What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:16:04 -0400, Don White wrote:

What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

I'd like to know what those "certain conditions" were. Sounds nuts to
me, although, when meeting and sizing up someone, wearing sunglasses is
not helpful. I like to see the eyes. Other than that... it's nuts.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:44:03 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:16:04 -0400, Don White wrote:

What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

I'd like to know what those "certain conditions" were. Sounds nuts to
me, although, when meeting and sizing up someone, wearing sunglasses is
not helpful. I like to see the eyes. Other than that... it's nuts.

It's a memo from a staffer, not a commander. Staffers get paid to
present ideas, but they aren't the directing authority.

The bottom line is, "...commanders...should "conscientiously evaluate"
whether they would be further ahead to ditch vests in order to look
less intimidating and build goodwill."

Canada's commander thinks the suggestions are fine. He must be smoking
the same stuff.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:44:03 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:16:04 -0400, Don White wrote:

What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

I'd like to know what those "certain conditions" were. Sounds nuts to
me, although, when meeting and sizing up someone, wearing sunglasses is
not helpful. I like to see the eyes. Other than that... it's nuts.

It's a memo from a staffer, not a commander. Staffers get paid to
present ideas, but they aren't the directing authority.

The bottom line is, "...commanders...should "conscientiously evaluate"
whether they would be further ahead to ditch vests in order to look
less intimidating and build goodwill."

Canada's commander thinks the suggestions are fine. He must be smoking
the same stuff.
--
John H


Yeah but..... he wouldn't *order* his men to do so.
We don't have nearly as many soldiers so they're not as expendable.

On 22/01/2010 5:16 PM, Don White wrote:

What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

How dumb. Just like

Want respect, see one terrorist go into a house, blow it up quick and
get them all.

But our commanders haven't got spine.

On 22/01/2010 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:55:24 -0700,
wrote:

On 22/01/2010 5:16 PM, Don White wrote:

What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

How dumb. Just like

Want respect, see one terrorist go into a house, blow it up quick and
get them all.

But our commanders haven't got spine.


That was the Soviet policy. How did that work out for them?

Simple, lots of their died and they evenually figured out that a little
puss hole country wasn't worth their own people dying, so they left.

Really stupid idea. The best solution would be to put our politicians
on the fron line and watch them wet their pants.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:16:04 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html


Heh - deja vu all over again.

On Jan 22, 6:16*pm, "Don White" wrote:
What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky tobaccy.http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

Makes you want to say: "I will, if you will."

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 6:16 pm, "Don White" wrote:
What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky
tobaccy.http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

Makes you want to say: "I will, if you will."

------------

No kidding! Let's see the REMFs walk the streets with no armor for a couple
weeks. Need enough time for the word to get out that there are dumbass
touchy feely gringos strolling around naked.
Should the Mil quit carrying weapons too? Maybe they can all be issued
purses to swat the bad guys with and use harsh language? Of course not too
harsh.........

On Jan 23, 8:23*am, "mmc" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 6:16 pm, "Don White" wrote:

What the 'ell??
Those US Army commanders must be smokin' wacky
tobaccy.http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1163632.html

Makes you want to say: "I will, if you will."

------------

No kidding! Let's see the REMFs walk the streets with no armor for a couple
weeks. Need enough time for the word to get out that there are dumbass
touchy feely gringos strolling around naked.
Should the Mil quit carrying weapons too? Maybe they can all be issued
purses to swat the bad guys with and use harsh language? Of course not too
harsh.........

NATO's idea as far as past history goes, is "good rifles, no shells"

Speaking of NATO, I was always impressed with their work in E.
Europe. White tanks and blue berrets. Those caps showed up great
through a sniper's scope.