A. His fingers are still typing.

I suggest you take your own advice

I never said that we shouldn't armor vehicles because they're going to get blown up anyway, but I guess you're too stupid to understand. I said that armor isn't a guarantee that you won't get blown up anyway and also has some drawbacks such as decreased maneuverability and acceleration. Both of those characteristics can be useful in an urban warfare environment where the ability to avoid getting hit is often better than the ability to absorb a hit. Likewise, unless you put heafty armor on the underside of the vehicles, then the vehicles are going to be very vulnerable to buried charges. If the warhead on an AT4 can punch through 400mm of armor, then a 10 pound charge buried in the road is likely to be able to go through at least an inch or two of steel. How much armor is enough?

It's not even a reductio ad absurdum, it's a logical conclusion from your own words.
How much is enough? You are correct, it's a trade-off. Obviously the grunts think it aint enough while you and Rumsfeld think they're screwed no matter how much armour there is.

And compare this "The basic Humvee wasn't intended to be an armored vehicle because, when it was designed over 20 years ago, they never thought it'd be used in conditions like we're seeing in Iraq. "

with this : "After Mogadishu, after Grozny, after Afghanistan, after Belfast, after years of intifada already, and after nearly a year of our own hard experience here, and after the Humvee’s been in the inventory for nearly 20 years, and the deuce and half truck at least since Vietnam, it’s inconceivable to me that we’re still trying to figure out how to do this. "

Think Larry, think.

If you're actually up to reading instead of just spouting off your typically ignorant nonsense, you might want to try reading this article. It shows that the issue isn't as straightforward or as simple as it seems.

I never said it was a simple issue. Don't try and make it one.

You're also too ignorant to note that I never said we can eliminate driver testing, moron. Testing and licensing IN AND OF ITSELF accomplishes little. Once someone has passed the tests (typically as a teenager), they're likely to never be tested again. We have millions of licensed drivers on the road and still manage to rack up some 2 million accidents a year, with an average of over 800 highway deaths each week. Sounds like the testing isn't adequate to me - there are still way too many bad drivers on the road

Oh for Pete's sake.
At the other end of the scale, take a look at the accident record of newly minted drivers and try to convince me that having a license makes someone a competent driver.
As for testing itself, I know of some farm states that allow kids to drive without a license as young as 14.
The simple act of regulating and licensing something doesn't necessarily translate into safety.

Whatever point you're trying to make you're doing a pretty fucking bad job of it if you can write that tripe and not leave the impression that driver testing is pointless.

e.g.
Alcaray - If people did not have to demonstrate competency and demonstrate knowledge of driving laws your bloody statistics would be a good deal more bloody.
You - Doubtful.

So what point were you going for? That testing is inadequate? Well good for you. Completely not the point of the thread, but go ahead any way.

Last word is yours, coz I know you want it. Want to actually address any points I made in this or the previous post, or are you content to pontificate blindly from on high?