Farmer or insurgent?

[Farquar]

This video clip does show what appear to be deaths. If you're sensitive to such things, please consider those sensitivities before viewing the clip. ~HarmNone

First, watch this short video from Iraq. http://www.4th25.com/apache.mpg

Technically, it isn't graphic, but it is impactful. Anything that appears bright is radiating heat. The time in the video, for those who cant see it clearly is about 10 am.

-Pay particular attention to the behavior of the people on the ground. Were they acting calm, like people that wouldn't have anything to fear from a U.S. helicopter, or were they panicking like an insurgent likely would if they heard an attack helicopter?
-Pay attention to the vehicles and the land. Does the one all the way to the left look like a tractor to anyone else? Look at the bright plume coming from the vehicle, which looks like the exhaust pipe of a tractor.
-Doesn't the land look like its being tilled, from the patterns on the ground?

What do you think? This video was circulated almost a year ago, but I only found out about it now. I disovered fairly vibrant discussion on the internet about it, so the orignal observations aren't mine.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by HarmNone]

What you see does not show what happened before the video was taken. Problem is, often insurgents go home and do normal jobs. The intelligence that the army received may very well indicate something else.

And damn that 30mm cannon on the Apache is sexy.

"Also the video was shortened from its original length. Not showing the part where the guy tossed the RPG in the field before the tractor showed up.


A senior Army official who viewed the tape said the pilots had the legal right to kill the men because they were carrying a weapon. He said there were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops.

Keane agreed. "Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them in particular, but they [the three Iraqis] are using those weapons in their minds for lethal means and they [the Apache pilots] have a right to interfere with that," he said.

Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

As to whether the Apache pilots could have called in ground troops to apprehend the men, Cordesman said: "In this kind of war, wherever you find organized resistance among the insurgents, you have to act immediately. If you wait to send in ground troops almost invariably your enemy is going to be gone."

Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have."


[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Dave]

[Farquar]

Yeah that gun is freakin nuts.

The Bradley only has 1 25mm cannon on it and that can take out armor with the right rounds.
Twin 30mm cannons... :drool:

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Dave]

[Back]

I saw this a year ago. It never occured to me those men might be innocent civilians. I mean, it does look like farmland, but I guess the vehicle on the left could be a tractor. But isn’t it a little small? I always thought it was a howitzer or a cannon of some kind.

As for them walking around not acting scared... maybe they didn’t know they could get literally blown to pieces at that range?

I dunno. What is more telling is what Dave posted... that someone felt a need to try and explain why those men were killed. Thought crime.

[Apotheosis]

all i could think of was "Sweet video game", I wanna play

[Asha]

That video made me wet.
I had to watch it twice.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
I dunno. What is more telling is what Dave posted... that someone felt a need to try and explain why those men were killed. Thought crime.

When the military is subjected to the judgement of its people then it will always be necessary to justify their actions.

It was an interesting clip, clearly more information could have been included prior to and after the shooting, but interesting none the less.

[4a6c1]

Hot gun.

'roger. auto range stored.' <-- give it me

[Asha]

I think I saw a flying leg or arm, at one point.
Beautiful.

[Taernath]

Originally posted by Backlash
As for them walking around not acting scared... maybe they didn’t know they could get literally blown to pieces at that range?

IIRC it was nighttime and the apache was so far off they didn't see it.

[Nieninque]

This thread is sick
People finding guns "sexy" or getting "wet" over people being killed need committing.

[4a6c1]

Nieninque. Your avatar darling. Look at it.

:heart:

[Nieninque]

I've seen it before. Your point?

American military at its finest. This is why I am a huge advocate of the DoD sinking large amounts of money into R&D. The larger technological advantage we have, the less American lives can be lost during war.

- Arkans

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Arkans
American military at its finest. This is why I am a huge advocate of the DoD sinking large amounts of money into R&D. The larger technological advantage we have, the less American lives can be lost during war.

- Arkans

How about the least lives, period?
Of course, you could argue that by spending less on weapons, we would be losing less lives...

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Nieninque
I've seen it before. Your point?

Violence is entertaining, isnt it?

[Atlanteax]

I think the US Military, especially those involving helicopter gunships, should adopt the doctrine that...

If anyone that looks like a Muslim or an Arab, and says "Jihad", to blast them away immediately!

:roll:

That's pretty much the ultimate goal, Nien, but I always look at it from a value standpoint. I value the lives of an American soldier over one of an enemy soldier. If we could conduct warfare in an effective and non-lethal way, I'd be all over it. Any life lost is a shame.

