On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:42:38 +0100, usenet-urcx4@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) wrote:

>David French <david.notspam.french@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> It was a character on the Simpsons (Groundskeeper Willie, a Scot) who called
>> the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".
>
>Yes I know.
>
>> I don't think we can really
>> assume he speaks for the entire American nation. Or Scottish.
>
>No, the people spoke for themselves by picking it up, using it and then
>going on with that ridiculous "Freedom Fries" business.

Them weren't people; thems was congressmen.

bw

|> |> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
|> |> or more to the point as wide as a tank
|> |> they were designed to run in tank tracks
|> |
|> |Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
|> |5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.
|>
|> There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US.
|> However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of
|> those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one
|> of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are
|> rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).
|>
|> Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out
|> before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For
|> females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.
|>
|> Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart
|> enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried),
|> is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical,
|> self disciplined individual.
|>
|>
|
|I don't know if beggars can be choosers these days. Unfortunately
|enlistment is down and car bombings are up.

So far the military is doing ok. The military was cut in half
during the Clinton era. But given the population drop of our
young people (Gen X was very much smaller than the previous
generation of Baby Boomers), we may have been forced to.

The question we have to ask is whether we can afford those who
can not make it currently? Would you trust those we reject as
fire fighters or police officers? The military is different
these days and we can not afford people who are not smart, out of
shape or untrustworthy.

> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
> or more to the point as wide as a tank
> they were designed to run in tank tracks

Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.

Steve Firth (usenet-urcx4@malloc.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>> > I think the H2 was supposed to be better.

>> I thought the H2 was a farcical joke restyle of a Chevy Suburb?

> Am I getting my numbers mixed up? I thought the Tahoe derivative was
> the H3.

The H1 is the "original" Hummer.
The H2 is a restyled Suburb/Avalanche/Escalade/Whatever.
The H3 is "rumored" to be hitting production next year. Maybe. P'raps.

"Steve Firth" <usenet-urcx4@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gcgl1z.e966as130d0djN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> R. David Steele <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote:
>
> > Question: how tough is the Defender in comparison to the Hummer?
> > Will it take the abuse that US soldiers give?
>
> The Hummer has a reputation of being rather fragile, among the British
> military. Certainly the H1 at least was regarded as a mild joke rather
> than a battle vehicle. I think the H2 was supposed to be better.

Huh? I drove it in the desert in the first Gulf War and it was very
impressive. The English never had any issues with this truck. The H2 is a
joke, but the H1 is very good vehicle!

|> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
|> or more to the point as wide as a tank
|> they were designed to run in tank tracks
|
|Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
|5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.

There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US.
However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of
those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one
of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are
rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).

Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out
before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For
females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.

Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart
enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried),
is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical,
self disciplined individual.

In article <o1498091e59hmjuhnpr72d71ku00oob251@4ax.com>,
steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA says...
> Subject: Re: When is the US going to get "real" Land Rovers?
> From: R. David Steele <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover, rec.autos.4x4, uk.rec.cars.4x4
>
>
> |> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
> |> or more to the point as wide as a tank
> |> they were designed to run in tank tracks
> |
> |Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
> |5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.
>
> There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US.
> However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of
> those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one
> of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are
> rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).
>
> Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out
> before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For
> females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.
>
> Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart
> enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried),
> is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical,
> self disciplined individual.
>
>

I don't know if beggars can be choosers these days. Unfortunately
enlistment is down and car bombings are up.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:42:38 +0100, usenet-urcx4@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) wrote:

>David French <david.notspam.french@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> It was a character on the Simpsons (Groundskeeper Willie, a Scot) who called
>> the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".
>
>Yes I know.
>
>> I don't think we can really
>> assume he speaks for the entire American nation. Or Scottish.
>
>No, the people spoke for themselves by picking it up, using it and then
>going on with that ridiculous "Freedom Fries" business.

Them weren't people; thems was congressmen.

bw

|> |> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank
|> |> or more to the point as wide as a tank
|> |> they were designed to run in tank tracks
|> |
|> |Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs
|> |5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.
|>
|> There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US.
|> However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of
|> those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one
|> of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are
|> rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).
|>
|> Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out
|> before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For
|> females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.
|>
|> Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart
|> enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried),
|> is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical,
|> self disciplined individual.
|>
|>
|
|I don't know if beggars can be choosers these days. Unfortunately
|enlistment is down and car bombings are up.

So far the military is doing ok. The military was cut in half
during the Clinton era. But given the population drop of our
young people (Gen X was very much smaller than the previous
generation of Baby Boomers), we may have been forced to.

The question we have to ask is whether we can afford those who
can not make it currently? Would you trust those we reject as
fire fighters or police officers? The military is different
these days and we can not afford people who are not smart, out of
shape or untrustworthy.