> At 18:39 8-2-02 -0500, Kevin Tarr wrote:
>
> >Now throw another countries' tanks and people in the mix and the US
forces
> >might as well turn their electronic equipment off. Yes the tanks can
> >identify friendly units when the battle starts, but what will the
> >battlefield be like 10 minutes later? It is much safer, for everyone, if
all
> >the units have the same hardware.
>
> Then why does the US not share the technology with us? After all, we are
> your friends, your allies. We even made it official trough the North
> Atlantic Treaty. If the US were to share their technology, we would be
able
> to join the fighting instead of just sending a few "token troops" who only
> "get in the way".
>
> Hmm. Maybe we should change the Treaty. Whenever a conflict arises and
> European countries want to help, they will *not* send troops. They shall
> only calculate the total cost if they would send troops, and then donate
> that amount of money to the Pentagon. ("Don't send troops -- just send
cash".)
>
> >Money: Gautam says, right in the post, that the military budget increase
> >this year is more than Italy's entire military budget. Please read the
whole
> >post. (I know you say country's entire *budget*, but that's the same
thing).
>
> No, with "entire budget" I mean the amount of money a government has
> available to keep the country up and running. That includes (but is not
> limited to) matters like Traffic, Public Health, Social Services and
Defense.
>
> >Now for Kuwait. Let's see....US declares war on Iraq, tells rest of the
> >world: stay home, we'll take care of it. The opinion already is that the
war
> >was only over oil, you think our press would be better if we kicked Iraq
out
> >of Kuwait by ourselves?
> >
> >But seriously, you want to risk your navel vessels when we have the USS
> >Greenville out there running into other ships? ;-)
>
> It was not my decision to send those ships -- it was the Dutch
government's
> decision. And besides, why should we be worried about the USS Greenville
> running into our own ships? Certainly with all that expensive and superior
> technology, the US military are capable of distinguishing friends from
foes?
>
>
> JeroenPoint 1: The technology is integrated. It isn't just slapping a locator on the rear bumper of a tank and letting it go. So why don't we let allies have the technology so they can build it into their equipment? In a word: secrecy. (Is that spelled right?). How many of our European allies are nuclear capable? None, a few? Well heck the US should just give all of NATO the technology, they need it to work with us. Sorry, I'm being snide but it's safer for US troops only to have the technology. And you eliminated the most important word, TRAINING. Point 2: I think the US would LOVE IT if other countries were giving us money, instead of the way it is now. Point 3: Wow, I didn't realize what ENTIRE BUDGET meant. Thanks for that kernel of knowledge. Heck the PA national guard probably spends more than some countries' ENTIRE BUDGET. Andorra? Luxembourg? Vatican City? Point 4: I thought we were using ;-) to mark funny lines. Why did the Greenville hit another ship with all that technology? Human error? I don't know but I thought it was funny. Yes we have all of this tech and we got a submarine blundering around like a drunk sailor. How about this: we let a French division (damn rifle droppers) fight along with us in some major battle. Even if the French have less casualties than the Americans, someone will say we 'used' them, instead of praising the US for asking them to help us. Point 5: Where is the retraction of cannon fodder, which Gautam never said? You want everyone to apologize to you when they make a mistake, say things that aren't in the post. Kevin T.
