Text 6084, 74 rader
Skriven 2004-12-10 10:51:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ED HULETT
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================
-=> Quoting Ed Hulett to Frank Scheidt <=-

 FS> That was one soldier who complained.  Furthermore he was from 
 FS> either a reserve or National Guard unit.  They *typically* don't 
 FS> have the best equipment.

 EH> The soldier was from a National Guard unit. He was in Kuwait waiting
 EH> to be called
 EH> into Iraq. The question is disengenuous at best. More armor does not
 EH> necessarily
 EH> mean better.

Besides his claim that they were looking through refuse piles for 
additional armor doesn't ring true.
 
 FS>  BF> His answer was:" You go to war with the army you have
 FS>  BF> and not with the one you would like to have". What does that tell the
 FS>  BF> rest of the world?
 FS> 
 FS> It tells the world that we do what we *must* do and do the best 
 FS> we can with the military equipment we have.  There is *never* a 
 FS> perfect time to go to war.  In this case the belief was that 
 FS> Saddam posed a real threat and we *had* to neutralize him.  It 
 FS> turned out he wasn't as great a threat as was thought but 
 FS> *ironically* he *tried* to give the impression he was immediately 
 FS> dangerous and it was that which brought him down.

 EH> There is something much better in the works. Humvees usually don't
 EH> have much armor
 EH> because they are a light attack vehicle. The Humvees that the NG units
 EH> have are really not much different than those the RA has.
 
 FS>  BF> Where are all the Rambo:s?
 FS> 
 FS> I don't know ... do you?

 EH> Bjorn has no earthly clue what the US is all about. All he knows is
 EH> what he's seen on the silver screen.
 
 FS>  BF> 8 of them are facing a court martial for not obeying order since
 EH> their
 FS>  BF> vehicle wan't safe enough to travel in.
 FS> 
 FS> You leave out the most significant feature of that namely that 
 FS> when they refused another eight took identical equipment and did 
 FS> what was ordered with no problems whatsoever.  Furthermore what 
 FS> military can stand if its soldiers refuse to obey orders?

 EH> The vehicles were safe enough. The soldiers who did take them out had
 EH> no problems. 
 
 FS>  BF> 5 are sueing USA for not letting them go home after fulfilment of
 FS>  BF> their contract.
 FS> 
 FS> And their chances are considered *zero*!  I can understand their 
 FS> frustration as *I*, too, would be frustrated to be in Iraq longer 
 FS> than originally intended.  However I was frustrated being in the 
 FS> Army during WWII, but just "sucked it up" as they say.  Our 
 FS> modern generation doesn't seem to be willing to sacrifice for a 
 FS> worthy goal.

 EH> They can sue all they want, but they did sign contracts that stated
 EH> that their term of service was subject to whether they were in the
 EH> middle of a conflict at the end of their term.
 
When I enlisted in WWII my "contract" stated "for Duration of the 
War plus 6 mo" ... that's a direct quote ... I hoped at the time 
that the "6 mo" didn't mean "6 mo wars" ... heh heh heh ...

... Epitaph:  TV BATMAN -- West in Peace

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)