As the Actress said to the Bishop, "We can agree to disagree agreeably..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
What if Congress did concur then changed its mind? And if it didn't, what if it was thinking about it? What if the Mothers and Fathers of the younger volunteers were divorced? Who would we listen to? What if forms have to be reprinted? What type face would be used? What if it had to be different from the regular Army forms so we could tell them apart? What if the Red Bull ran out? Would we have to withdraw? What if we had to have Red Bull runout adjustments to pay? What if...
What if indeed. What if the political realities were objectively and realistically considered... :rolleyes:
Quote:
Those who would volunteer, and I agree with JMA that there would be enough, would know perfectly well what might potentially happen.
I agree you could get 'enough volunteers' for some wars. I disagree that Afghanistan is one such war.
Quote:
Viewing that as a fatal flaw is like saying a Boston Whaler isn't a very good snowplow.
Both statements are true, yours is just more obvious... :D
Quote:
If there was a danger that that type of a threat existed (it doesn't) you obviously would not employ a unit like this. The enemy to be faced and all that.
And you propose to guarantee this with no changes in their tour just how? :confused:
Quote:
And the reason for that is there is next to no chance that the Pak Army is going to do that...
That is true but you did say "next to no chance" instead absolutely no chance -- so you're learning. ;)
Still, lacking the Pakistani Army, simply introducing Mortars -- or a bunch of these (LINK) would be a temporary if minor game changer -- but minor game changes in the wrong place at the right time can do untold political if not military damage. Introduction of both at the same time along with a tactical revision by the bad guys could be a major minor game changer...
You can hang on to your dream. My disagreement with it doesn't affect it. We disagree on most things, this is just one more.
The more things change . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
Uninformed leadership will never have informed discussions. That's the way of things. It's not a problem that will be solved overnight, or possibly in our lifetimes. Not something I like to think about, but so long as policymakers can buy loads of goods disguised as F-22s it's what we're stuck with.
How are the current hi-tech weapon buys for the services really all that different from the surge in coast defense fort building following the War of 1812 and then the Endicott Board and the Taft Board reports? Or the Nike boom of the 50's? Did we ever have to repel a foreign naval invasion after Washington DC was burned? How many enemy bombers did those Nikes shoot down?
I submit that a retrenchment from foreign adventuring, passed off as whatever will best sell in the press releases to the electorate, will not see a significant change in defense spending. What will change is simply what the Congress will authorize/direct the services to buy.