Spending less on weaponry I find to be a faulty notion though. It puts you years and years behind current technology giving a possibly hostile nation a chance to catch up, inflict massive amounts of casualties before finally being met on equal or greater grounds on weaponry and then crushed. Such was the case in WWII when the Allied nations really couldn't stand up to German war machines.

- Arkans

[Asha]

We're exposed to video games which look almost identical to this video.
Supprised we're not as sensitive towards it as we should be?
As for me saying it made me wet, that was a joke.
Although your avatar makes me cringe when the eyes fall out.

[4a6c1]

Exactly.

[HarmNone]

Are you saying, Drayal, that you believe violent video games contribute to a general insensitivity to violent death? That's a concept that's been argued for some time now. Most video game players deny any connection.

[Asha]

In my case, HN.
Definately.

I hope he isn't saying that, Harmnone. Those that emulate violence they see on TV or video games have already pre-existing medical conditions. I believe any normal people can seperate fantasy and reality.

- Arkans

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Drayal
We're exposed to video games which look almost identical to this video.
Supprised we're not as sensitive towards it as we should be?
As for me saying it made me wet, that was a joke.
Although your avatar makes me cringe when the eyes fall out.

The video wasnt of a video game, it was a video of the killing of people (I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of that).
It is real life.
I'm not really a big fan of the "video games make people murderers" argument...and when it is used by an apparently intelligent adult to excuse his own behaviour, I agree with it even less.
Joke or not, it wasnt funny. It was sick (in my opinion).
Personally, I expected to see posts of the kind as Backlash, Ganalon and Most of Dave's post, which could reasonably be construed as intelligent debate. Comments such as "I think I saw a flying leg or arm, at one point. Beautiful." are just sick.

Oh, and the avatar, is a line-drawn animation. No real stick people were hurt in the making of that animation.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

Originally posted by Nieninque
I've seen it before. Your point?

Violence is entertaining, isnt it?

When we are talking about road runner, yes.
When we are talking about real people, no.

[Nieninque]

Would the guns be as sexy and the joke be as funny if they were US or British soldiers in that video being killed?

The technology would still be amazing, but I for one, would be fucking furious.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
I hope he isn't saying that, Harmnone. Those that emulate violence they see on TV or video games have already pre-existing medical conditions. I believe any normal people can seperate fantasy and reality.

- Arkans I happen to agree wholeheartedly.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

Originally posted by Nieninque
I've seen it before. Your point?

Violence is entertaining, isnt it?

When we are talking about road runner, yes.
When we are talking about real people, no.

I wonder why it is that people cant help but rubberneck. I've always wondered that.

Curiosity on what happened. No one cheers when they see a dead body and if you do.. well, seek help, seriously.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

Originally posted by Nieninque
I've seen it before. Your point?

Violence is entertaining, isnt it?

To some, perhaps. To others, definitely not.

[Asha]

I really hope you all understand my post merely said, I, meaning myself, felt I can handle a picture of people being blown to bits.
I DIDN'T say I would emulate that violence.

Yes, Drayal.

- Arkans

[Asha]

Thank fuck!
Dun want the authorities getting a head start on me when I eventually do.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Drayal
I really hope you all understand my post merely said, I, meaning myself, felt I can handle a picture of people being blown to bits.
I DIDN'T say I would emulate that violence.

No but it was your justification for saying you found it beautiful that you saw someone's arm or leg being blown off. That I dont understand.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

Originally posted by Nieninque
I've seen it before. Your point?

Violence is entertaining, isnt it?

To some, perhaps. To others, definitely not.

Harmnone just said most of what I needed to say.

Ergo, there's a huge difference between violence on equal footing and the violence of an elephant stepping on ants. I guess some people get their kicks that way.

-M

[Delirium]

violent video games contribute to a general insensitivity to violent death?

and


Those that emulate violence they see on TV or video games have already pre-existing medical conditions. I believe any normal people can seperate fantasy and reality.

I dont believe are the same things. Obviously most of us here are insensitive to humans being blown up(or no one is posting many tears heh). I doubt many(Maybe Nien?) are really affected. Thats not to say any of us who arnt sensitive to it tho are one step away from going nuts and killing. Just that we are desenstized to it. Is it from video games? I dont think so but i know when i first saw that video my first thought was "holy shit, thats one cool weapon!".


Would the guns be as sexy and the joke be as funny if they were US or British soldiers in that video being killed?

Of course not. Is it more funny when someone you dislike gets beat up or one of your own family members? Proclaiming people should have the same reaction to both is improbable at best.

[Asha]

Nien, if I choose NOT to say I'm sickened and offended then it's my right.
It's also my right to say I think it's beautiful , even if it is in a sarcastic way.
These boards are sometimes harsh Nien. If you are offended easily by the posts, don't post here. If I was offended by the video, I wouldn't have watched it.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Would the guns be as sexy and the joke be as funny if they were US or British soldiers in that video being killed?

