I have no problem if the military wants to shoot up scrapped out M151s. =
If they are truly scrappable vehicles. If there were perfectly good
vehicles that have real value (more than $1000) then I question the logic=
behind destroying servicable equipment. That's the gist of my argument. =
=
Just because the military already owns it does not justify destroying
perfectly servicable equipment. (Both you and I paid for that gear with o=
ur
taxes) If the local school board decided that they had too many buses
due to a dropping enrollment, do you think that it would be a good idea t=
o
donate the buses to the military so they could use them for gunnery
practice? I doubt it. What's the difference? Hey if the vehicles they=
are shooting are junk, I have no problem with that. But my guess is that=
a
lot of the vehicles that are being shot at are in better shape than my 19=
62
M51.
>Besides what are you going to do when the folks at the Antique Dodge
Listserv comes complaining becasue a rare 1952 Dodge Coupe was shot up
by Major Rice's Fine group of gunners. How you going to explain it to
the folks at the Jeep CJ 5 collectors club when they complain that you
shot up a nice "Golden Eagle Special Edition"..<
No junk yard worth their salt would sell a valuable vehicle to the
goverment $100 bucks per ton or so. They'd be out of business.
>The point is that the military exists to do battle, that requires
training, and in the end they expend resorces. Some of those
resources are vehicles that become targets.<
I have no problem with that. I just don't like hearing about perfectly
servicable vehicles being destroyed because they have to shoot at
something. Cruise missles cost something like a million dollars a shot=
,
but they have to practice using them also, otherwise how else will they
know how to use them. No sweat. =
Dave
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.