From: Glenn McCalley (glenn@combatcatering.com)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 03:46:08 PDT
>
> What kind of logic is this?
>
> Dave
>
Ah, but you see, that's just it.
It's a --government-- decision, and as such is most likely either:
1 - not rooted in logic but rooted in politics, and/or
2 - the "logic" is based on factors of which we are unaware. I do -not-
mean anything about the vehicle I mean political factors. Like Senator
Stumblebum needs a "public safety" issue to enhance his reelection chances
and some lobbyist (for whatever reason, makes no difference) says "Have I
got a safety issue for you" and voila! M151's get crushed. The money
wasted is not the issue, it's the good Senator's sacred duty to protect the
public.
Rent the movie "Wag the Dog". It's a documentary on governmental
operations. Or it could be. :-) Some years ago, 80's I believe, there
was also a great piece on state politics titled "The Best Little Statehouse
in Texas" which was a wonderful look at the whys and wherefors of government
decisions.
Glenn.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cole" <DavidCole@tk7.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] Re M151 it continues, LOL
>
> OK, I can't resist any longer.
>
> IF? the M151 is truly a bad vehicle, then they should all be taken out of
> service and destroyed or at the very least modified to make them
reasonably
> safe.
>
> The GIs shouldn't be using them.
>
> You can't have it both ways, the logic doesn't pass the smell test.
>
> Picture this: Say the military is issues a new rifle. The rifle is fine
> except for the fact that periodically the breach blows out and kills the
> shooter. The military says, heck the GI might get shot anyway in combat,
> and since it doesn't happen very often we will accept it as a military
> risk. But we don't want any of these guns sold to the public, as they
will
> have to have safer guns to shoot when they want to go hunting.
>
> What kind of logic is this?
>
> Dave
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:20:26 -0500, Doc Bryant <rbhonk1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > This is where I disagree with you and Steve.
> >
> > Just because it meets a standard (i.e. it is accepted) does not mean
> > that
> > it is acceptable for civilian use. I think that is what who ever
decided
> > the Mutts got the cruncher instead of surplused out to unrestricted
> > civilian
> > use was thinking.
> >
> > A grey market BMW is still a car. Not some device built for military
> > purposes.
> >
> > "But it's over 25 years old." Hey, don't apply a civilian vehicle
> > standard
> > to a military vehicle. They get built under different rules and used
> > under
> > different rules. Aside from some inner city residential areas, most
> > drivers
> > of civilian vehicles do not venture into free fire zones. Most drivers
> > do
> > not have a mission statement past being a delivery vehicle for soccer
> > kids
> > that includes combat medevac, ammunition resupply or carting Generals
> > about.
> >
> > I do not see where you can come up with some "standard" that the Mutt
> > meets,
> > and then take that logic jump and say it's okay in civilian use. You
can
> > say, well, in the past other military vehicles have been sold off to
> > civilian ownership. That is true, some were sold to State and Local
> > governmental agencies, and then wended their way into civilian hands.
> > And
> > no one paid too much notice. As time passed, the rules regarding
> > vehiclar
> > safety got changed.
> >
> > Now here comes the Mutt. It gets bad press as an unsafe vehicle for
even
> > GI
> > use. And we all feel our GI's are pretty well trained in doing what
they
> > do. Yet, it gets a bunch of them hurt in accidents. Someone takes
> > notice,
> > and the reaction from the Powers That Be is, "Well, these deathtraps are
> > not
> > going to go anywhere but the smelter.."
> >
> > Some do get out. Now, here comes another sticking point. Just because
a
> > few find civilian homes, should what ever ban seems to have been placed
> > on
> > them be released?
> >
> > But somebody, somewhere, above your and my pay grade, decided the Mutt
> > was
> > not supposed to be a civilian vehicle. Go back to the conspiracy
theory.
> > That's more fun to blame every zig and zag of human misdaventure on a
> > conspiracy.
> >
> > I feel this way about it. If you want a Mutt, and you are accepting of
> > the
> > fact that it has a bit of a sordid history, and you understand that like
> > many other choices you make in life, it may prove to your next of kin to
> > be
> > a bad one, if you can accept that, and not go whining off to lawyers
when
> > you roll it into a bus load of Nuns, then buy the damn thing. And if
> > your
> > state DMV has some category for licensing it, hey, knock your self out.
> > Buy
> > two even, they're small!
> >
> > And if you can buy a Mutt, I sure would be interested in owning an F-4E
> > Phantom II, or an F-106 Delta Dart!
> >
> > I hate to be in the position of devil's advocate here, but I have yet to
> > really see anything that would change my opinion of the Mutt story.
> >
> > Doc Bryant
> >
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:24:24 PDT