Note crossposting and follow-ups.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:04:48 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?

Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.


Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy

... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could
make.
Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the
leaders in
this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they
still
value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any
sort
is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free
humvee and
no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives
are
achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission
and
returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone
who
doesn't value life but does value results.


False dichotomy. A mission may be accomplished despite casualties.

Why did the administration refuse the manufacturer's offer to increase
delivery of the up-armor kits for Humvees if not for budgetary reasons?
--

FF