On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:03:19 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

That was what Andy was saying, I think.

No, not at all

In fact I'd disagree with it. Bush has just asked for another
squillion dollars without batting an eyelid, but photographing
bodybags is a major thoughtcrime these days.

My point is that Team America is tooled up for fighting the 1991 war,
and they're being asked to do something quite different instead.
Winning "the war" would be easy - call in a couple of airstrikes,
destroy the ville in order to save it, that kind of thing.

Instead though they don't _have_ that option. It stops being a "war"
when you lose the option to use military-grade force in response. If
you have to work under those constraints, you need to think and act
differently from being an infantryman (as the Brits learned after
Bloody Sunday). Some of this includes bringing along vehicles and
armour that's appropriate to the threat in hand (there should be brass
rolling in the Pentagon for that screwup).

And it's not a war anyway, as Bush keeps telling us, because that
would mean the Geneva Conventions would apply and America really can't
face having that.

--
Smert' spamionam