OSUBlazerfan
Writing Team
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 6,918
- Likes
- 1,671
- Points
- 113
Comment Away
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anyone watch the president's speech? Where's the forceful orator we saw on the campaign trail? I couldn't help but notice how unnatural he seemed, reading from a teleprompter in front of him, and he stumbled on his words a few times in the course of the 19 minutes... There was no enthusiasm or emotion behind anything he was saying, it was quite robotic, IMO.
And what about him acknowledging W for the first time in a positive light?
Anyone watch the president's speech? Where's the forceful orator we saw on the campaign trail? I couldn't help but notice how unnatural he seemed, reading from a teleprompter in front of him, and he stumbled on his words a few times in the course of the 19 minutes... There was no enthusiasm or emotion behind anything he was saying, it was quite robotic, IMO.
And what about him acknowledging W for the first time in a positive light?
Probably the less that W is mentioned, the better. People complain that he's blamed too much and then complain when he's not given credit.
So, W should be given credit for getting us into a war we had absolutely no business getting into in the first place? It opens a can of worms that's not worth the effort for both sides. Because mentioning him will only bring out that point (we had no reason to go there) and then conservatives will complain that the liberals just blame everything on W. And that detracts from the message, and feeds the need that certain groups (I like to call them "Fox News") who like to stir shit up.
Probably the less that W is mentioned, the better. People complain that he's blamed too much and then complain when he's not given credit.
So, W should be given credit for getting us into a war we had absolutely no business getting into in the first place? It opens a can of worms that's not worth the effort for both sides. Because mentioning him will only bring out that point (we had no reason to go there) and then conservatives will complain that the liberals just blame everything on W. And that detracts from the message, and feeds the need that certain groups (I like to call them "Fox News") who like to stir shit up.
Lockheed Martin has received a $1.1 million contract to test its next-generation HULC exoskeleton that can give troops superhuman strength and endurance, as well as reduce injuries from heavy loads.
The Human Universal Load Carrier consists of a hydraulically powered titanium exoskeleton that lets soldiers carry loads of up to 200 pounds for extended periods of time over any kind of terrain. A microcomputer embedded in the frame makes the skeleton move with the soldier, providing intuitive control, according to Lockheed.
On the bright side, our tactics, weapons, and gear have improved exponentially because of the war in Iraq. We've improved body armor, unmanned vehicles, battlefield medicine, among other things. If we end up having to fight in a conventional war in the next decade, the lessons we learned in Iraq will help greatly.
Not for special forces, local troops/policemen/militia, and mercenaries it isn't.

