When govt and private military contractors get too close, “People are shipped off to fight and die without making our nation any safer”.
Unfortunately as a result of the Military Industrial Complex in the U.S. not all acts of war actually end up making our nation any safer. When govt and private military contractors get too close, the citizens of America (and the rest of the world) suffer. Professor Chris Coyne of George Mason University explains. Learn more: http://hayekandchill.com/foreign-policy/.
everything from fighter jets to tanks to rifles to shoelaces and buttons. The Army had at the end of WW2 more mess kits than they had soldiers, The ones which are better suited to bailing water out of your foxhole than cooking. And the companies which assembled them kept making and selling them to the Army, they were still doing it in the 1960s even though you could buy them at any surplus outlet all day every day at 25 cents each. The biggest advantage they had aside from water eradication was they fit nicely on the utility web belt.Same with the one quart canteens. They changed them from tin to plastic in the 70s and the mess kits should have been all along, because they just ain’t good for cooking. The canteens came up as an issue in the Iraq deconstruction. There was a major technology enhancement because some medic figured out that an IV bag could be mounted on your back, with the line coming up from your backpack, over your shoulder and bam, you got a much better canteen that you can work hands-free. It’s called a CamelBack. The Army wouldn’t buy them. Because they have a prior contract for the stupid-ass one quart canteens. In Iraq the soldiers were supposed to slurp down more than a gallon of water each day, and the water system that was once the pride of the Arabian Peninsula was bombed into the rubble in Desert Storm and they weren’t allowed the parts to fix them.
Yeah. Where are you supposed to fill up that quart canteen 6 damn times a day in Iraq? As I understand, the Army did graciously allow the soldiers to have their families send them some of the CamelBacks.
Then there’s the Jungle Boots. The ones for slogging through rice paddies, with the small holes just above the sole so your boots didn’t fill up with water. This one pisses me off no end. Before Desert Storm there was actual debate about getting the sand-colored suede ones without the holes AND they don’t have to be polished. Without the holes is important because the VietNam boot lets sand IN. Which doesn’t flow out nicely the way water does.
and the old fashioned polished black ones show up like searchlights under infrared. The “keep the old style” faction actually prevailed for a while. On the basis of “tradition”. The Brits had a tradition of wearing bright red shirts and everybody over the rank of corporal had a big white X on the most lethal place to place a bullet. Nice. They kept up that crap for a while. Then in one of the times the Afghans spanked the Empire the Admiralty had a flash of genius, The Afghans wore khaki. It’s the indo-european word for “dirt”. ‘golly’, said one general to another, ‘perhaps wearing clothing which blends in to the local environment is a better idea than wearing starched, bright red shirts with a huge white X marking the spot?’
Skeptcism and Cynicism aren’t exact homonyms. They are, however, each an exact antonym to “gullibility.”
Between my native skepticism and Their natural cynicism I draw the conclusion that the boot decision was decided in a way to keep the cash flow to their sources. Like the ones I had in Basic which were made by prison labor at Leavenworth. That’s the MIC in a few paragraphs. Not good for the civilian taxpayers, not good for the boots on the ground, just the warmongers. Which means “they sell war”.
What a great comment, thank you.