That is not an anticipated risk for the known future.

The US/UK militaries will never be at such a disadvantage...

My brain just exploded from reading the above garbage.

- Arkans

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

Originally posted by Nieninque
I've seen it before. Your point?

Violence is entertaining, isnt it?

To some, perhaps. To others, definitely not.

I agree. I do however see a fun comparison drawn between a cartoon killing itself on a keyboard, gory hollywood war movies that sell tons, and people straining to see demolished cars on the freeway. Why does it happen?

Its a part of human nature I dont understand. So of course, I will ask the questions. :)

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Drayal
Nien, if I choose NOT to say I'm sickened and offended then it's my right.
It's also my right to say I think it's beautiful , even if it is in a sarcastic way.

Absolutely right. And by the same measure, it's my right to call you a sick fuck for finding the killing of other human beings, funny.



These boards are sometimes harsh Nien. If you are offended easily by the posts, don't post here. If I was offended by the video, I wouldn't have watched it.

For such a fucking attention-seeking drama whore, you can be a patronising bastard at times.
I registered onto these boards under a baptism of fire. There is nothing you can say or do that will affect me to the point of your little tizzes.
Watching the video isnt what pissed me off, Drayal. It was the inane and inappropriate comments of you and a couple of others that I felt was sick. The discussion about the video, particularly the points raised in the original post, are throught provoking and interesting.
Clearer for you now?

[HarmNone]

There are those that are entertained by violence. That's a given. It's a way of living out one's aggressive tendencies vicariously.

There are also those who are completely turned off by violence. These are the ones who don't attend violent movies, or play violent video games, or gawk at accidents on the freeway (unless they're looking to see if help is needed). Such people do exist. I know. I'm one of them.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Atlanteax

Originally posted by Nieninque
Would the guns be as sexy and the joke be as funny if they were US or British soldiers in that video being killed?

That is not an anticipated risk for the known future.

The US/UK militaries will never be at such a disadvantage...

So there have been no British or US fatalities in Irag?

I beg to differ.

[Delirium]

So wouldnt gemstone be considered violent?

The fact that made me have a mental and logical break down is Atlanteax's crystal ball. Currently, Russia has larger stores of natural resources than the United States. China is a rising economic power. Saying we'll NEVER fall behind or be met on equal foot?.. Christ... Just DUMB.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

GemStone, depending on how one played the game, could be violent. Yet, without the graphics, your personal image of the violence within the game could be controlled within your own mind. Unlike the graphical games, violence wasn't placed smack in your face whether you wanted it, or not. That's one reason I much prefer text games to graphical games. I like the ability to picture things as I wish to picture them, not as others might picture them.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by HarmNone
There are those that are entertained by violence. That's a given. It's a way of living out one's aggressive tendencies vicariously.

There are also those who are completely turned off by violence. These are the ones who don't attend violent movies, or play violent video games, or gawk at accidents on the freeway (unless they're looking to see if help is needed). Such people do exist. I know. I'm one of them.

That gives me warm fuzzies like when I go in churches.

Hope for humanity.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Atlanteax

Originally posted by Nieninque
Would the guns be as sexy and the joke be as funny if they were US or British soldiers in that video being killed?

That is not an anticipated risk for the known future.

The US/UK militaries will never be at such a disadvantage...

So there have been no British or US fatalities in Irag?

I beg to differ.

There would had been significantly less casaulties of US/UK troops on the ground had they been able to level Baghdad and other Iraqi cities to rubble (would would also deny snipers).

Of course that isn't going to happen for geopolitical reasons.

.

Meanwhile, what you opted to ignore when you concentrated on the insurgency, is that it is extremely unlikely that US/UK troops on the ground will be at risk of being gunned-down by a enemy gunship.

Any enemy with that kind of equipment would find it destroyed before it was able to use.

.

It is also significantly likely that the world-wide detente after WW2 will continue to persist for the forseeable future, so there won't be any conflicts involving US vs Russian military that would nullify the above assessment.

Forsee... Possibly.. whatever.. You know, World War I was the "war to end all wars", man, they had that prediction spot on too.

- Arkans

[DeV]

US soldiers on the ground are already at risk of having their armorless vehicles blown the fuck up. I know you used gunships in your example, but there are other methods of being killed in war. Currently, the bombs and explosives account for what, 70% or so of US soldier casualities even now.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Meanwhile, what you opted to ignore when you concentrated on the insurgency, is that it is extremely unlikely that US/UK troops on the ground will be at risk of being gunned-down by a enemy gunship.

