[lit-ideas] Re: A Question REALLY Answered
- From: Judy Evans <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:40:37 +0000
Tuesday, December 27, 2005, 2:29:42 AM, david ritchie wrote:
dr> On Dec 26, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Judith Evans wrote:
>>
>> Yes it is. These are I think the relevant part of the
>> piece David Ritchie posted:
>>
>>
dr> Bear in mind that crews were skilled in the air war, both flying
dr> planes and shooting missiles at them.
Yes indeed.
dr> As Robert says, any argument
dr> about some physical or intellectual impediment that kept people from
dr> using modern weapons would be racist and silly. If the infantry was
dr> ill-trained, they probably lacked that priceless component, a
dr> dependable core of NCOs.
It sounded as though that was part of the problem.
dr> But the point that "Andy" seems to be driving at is that a diverse
dr> country, used to the workings of a dictatorship, is not likely to
dr> develop a good working police force and an skilled army in the near
dr> term. Is that what "untrainable" means?
Not to me.
dr> It's an odd use of the
dr> term, but not unlike things that were said about the Scots and the
dr> Irish and the Welsh not long ago--too wild and fractious a group of
dr> people ever to be able to live as civilized people.
True. So it depends what the training's for! -- and re speed, well,
the army and police force are being trained too quickly (any other
considerations, including preconditions for stable democracy, apart)
--
Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK
mailto:judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
