Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MineralMan

I'm not going to accept this as fact." So....you would not want your son wearing non-issue armor if DOD said their gear (by definition older and cheaper, from lowest bidder) was as good, or almost as good, maybe; but no matter, orders is orders?


10 posted on 01/15/2006 9:48:39 AM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: diogenes ghost

"I'm not going to accept this as fact." So....you would not want your son wearing non-issue armor if DOD said their gear (by definition older and cheaper, from lowest bidder) was as good, or almost as good, maybe; but no matter, orders is orders?"

Look. You're not paying attention. I'm saying that I don't believe any such orders not to wear the other armor were ever issued. I don't believe that crap about generals wearing this better armor, either.

This sounds like a crapola story to me. Hackworth's stuff is often bullwhack. Show me the orders that prohibit the wearing of this armor. Show me where it says that the insurance won't pay off.

The story smells.


16 posted on 01/15/2006 9:51:39 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson