Against IEDs 460
Luban Doyle writes "In an age of multimillion-dollar high-tech weapons systems, sometimes it's the simplest ideas that can save lives. Which is why a New Jersey mother is organizing a drive to send cans of Silly String to Iraq.
American troops use the stuff to detect trip wires around bombs, as Marcelle Shriver learned from her son, a soldier in Iraq."
IED? (Score:1, Insightful)
Intermittent Explosive Disorder?
Institute for Educational Development?
Institution of Engineering Designers?
Innovative Electronic Designs?
I'm sure they once called these "booby traps". What's the obsession with acronyms?
Government should pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally there should be a significant discount if they make a nice large contract
Poor Choice of Icons (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad this low tech method of booby trap detection is being used. My nit however is in leading the article with the "It's Funny, Laugh" icon.
There is a humorous element in using a humorously named children's toy for sure, but I still chafe at the juxtaposition of the Monty Python foot with something that is in actuality so far removed from humor.
Re:Government should pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Or more likely you'd see the birth of the $100 can of silly string in camo colors as approved military issue.
Re:New in the war on terror (Score:0, Insightful)
Whatever. I havn't seen anyone claim that, ever. It isn't the soldiers fault they're fighting a pointless war that their leaders forced them into.
Re:Poor Choice of Icons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government should pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government should pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government should pay (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, there would be a steep price tag because there would be a very limited volume (only 140,000 troops in Iraq), and they'd have to recoup R&D costs. Different rules apply in the military.
Re:IED? (Score:5, Insightful)
When's the last time you referred to memory as Double Data Rate Random Access Memory rather than DDR RAM? If you work with something every day, you tend to shorten things. You also define terms more specifically than general usage (RAM vs memory).
An IED is a booby trap consisting of a rigged Device containing a large amount of Explosives in a fairly jury-rigged fashion (i.e. Improvised). It's not uncommon to find multiple anti-tank mines stacked together or even unexploded bombs. When talking about risks and countermeasures, it pays to be specific. Just like you wouldn't refer to large artillery as a "gun" when describing it to someone else, because it is too imprecise without qualification. A "gun" could be anything from a pistol to a 155mm howitzer. This is the same reason Lawyers define a bunch of "useless" jargon and acronyms; They can put a precise meaning on it for their purposes. Now, the military does have a huge number of acronyms, and maybe more than are needed, but it is just as specialized an occupation as practicing law.
Now, IANAL and I did not RTFA or GP, but AFAICT, we are now a nation of acronyms, especially TLAs. If you don't like it you can STFU while I LMAO <JK>.
Re:New in the war on terror (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure it is. They could always stand up against those politicians who are sending them over there.
Not so silly string! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly String goes to war (Score:1, Insightful)
This reference to Nazism is a real reference to Nazism and not associating a non-Nazi entity to Nazism. Get with the program you gimp. Or do you expect people to hide their heads in the sand and act like if that little skirmish across the pound some 60+ years ago never happened? You're a disgrace and an asshat.
Re:Poor Choice of Icons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Government should pay (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the biggest reason that conventional armies have trouble working against guerilla tactics...The irregulars use whatever works, so they have an extremely wide range of tactical options. We use the approved gear, which provides some high quality options, but a hell of a lot fewer of them.
Re:New in the war on terror (Score:2, Insightful)
Damned if you do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pentagon spends millions on children's toys
Military awards no-bid contract for toys
Millions of cans of toys bought, unable to track
Military fails to provide tools to troops, uses toys instead
You are 100% right about the edge of irregulars being able to use whatever works. However, clearly our troops are just as smart and figured out how to improvise, and away go the cans of silly string. So it's being done voluntarily by people on the home front, so what, that just makes them wonderful patriots. What is with the statist notion that it is only okay if it goes through taxes and government procurement.
The biggest problem is that we have two generations of reporters that believe their job is to undermine the government, and that that is an example of freedom of the press.
Take the body armor issue... Our troops have some older body armor, and there is a dispute as to which ones to replace. If the government replaced EVERYTHING, we'd be screaming about waste from throwing out our perfectly good 2 year old body armor that we spent billions on. In addition, the guys in the cities don't want the bulkier armor, and were refusing to wear it, so the Pentagon, sick of the bad PR, REQUIRED the use, even for units that didn't want it.
The anti-government press goes beyond reporting problems so that they can be fixed, and tries to play gotcha with our government. So government officials play CYA, instead of doing the right thing. It's a HORRIBLE mess, and it will take more than an emergency requisition of silly string to fix it.
Re:New in the war on terror (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This was on The Daily Show 2 days ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IED? (Score:3, Insightful)
Back into your hole, now...
Re:New in the war on terror (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This was on The Daily Show 2 days ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This was on The Daily Show 2 days ago (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't like the soldiers are there just for the fun of it. They're part of ensuring a stable Iraqi government that will be a democracy good for its citizens rather than a tyranny.
Plenty of mothers support their children risking their lives for the good of others. Life and safety are not the most important values, even for mothers.
