OT: and you thought WE had esoteric interests!

I can't believe the one guy has 6695 posts and hasn't even suggested a Kydex saddle! ;-)
 
Waay back when the U.S. was supplying/supporting a different conflict/insurrection/police action in Afganistan, (or was on the other side of civil disobedience) the two major contributions the U.S. gave to the rebels were Stinger missles and U.S. mules.

I luvs de mules, conceptually, that is.

http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/mule.html



Kis
 
I wonder if they were able to use the Mules or if they gave up on them and ate them instead.



munk
 
Munk?

As I recall, the deal was that for all the equipment we sent over, there were no transportation vehicles suitable for use in the mountainous terrain. The U.S. mules were so much larger and heartier than those available in Afganistan, and could negotiate the steep hillsides and rocky slopes, that they were very much valued. ?Mammoth Jack? breeding...not sure.

The fact that the Afganistan patriots (interesting how designations change when your perspective changes, eh?) were not congregated in large groups like conventional armies allowed for small parties of troops to carry on mule-back the Stingers, food, water, etc...in areas that the Soviets would not or could not access.

With the advent of the Stinger, the Soviet technique of dropping squads off in rough terrain via helicopter became VERY expensive.

And, as you say, mules can be eaten.


Kis
 
Let me share a tidbit I've learned recently- much is made out of how we armed those who later turned against us. That is not entirely the truth. It seems there were two main groups fighting in Afg against the Soviets- forriegn fighters brought in, and locals. The US supported the local resisitance. Money from Saudi and other places supported the foreigners, of which some became Al Queda.

At any rate, as times change, so do people. It is not accurate to describe the US as supporting a revolution that had elements which later turned terrorist, and to make the leap that we support terrorists. By definition- terrorists blow up civilians. We do not support that.

Glad to hear US mules are the best. Wasn't it General Cook against teh Apaches who thought so?


munk
 
Kis keeps my dictionary link just busy enough to make it worthwhile to keep it.:rolleyes: :D ;)
 
The only problem I have with cavalry is- I like horses, why drag them into harms way over "people" fights and squabbles. They usually get the short end of the stick in war to say the least.

I think if people are going to fight among each other they ought to keep it stricly between "people" (especially people who are personally delighted to participate).

No offense to all the Cavalrymen out there.
 
If some animals are the best tool for the job, and the job is saving lives or our democracy in war, then let some animals die.


Perhaps to be truly ethical, we should eat the animals if they're killed in action.



munk
 
Another consideration might be:

To be truly ethical, we should have the leaders who start the wars, fight them and leave the troops and animals home.


Kis
 
I vaguely remember an old episode of either Twilight Zone or Outer Limits (or similar) where war broke out and had to be resolved by the leaders.

In practice, it woud pose an interesting dilemma...do you elect good fighters or good diplomats?
 
NO, diplomats have stock options, kickbacks, and Friday poker; they don't need to fight.

In a good enough world Hitler wouldn't have been able to form the State he did- but he did, and someone had to stop him. Chamberlaine (sic) was a diplomat, wasn't he?


God Bless our Soldiers.


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top