well, since being brought into the CQMS world a couple years back, then being brought up to BHQ to act as Operations WO, I've become somewhat familiar with the process. And I have come to realize just how much money is pissed away on stupid crap at the expense of warfighters.
Since you insist on sermonizing, I guess I'll reply in kind.
Some of of that is subjective. I have indeed, though, seen the "Western Challenge Pencils" the Army bought a few years back (they were a scream!) so no one is doubting that priorities aren't always adhered to, nor is anyone arguing that combat capability shouldn't come first. I think the argument here, dead soldiers aside, is that some of that "stupid crap" is unappreciated by soldiers in the field - those pointy-end dudes you presume to speak for - and is in fact necessary in ways that intangible. Just as intangible as, say, the difference between Walmart socks and Gore-tex socks. Can anyone define a "need" for say a better bivvy bag? We won "the big one" without them, after all. It's all a matter of perspective. Anyway, we agree on these points at any rate.
You odn't details on what I do, or how I do it. When the content and value of our posts are compared, I'm secure that those who count know which to pay attention to.
I'm not sure I understand the first sentence, but think I get the gist of the second one.
If your feeling of self-worth is so tied to a message board and the opinions of strangers coupled with a need to cut others down in the process, you have problems. You seem well adjusted so I'll write this off as you simply not having anything else to contribute to the discussion, and thus figure a little ad hominem will do nicely. Given the sheer volume of our posts I'm equally confident we've both contributed to this board in a myriad of positive ways and probably ruffled a lot of feathers in the process, given our similar posting style. I'm not keeping track, though. If you really want to compare, go back 5 years - but check the History forum cause that's where my best work is done.
not quite. The difference is that you make it a habit. We can go back through my posts and find any number of times when I've been corrected, and have owned up to it.
I don't doubt it; I apologize for suggesting otherwise.
and my point is that one second, or one penny wasted on this pathetic, surface-over-substance, appearance-over-functionality silliness is one second and one penny better spent elsewhere. Gara-trooper mentality has no place in our military today. We have to re-build a cash-strapped, under-manned, poorly-equipped force, currently at war. It is the height of stupidity to bother with inconsequentials like this under those circumstances.
I disagree; I think Neil said it best when he said we can walk and chew gum at the same time. You still haven't presented anything other than a visceral reaction to that suggestion.
to you, perhaps. But, to those with time at the pointy-end, I'm confident that it's ringing loudly. And, since our highest leadership has significant time there, I highly doubt that this issue will surface until well after the threat we face has been dealt with and the Chairborne are once more in positions of authority. Then we can disband the CSOR and spend money on make-work projects like the LSVW, Garrison Dress, and changing names again. Until then, the testosterone-challenged will simply have to bide their time. Soon enough, the warriors will work themselves out of a job again.
if this was a thread about how to kill someone with a toothpick, your response here might bear some intellectual fruit. The constant assertion that those not serving in the combat arms are somehow "testosterone challenged" are firstly, insulting, second, unbecoming of you personally, thirdly, untrue, and fourthly, off-topic.
You mention the CSOR in the same thread as bemoaning name changes and administrative bumph infringing on combat capability, yet they represent a major reorganization in and of themselves.
Anyway, the suggestion has been made that if we did want to change a name or two, it would not harm our combat capability and your suggestion that it would is unproven. I don't think that warrants attacks on either my trade or anyone personally.
So why not use some of that intelligence you regularly display and either respond with something a bit more substantial, or stop trying to overpower the thread based solely on the trades badge you wear?
Poll