[Darksheare]

It has it's place, but they could have done an honest development process for it, and been honest about it's place rather than, as Shinseki said it was, a one on one tank replacement.
That is extremely and grossly neglegent on the part of the brass, but I doubt anyone will seriously pay for it.

I doubt they meant paved surfaces, as the Stryker isn't being used on them alone despite it's restriction to such surfaces.
And it's inability to go cross country safely is a majorly negative point.
Not every country we will operate in has improved road surfaces.
But teh US has a huge network of them.
As a police vehicle to keep lightly armed civilians cowed, the Stryker would be great.

[R. Scott]

Civilian police agencies already have the M113, and at times borrow tanks.
I hope you’re wrong – and just being paranoid. Of course, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they ain’t out to get us.

[from occupied ga]

As a police vehicle to keep lightly armed civilians cowed, the Stryker would be great.

You mean that this wasn't why it was developed in the first place, and this isn't why there is a big push on to ban .50 cal weapons?