Military is pulling choppers out of the bone yard

[Yonoz]

If it means that the troops will do less driving around in Hummers I am all for it. Helicoptors are not exposed to roadside IED's.

While minimizing logistical convoys' risks would be smart use of modern military power in an asymetric conflict, there is no substitute for actual presence on the ground. You can't move everything in helicopters. You can't stop suspicious people and vehicles in helicopters. You can't defend bases with helicopters.
Procedures for dealing with this threat need to be thought up and implemented. It is not something that can be avoided.

I understand improvisation, I have to improvise everyday in my line of work. Still doesn't excuse the fact that the Pentagon has not provided Armored Hummers.

As I've said, that takes time: the hummer has to be taken away from the unit, transported to the factory, stripped down, the armour needs to be installed, the hummer is put back and then sent back. It is quite an expenditure of time and money.
Perhaps had the hummer not been such an expensive vehicle, more could be made and armoured easier. The IDF uses the cheaper, smaller http://www.ail.co.il/storm_v.htm , that has a factory-armoured version but many were armoured during their service. The hummer was not designed to be an armoured vehicle and is big and heavy - making it harder to transport and armour.
Perhaps the design specifications of the hummer should have been different. Perhaps the American love of bigger, stronger, heavier vehicles is something that will hinder success in this conflict.

I don't need to be an armor expert, if the soldiers are complaining that is good enough for me. They are over there under false pretenses, the least the administration can do is provide the best equipment.

Soldiers do not really see things in a system-wider perspective. No one is contending the fact that it would have been better for them had the hummers been armoured in the first place, but the reasons for that. What should the military have sacrificed to armour them? Don't forget it's not just the armouring that costs money. It makes them heavier thus more expensive to transport, use and maintain, and more dangerous to drive in many circumstances.

 

[loseyourname]

What do you mean?

That many of the American soldiers in Iraq don't want to be there. I don't think I was very ambiguous. If you're talking about the first clause, I said that the American colonials were defending their homeland. I hope you aren't trying to argue semantics because the British may not have attacked first (who fired the first shot at Lexington isn't really known). The mindset was that the Americans were defending themselves from oppression and their land from occupation.