On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:21:20 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
"useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

Although I've come around to your sort of opinion towards
Hackworth, the "effectiveness" argument is sort of bogus
isn't it?

A muzzle loading, black powder Kentucky Rifle would be
"effective" under such a test, no?

According to Hackworth, who claims the Beretta, M-16 and other weapons
foisted on the indomitable GI by the military-industrial-complex and
the perfumed princes in the pentagon would simply break down before
performing such useful service. I think he was also against the
Abrams and the Bradley when they were the latest "steal procurement
from the grunts and waste it on high-tech pork" windmill... errr, I
mean project to be titled at.

Hasn't he become a caricature of himself these days? I always think
of him delivering Mr Burn's address to the electorate on the
Springfield hustings:

"And the bureaucrats in the state capital/perfumed princes in the
Pentagon can stick that in their pipe and smoke it!"

Gavin Bailey