When is the US going to get "real" Land Rovers?

Although the vehicle may very well be 7'6" wide, the seats offer less room than a 101 - which isn't in itself, very luxurious... :-)

Steve Firth ( snipped-for-privacy@malloc.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

The H1 is the "original" Hummer. The H2 is a restyled Suburb/Avalanche/Escalade/Whatever. The H3 is "rumored" to be hitting production next year. Maybe. P'raps.

Huh? I drove it in the desert in the first Gulf War and it was very impressive. The English never had any issues with this truck. The H2 is a joke, but the H1 is very good vehicle!

|> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank |> or more to the point as wide as a tank |> they were designed to run in tank tracks | |Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs |5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better.

There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US. However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB).

Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues.

Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried), is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical, self disciplined individual.

I don't know if beggars can be choosers these days. Unfortunately enlistment is down and car bombings are up.

I know a few US MIlitary types, one of whom owns a very nice Hummer actually and while he certainly fits your description above, I do sometimes question why people still weigh an academic future against one in the forces - expecially given that morale is so low in most forces.

This isn't any kind of political statement - just an observation.

Them weren't people; thems was congressmen.

bw

The rest go into politics?

|> |> you've hit the nail on the head it's as big as a tank |> |> or more to the point as wide as a tank |> |> they were designed to run in tank tracks |> | |> |Oh, and stupid here though the average US soldier is now a plump 250 lbs |> |5'6" recruit .....that is why wide was better. |> |> There is a problem with folks being over weight in the US. |> However military standards are such that we reject nearly 60% of |> those who apply due to physical problems, of which weight is one |> of them. And nearly half of all applicants to the military are |> rejected due to failing the entrance exam (ASVAB). |> |> Gets even worst than that. About 25% of males are kicked out |> before they finish their first tour (10% in basic training). For |> females, it is 50% (25% in basic). Generally character issues. |> |> Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart |> enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried), |> is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical, |> self disciplined individual. |> |> | |I don't know if beggars can be choosers these days. Unfortunately |enlistment is down and car bombings are up.

So far the military is doing ok. The military was cut in half during the Clinton era. But given the population drop of our young people (Gen X was very much smaller than the previous generation of Baby Boomers), we may have been forced to.

The question we have to ask is whether we can afford those who can not make it currently? Would you trust those we reject as fire fighters or police officers? The military is different these days and we can not afford people who are not smart, out of shape or untrustworthy.

|>Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart |>enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried), |>is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical, |>self disciplined individual. |>

| |The rest go into politics?

Seems like it. Less than a fifth have military experience in Congress (60 republicans, 40 democrats).

|>Thus the typical person who can make in the military is smart |>enough to have been accepted to an university (had they tried), |>is in very good physical condition and tends to be an ethical, |>self disciplined individual. | |I know a few US MIlitary types, one of whom owns a very nice Hummer |actually and while he certainly fits your description above, I do |sometimes question why people still weigh an academic future against |one in the forces - expecially given that morale is so low in most |forces. | |This isn't any kind of political statement - just an observation.

Again the US military tends to be highly motivated. Self discipline and pride are hallmarks. Yes, the guys are tired. But also remember that we are not recruiting from the bottom of society. Rather the US military tends to be far more conservative (over half), more religious (over half) than the general society (about 17 liberal, 19% conservative). People who join tend to have a sense of duty, of purpose.

If you mean why would people choose the armed forces, rather than an academic future, many of them don't. The US military offers scholarships in a whole variety of subjects (mostly ones that are relevant to the military - engineering, and the like). I've worked with several people in the US who have a military background, rather than an enormous student loan.

- Andrew