From: David Cole (DavidCole@tk7.net)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 07:53:57 PDT
You have made my point exactly. This is not a logical situation. Logic
went out the window on this issue long ago. Doc was trying to present a
logical argument for allowing GI's to drive these trucks while civilians
can't and it makes no sense IMO.
I never claimed that anything political had logic connected with it.
Logically, these vehicles are either safe to drive or they are not.
> Wag the Dog - I've got the movie.
Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:46:08 -0400, Glenn McCalley
<glenn@combatcatering.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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>
>>
>
>
> ===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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:24:24 PDT