*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Okay, I've been flamed.
If you want me to be more civil while I express my disenchantment with this
policy, that's your problem. When corporate culture takes a turn toward
making public policy which aims at protecting their market, but also
intrudes upon my 'merican right to cheap army surplus, I am a little piqued.
While it may be applauded as good protection from liability by you, it seems
more wasteful to me when a vehicle is manufactured, utilized in a limited
fashion, then destroyed in the name of shielding a corporation from
liability. Why not offer to re-acquire the vehicles from the military and
bring them to DOT standard? Ohh, not creative enough- they've already sold
the tooling to a Pacific Rim country to exploit the cheap labor.
As for the hurt feelings of the peon, tough. First, I've been a peon and
know one when I see one. Second, he picked the high paced, glamorous,
heroic profession of public information. I really feel bad for him and all
the harrying he gets from us close minded individuals who want toys which
were really intended to be used by those peon soldiers to whom his company
sold them (Gee, Bob, why can't they go out and buy a nice used one for
$25,000?).
As for wanting one, no thanks. They were fun to drive around when I had the
chance, but I prefer my M151A1. What I want is a better solution to use of
American Labor than build it, lay 'em off, scrap it, then re-design
something much more expensive, mostly made in China. I think we can make
better use of our resources. I think we owe it to the long-term
preservation of at least a CORE of our defense industry.
In the French Army, during Napoleon's time, a Buff leather belt was supposed
to have a service life of 57 years. Now if technology hasn't advanced to
the point where a vehicle platform can't be designed to be improved upon and
used by military and civilian consumers for longer than the ten year service
life of the Hummer, there is something wrong. What's wrong with designing a
vehicle which can have useful service life after the military?
Ominous- you bet. I don't like being even mildly equated to the ultra right
wing militias as I feel I was by that PEON's statement. He probably didn't
even give me or my hobby a thought when he made that statement, or was
ordered to make that statement. And that is why it is ominous, because our
hobby is invisible and extremely vulnerable to a shift of corporate culture
which "officially" condemns the private ownership of former military
equipment. Our corporations are the "entities" who pay huge contributions
to our election candidates, who are the ones to propose or support the laws,
which are the things responsible for either efficiently utilizing our
national resources or wasting them in short sighted bungling. (oops, my
liberal colors showed through)
Liability exposure? Big problem. I don't think lawsuit caps are the right
response, nor do I think that corporate payouts are the answer. I don't
know the solution. But it is definitely not to accuse some one of
WHIMPERING when they bring up a point of order in the Industry vs. Society
struggle. I don't like the exile of corporations from the US because of the
liability issue and defense issue, but I don't think the problem is going to
be managed creatively by the "entities" which manage it now
THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY...
But that is another issue entirely.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hummer1234@aol.com <Hummer1234@aol.com>
To: Military Vehicles List <mil-veh@uller.skylee.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] AMG response Military Humvee
>*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>>Okay, here is something to think about. The reason this peon responded
>>this way is that the company will take any tack which keeps it's hold on
the
>>market firm. If you start dumping military HMMWV's on the civilian
market,
>>you hurt their income- and that's what drives them, income, stockholders,
>>the works, nothing else.
>
>AM General is/was a privately held company (it is/was owned by a holding
>company which was owned by a single individual) but the rights to the
Hummer
>has been bought out by General Motors. I'm not sure if this includes the
>military HMMWV production. You want such a company to consider your
personal
>enjoyment when they set their corporate policies?
>
>Do you find fault with someone protecting their livelihood? I suppose you
>wouldn't mind if someone took away your source(s) of income. The guy that
>politely states the policies of the company is suddenly a peon for doing
what
>they pay him to do? I can think of several words that come to mind when I
>read your whimpering . . .
>
>> The military HMMWV was not designed in accordance with safety standards
as
>>published by DOT. Therefore, to reduce their corporate liability, they
>>lobby the government to remove those un-safe, non-DOT approved military
>>HMMWV's from the civilian market, or at least refuse to share the
liability
>>for sales by DOD, which it has no control over.
>
>Why don't you and your like minded friends offer to pay AM General's
>liability insurance for each HMMWV? That way they aren't exposed to a
>liability risk without due compensation. I'm sure this would go a LONG way
>to further the cause and probably make it possible for AMG to reconsider
it's
>position on civilian ownership.
>
>Unless you AT LEAST solve their liability exposure problem, you will get
>nowhere with them. Don't even bother mentioning "liability release" forms
>because the are worth even less than the paper they are written on.
Driving
>courses are also absurd because they don't address the liability problem
>either, plus more government regulation is almost never a good answer.
With
>today's litigious society, in the US, you CANNOT protect yourself with
>anything except liability insurance and for that you'll pay handsomely!
>
>>Those words "civilians or other entities," and "outside of the context"
>>are loaded with poison pen. They will do whatever they have in their
>corporate
>>arsenal to keep a captive audience (civilian and military), and won't
think
>>twice about publicly bashing private civilian ownership of military
vehicles
>>to keep their fixed market for the HMMWV.
>
>The only bashing has been from you and like minded individuals, AMG's
>spokesperson was being polite and completely civil.
>
>>I'd say this is the most ominous thing I have heard here on the list, and
>>I'm not joking.
>
>They built the vehicle and have a signed contract with the US Government.
Is
>that contract now void because YOU think it deprives you of a toy you want?
>If you want a HMMWV, buy one. If you want parts, purchase surplus ones or
go
>to someone that will sell directly to you. Most of the wear items are
quite
>similar to the civilian models so buy civilian parts. I know the civilian
>versions had heavier duty suspension and upgraded hubs, which didn't come
out
>in military versions until they made the "heavy" variant in the mid 90's.
>Hummer = 2 ton payload HMMWV = 1 ton payload prior to the 'heavy" variant
>which used the extra payload capacity to carry it's armor.
>
>With the prices of older used civilian ones (92-95) at or near the price
>($25-35,000) of the lighter duty military version, why don't you just get a
>civilian model and paint the darn thing? Rip out the interior, tear off
the
>doors, remove the sound deadening, then put in some of those torture chair
>military seats and away you go. The military's spartan interior is under
>there you know. Hell, you could even look for one of the 20 or so civilian
>models in the first year that were sold with CARC 383 Green paint. They
>stopped selling the color because they apparently got too many complaints
>from people who tried to get it to shine by waxing it . . .
>
>In addition to the higher payload, the civilian model has had the hub
upgrade
>that prevent some initial problems with hubs, tire/wheel and driven gear in
>the hub assembly from leaving the vehicle when driven at high(er) speeds
than
>the military versions were normally exposed to.
>
>Stuart Robinson
>93' Hummer CARC 383 Green
>2-FV622 Alvis Stalwart 6x6 amphibious truck
>2-FV623 Alvis Stalwart (crane variant)
>M-42A1 Duster (Dual 40 mm anti aircraft self propelled gun)
>Daimler Ferret
>Alvis Scorpion (CVRT)
>Fox (CVRW)
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@uller.skylee.com>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@uller.skylee.com>
>Send administrative queries to <mil-veh-request@uller.skylee.com>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:11 PDT