Re:Funny christians (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:simple ideas... (Score:3, Insightful)
And it doesn't matter what country tyour in, that holds true.
Re:Government should pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Damned if you do... (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest problem is that we have two generations of reporters that believe their job is to undermine the government, and that that is an example of freedom of the press.
Well, it may cost me my karma, but I am simply not going to allow you to get away with saying this. It is complete nonsense.
It is not the press's responsibility to glad-hand or enable the government. It is the press's responsibility to ask questions and report the facts of the situation. Inevitiably, there will be bias. A story can consist of many facts, and which ones you choose to omit or include and on what basis of relevance can be considered bias. If, by some miracle, you can include all the facts, then the order in which you state them becomes the bias. There is ALWAYS bias. That is why it is so important to have a free speach, where all voices and all sides of the issue can be heard.
After 9/11, the press completely failed in these duties and, for all intents and purposes, gave a free pass to this government. In hindsight, our reasons for getting into Iraq have all been proven to be specious and false; at the time however the press was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. In hindsight, we have learned about the HUGE gaps and red flags in the intelligence and fact-presentation of the rational in going to war with Iraq that were present at the time and went unreported because the press didn't want to seem unpatriotic. [crooksandliars.com] We have an American citizen being tortured and reduced to a "piece of furniture" in direct violation of our sacred Constitution [nytimes.com]. We have a President that is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and ILLEGALLY spying on Americans and has gutted 1,000 years of legal process with his Military Commision Act and only a small handful in the media are seriously questioning it. We are in a huge mess, with our troops being killed and our treasury being drained, because the media didn't have the balls to question this President and his illegal administration. Even now, the media are still aiding this government by burying horrendous stories of Department of Homeland Security negligence. [guardian.co.uk]
So you'll forgive me if I don't believe your ridiculous assertion that we have two generations of reporters who believe that undermining the government is a part of their job. As a matter of fact, that is such a ludicrous outlook that I am simply apalled that you can write it in seriousness. Not only is it factually false, it's an excercise in intellectual dishonesty. A just and effective government would have NOTHING to fear from questioning. A government that governed by logic (as opposed to "faith" or "from the gut") would have NOTHING to fear from self-examination. Your statement does not reflect a conservative or liberal viewpoint (conservatives believe in limited government and appreciate a free press to keep it in check; liberals believe in personal freedoms and thus welcome freedom of the press.) Rather, your viewpoint is a fascist one and not supported by the Constitution. Your right to speak your views, however, are.
Re:Government should pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the support contract for a single year was several times the savings of lower initial cost.
You work for government procurement don't you?
Re:New in the war on terror (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really want to protect people's rights, perhaps you should have become a lawyer for the ACLU or the EFF.
I might be willing to fight to preserve american freedoms, but it is another thing entirely to die in Somalia in an attempt to distribute food aid or in Iraq for reasons that are not clear to me.
In my opinion, terrorism is not that big of a threat to the survival of our country. I think it is mostly a pain in the ass for the average person (i.e. TSA security) and a tragedy for those directly affected. I think that the folks who took down the fourth plane were heroes. But more importantly, they proved that such an attack was a one-shot deal. Terrorists might be able to crash an airplane or blow up an airplane, but no group of americans will ever let them fly the airplane again.
Terrorism may be done for a variety of reasons. Plain hatred. Revenge. To try to get attention for a cause. Sure, we need to fight terrorism, but we need to do it intelligently.
Some people say we are in Iraq to create democracy in the Islamic middle east. This is, in my opinion, about as futile as trying to teach a pig to sing.
Some people say we are there to get oil. Since oil production is actually down from where it was to begin with, I think that has not panned out. If we wanted more oil production in Iraq, that could have been achieved by simply lifting sanctions on the Iraqi regieme in exchange for a deal to send oil companies there to improve the infrastructure for oil production. Also, doing this would have helped the average Iraqi a lot more than invading iraq.
Some people think we are there because the regieme had weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors in Iraq were saying that was not the case well before the war started.
Some people think we are there because of a personal vendetta that Bush II had against Sadaam Hussein for trying to assasinate Bush I. This argument actually has some merit because Bush II cited it as a reason for the war. In my opinion, this is a very shabby reason to take a nation to war even if the assassination had succeeded.
Some people think we are there simply so that lucrative contracts can be given to cronies of the administration. While this argument may actually have some merit, it is not generally cited as a reason for the war by opponents to the war because people will think that anyone who says this is a "hater" and "conspiracy theorist". Note that name calling is not a serious refutation of an argument.
I'm totally willing to listen to other explanations.
Re:This was on The Daily Show 2 days ago (Score:2, Insightful)
Many of them may think that they're part of ensuring a stable Iraqi government. They are victims of a serious fscking con job.
The tragedy is that in this case, their children are risking their lives for nothing. Every day that U.S. troops stay there is a day that things get worse.
Re:Damned if you do... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ugh. You're actually blaming the press for this? And you're modded '+5 Insightful'? Now I'm REALLY depressed.