On Oct 5, 1:35 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:30 pm, MightyJo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, in my son's case, he's in a tank company in an Infantry
> > battalion. He says they run a lot. I hear that "regular" armor units
> > don't run as much.
>
> Interesting; makes sense.
>
> > I guess driving something that weighs 60 tons and getting to shoot
> > those big guns has a strong appeal to young guys.
>
> Yeah, like I said, it appealed to me, too -- only I was thinking it
> was a death trap, "metal coffin for four brothers"....
>
> > It has actually. They're just working out the details now.
>
> They should reinstate the "belt"...belts give tunics/suits a more
> military look....
>
> > I think it was because the Commander in Chief at the time wanted to be
> > reminded of Monica.
>
> Was she wearing black berets??
>
> I'm wondering if ****nseki was getting back at some RI he once
> had...he's got a Ranger tab, right? Probably got it back during
> Vietnam when the Army required all officers to get 'em...now that's an
> interesting policy...I wonder why they didn't just limit that to
> infantry officers only...****nseki must have some secret reason for
> switching everyone to black berets...can't imagine a former Ranger
> wanting to cheapen his own black beret....
>
> > I'm with you - black berets are for Rangers, Red for Airborne, and
> > Green for Special Forces. They're the only ones who should be wearing
> > berets.
>
> Well, not "red" exactly -- "maroon," like a burgundy red kind of
> color.
>
> I really wish some general would change it back. I wonder if that's
> possible? I'm still shocked ****nseki was able to do what he did. Did
> no one with power over him give a damn?? I know a lot of Rangers were
> pissed.
>
> Frankly, though, I think berets look rather silly -- too European
> looking, French sidewalk cafe intellectuals and all. But if the Army
> must have them, the old scheme was good.
|
