freeatlast
New Member
I bet these boys got a chewing out.
http://www.weather.com/weather/vide...es-to-drive-underwater-21747#loc=41/169/21747
http://www.weather.com/weather/vide...es-to-drive-underwater-21747#loc=41/169/21747
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
National Guard tries to drive under water
- Thread starter freeatlast
- Start date
Couldn't get that one to play; here's another:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/ameri...ing-flood-video/?playlist_id=87651?test=faces
Seems like they answer the cell phone owner's question, which just makes the cell phone owner look, in his own words, dumb.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/ameri...ing-flood-video/?playlist_id=87651?test=faces
Seems like they answer the cell phone owner's question, which just makes the cell phone owner look, in his own words, dumb.
freeatlast
New Member
[SIZE=+0]Thanks for the extra link. I did re-try mine and it worked fine. No matter. The amazing thing is that a cell phone can collect that kind of video with such good quality and yes they were stupid. They are suppose to know the limits of the trucks. When your head is under water you should be able to discern that something is wrong unless you have scuba gear on. :tonofbricks:[/SIZE]
Do you know the limits of the particular vehicle? Do you even know what type of vehicle it is?
I have a different perspective than you do, Free. Let me explain my perspective this way: The next time YOU try to help someone, and find yourself in trouble for doing it, I won't laugh at you, because I give you credit for trying.
freeatlast
New Member
What they did was dumb. No questions asked. You may have a clouded heart in this matter and want to deny the truth, but their actions were not rational. If they did not know the limitations of the vehicles or theirs then the military again is flawed for not teaching them. However even if not taught correctly they showed no common sense. Their actions were dumb.
:laugh:
Dumb? If that was Bubba in his 1973 F 250 I'd say it was. If they were taking a joy ride down a flooded street for no purpose I'd say it was. HMMWV have a deep water capability of 60 inches. The trucks were doing what they were designed to do. The Guardsmen were doing what they were trained to do. Both the soldiers and their equipment were taken to their limits to rescue folk stranded by the flooding. The equipment failed. It is amazing that folks sitting high and dry find it so easy to criticize men and women who left their own homes during the storm to aid others.
Here is the 4-1-1 on the Hummer (M-998 & M 1038)
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
Yes the equipment failed because they exceeded the limits of the vehicles or they would not have both failed. They are suppose to know their limits so it was dumb That means flawed training and just dumb actions.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I'm the one with a "clouded heart". . .why are you the only one in this thread that's laughing?
(btw: several other people in that other thread noted that it was your analysis that was flawed, not the military training.)
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
Even if they are "Dumb" it would be no laughing matter, when a life is at stake :tear:
Of course I'm sure you did some dumb things while you were on active military duty
There is a segment of our society that runs toward danger while everyone else is fleeing. Police officers charge into domestic situations that strain their equipment and training to the limit. We lost a young deputy just a few weeks ago due to one of these situations. He would have been much safer to sit in his cruiser. Firefighters enter burning buildings pushing the limits of their equipment and training. They would be much safer parked at a distance. EMTs tend to accident victims on the highway while cars zip by at 70 mph. Well, that's dumb....
Soldiers run to danger while others flee. Many times they respond when they are outnumbered and outgunned exceeding the limitations of their quipment and training. It happens a thousand times a day while we sit in our warm, dry, safe homes. Imagine the outcry if the soldiers parked their vehicles on high ground and said, "I ain't going through that. I might get wet." while those trying to flee the danger were unable.
You call them dumb. I call them heroes. They are out there today risking death by fire, crushing, drowning, being blown to bits, shot run over.......
My soldier-son disarms bombs for a living. Every day tests the limits of equipment and training. It would be much safer for him to sit at home and do nothing.
freeatlast
New Member
Of course we all do dumb things. Arrogance is to deny it like some are doing. These guys did a dumb thing and perhaps it was due to flawed training, but they are supposd to have common sense. :laugh:
And I assume your abundance of humor at the situation is because of your prejudice that blocks you from admitting that, out of all the people present, at least they were trying.
Free, you've got at least three people in this thread that are offended by your laughing smiley, and they've told you that they're offended by your comments. Is it really Christian of you to continue intentionally offending them?
freeatlast
New Member
Need to admit what? That I've never driven an LMTV, so I wouldn't have tried what they did? I'll admit that freely. I've ridden in the back of one, but that doesn't qualify me to drive one (I have a military license for HMMWV, and have driven/ridden in hummers in situations where the water was well above the floorboard, requiring me to dry off afterwards). I had a license for deuce-and-a-half once upon a time, but the deuce is nothing like the LMTV.
Here's the problem with your assumption, Free: Was this the first time those National Guardsmen had driven in those conditions? If you can't definitively say "yes," then you're the one that's in error. It's entirely possible that they had driven in exactly the same conditions earlier in the day without any problems. Or that they had driven in exactly the same conditions while deployed. So it's entirely possible that they made the decision to drive in those conditions based on their prior experience.
It's also a known fact that military vehicles, including aircraft, are capable of more than the published limitations. The published limitations are a minimum threshold for safety; you can actually push most of the vehicles and aircraft beyond those limits, but you stress the mechanics of the vehicle and decrease its lifecycle. Knowing this, the drivers in the vehicles may have chosen to push the limits in order to assist others.
And referring back to another thread, it's also entirely possible that they were ordered to drive in those conditions. In which case, you're laughing at them for doing what you say they should do without question: follow orders. Unless you're indicating that they should have used common sense and disobeyed the order; in which case, that makes you a hypocrite....
But you and I don't know what they were thinking when they made the decision to drive in those conditions, do we? We don't know their past experience, their training on this particular vehicle, any of that, do we?
If you can't definitively prove that they've never done it before, or that their training was, in fact, deficient, then all you've done is presumed the worst and derided those that were trying to help others.
----------
Will you apologize for your continual offensiveness? Because it's quite obvious now that you're adding the laughing smiley just to goad us--even after being told it was offensive. That speaks volumes about your personality and character, doesn't it?
Here's the problem with your assumption, Free: Was this the first time those National Guardsmen had driven in those conditions? If you can't definitively say "yes," then you're the one that's in error. It's entirely possible that they had driven in exactly the same conditions earlier in the day without any problems. Or that they had driven in exactly the same conditions while deployed. So it's entirely possible that they made the decision to drive in those conditions based on their prior experience.
It's also a known fact that military vehicles, including aircraft, are capable of more than the published limitations. The published limitations are a minimum threshold for safety; you can actually push most of the vehicles and aircraft beyond those limits, but you stress the mechanics of the vehicle and decrease its lifecycle. Knowing this, the drivers in the vehicles may have chosen to push the limits in order to assist others.
And referring back to another thread, it's also entirely possible that they were ordered to drive in those conditions. In which case, you're laughing at them for doing what you say they should do without question: follow orders. Unless you're indicating that they should have used common sense and disobeyed the order; in which case, that makes you a hypocrite....
But you and I don't know what they were thinking when they made the decision to drive in those conditions, do we? We don't know their past experience, their training on this particular vehicle, any of that, do we?
If you can't definitively prove that they've never done it before, or that their training was, in fact, deficient, then all you've done is presumed the worst and derided those that were trying to help others.
----------
Will you apologize for your continual offensiveness? Because it's quite obvious now that you're adding the laughing smiley just to goad us--even after being told it was offensive. That speaks volumes about your personality and character, doesn't it?
Last edited by a moderator:
