Gulf War P**sing Match

Civility!  Owen is absolutely correct!	You do yourself no favours by
ranting and swearing at other people because they don't agree with you.
Being snarky and sarcastic doesn't help either.  Many of us have
opinions
that disagree - certainly people have taken "exception" to some of my
postings.  That's good - the point is to come to some kind of collective
understanding and/or explore an issue to all our benefit, and by
debating
ideas we do that.  By saying "I'm right, you're wrong" (particularly
when,
if you read all the postings, Ken certainly has good sources he is
referring to) you add nothing to this process.

In the end, who cares if 4 M1's or 9 M1's were "destroyed", "taken out",
"knocked out" (or whatever term you choose at the moment) in the Gulf. 
The
Iraqis were completely outclassed in every respect.  The US forces
totally
overwhelmed the Iraqis at every point, and the M1 tank did very well,
taking very few casualties.  It's a good tank.	What was the original
point?	How did this degenerate into childish "my source is better than
your source", and what do you hope to achieve by this?

>
>Source?  Considering I just posted details of four M1A1(HA)s being
>knocked out by enemy action, I'd say whereever you got your info is a
>little unreliable.  Or maybe using an interesting definition of knocked
>out.
>
>
>Again, bullshit.  Already posted source.  You do the same.  Cite
source,
>or retract.
>

> Before professing expertise one does not actually have, and telling
another

>Who said expertise?  I said I've got a decent source, while I don't
>think he does.

>Are John's sources more reliable?  Well, when the US Army paints a more
>negative picture than Tom Clancy or other civillians, I tend to believe
>US Army.  
 
> Were you there, John, and did you see it?  If not, you cannot proclaim
your

>Nope.	But the team that wrote my source was.	I'm still waiting for
>other source.

> sources to be absolutely correct in all aspects.  Question your
sources like
> you question those of the person you disagree with.  Ten people in the
same
> room, witnessing the same crime, will always result in ten different
> stories.

>Not analogous situation.

>Like I said, either misinformed or using a really screwy definition of
>killed.  If you define "killed" as "incapable of moving or fighting"
>then you have the majority of "killed" vehicles being repairable in the
>long term.  But you gotta win in the short term to worry about the long
>term.