What we support and defend

[carl]

Note it was not a military assessment...

I'll take what I can get when I can get it.

Knowing and not doing could lead others to think someone didn't know...Sigh.

I guess, but the not doing part is an opinion.

Yes, that's true and it's also self evident -- yet you continue to try to compare the DS/DS force to an Army seven times its size but less well equipped and trained -- and that well equipped is based on weapon quality, not quantity. You're mixing Watermelons and Kiwi Fruit. It is Fruit Salad -- but it sure ain't good Fruit Salad...

You know it never occurred to me that a well crewed Abrams tank was qualitatively better than a much larger number of Grant tanks poorly crewed. It really didn't.

"Imprecision in choice of words..."

Yep, I was imprecise, absolutely.

Of course you don't, you never do. As usual you got to a place that isn't terribly wrong -- that's not the same thing as the right place.

Well actually that is not what you said the first time. You said "That's a statement of the obvious and no one is disputing that -- or at least I certainly do not dispute it. What I'm trying to point out is that while your end point is logical to the point of self evidence, the route you follow or lay out to arrive there is rather illogical and quite flawed in concept." You said my end point was logical to the point of self evidence which I assumed was the right place since you said it was logical to the point of self evidence.

Eh? I sure missed any congruity in this...

I can explain it to you in detail if you like.

In thy opinion, perhaps. To me it's wasted effort undertaken only to preclude others from adopting your illogical IMO forays to strange ends by providing an alternative view to let them make up their own minds...

It is indeed a noble path you follow, but somebody has to walk the hard road.

This is still fun.