Any enemy with that kind of equipment would find it destroyed before it was able to use.

very well Mr Symantic
Would that video have been as funny if it had been and insurgent gunner in a tower block killing US/UK soldiers?

[Celephais]

My reaction, if anyone cares...

A little sickening at first... then awed by the sheer power and authority, and after reading the post about what wasn't shown, intelligence on the targets and thinking about it a little, I was less sickened (concluding it wasn't meaningless slaughter... assuming the whole war isn't meaningless slaughter but that's not this thread), but certainly not entertained like I would be from a movie. Now I would say the video just brings feelings of... well awe and respect.

It was a reassurance to me to be able to say that if I saw that in a movie, and even if it was farmers, I wouldn't have flinched, but my first reaction to the real thing was a bit unsettling.

I would hate to be the combatants with the inferior technology. (Be that insurgents, or the neglected ground troops)

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Arkans
The fact that made me have a mental and logical break down is Atlanteax's crystal ball. Currently, Russia has larger stores of natural resources than the United States. China is a rising economic power. Saying we'll NEVER fall behind or be met on equal foot?.. Christ... Just DUMB.

- Arkans

Yes, your ignorancy of geopolitics was just demonstrated.

.

In regard to Russia, it is suffering a low-level internal political crisis. The proponents of Westernization are grabbling with those who feel that they're allowing the West to slowly neuter Russia.

The most recent decisive point is when Western interference in Ukraine broke it from Russia's influence. Should Ukraine ever become part of NATO, Russia as it is known would be practically undefensable, as Western military assets could easily be placed within a short reach of Moscow and its Causian oil fields. In a sense Russia would face Western pentration similiar to how deep Germany made in WW2.

This is also demontrated by how Russia no longer has any sticks or carrots to use in its own geopolitical backyard (Central Eurasia). In all likelihood, Russia continue its collapse inwards till it has solidified a new national idenity and has its economic, political, and social structures on firm footing, instead of the current shaky situation. Last but not least to be considered is how the Russian population is in decline. It is significantly different for any "Great Power" to be able to expand its geopolitical influence if it's population is not expanding.

.

As for China, it is well known that it is facing an economic implosion that it is struggling to delay. China is currently completely dependent on foreign investment to keep its corrupted economic structures afloat. Any military threat from China is pragmatically a wash, as the drumbeating it does, primarily in regard to Taiwan, is to distract its own population and foreigns from the internal vulnerabilities that the ruling party is struggling to resolve.

Once China reneges on its WTO commitments, both Chinese and Western investment will flood out of China into the US/Europe. When that happens, China will no longer have the funds to keep its poor working class employed, and may see significant internal civil strife between the poor central and western regions against the rich eastern coast (the differences is as stark as pre Civil War US between North and South).

So in that regard, China is not a realistic threat for a long time to come. Meanwhile, ideally, the US will press its geopolitical advantage against China in its time of vulnerability, just as the US has against Russia the past decade, with the intent to cripple/prevent any short-term resurgence, and to ensure that the US will remain geopolitically unchallengable for the forseeable future.

And of course.. This will *NEVER* change. Nope, never. War to end all wars boys! What? Some dude with an armband? It can NEVER happen!

- Arkans

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Meanwhile, what you opted to ignore when you concentrated on the insurgency, is that it is extremely unlikely that US/UK troops on the ground will be at risk of being gunned-down by a enemy gunship.

Any enemy with that kind of equipment would find it destroyed before it was able to use.

very well Mr Symantic
Would that video have been as funny if it had been and insurgent gunner in a tower block killing US/UK soldiers?

Wouldn't happen, as it can be reasonably assume that any such fortified tower block hosting gunners would be identified and blown up before US troops enter the area within range of the threat.

[4a6c1]

Ukraine will never become part of NATO.

Sorry. Whiplash response. I will elaborate.

That would be like trying to get the chicago gangs of the 1920's to stop shooting tomy guns at each other long enough to listen to the weather report on the radio. It dosnt affect them. They dont care.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by JihnasSpirit]

Atlanteax reminds me of the rookie cop that scored all A's on the written test, but then got completely pwned by the first mugger on the street.

- Arkans

[Alfster]

Originally posted by Farquar

-Pay particular attention to the behavior of the people on the ground. Were they acting calm, like people that wouldn't have anything to fear from a U.S. helicopter, or were they panicking like an insurgent likely would if they heard an attack helicopter?
-Pay attention to the vehicles and the land. Does the one all the way to the left look like a tractor to anyone else? Look at the bright plume coming from the vehicle, which looks like the exhaust pipe of a tractor.
-Doesn't the land look like its being tilled, from the patterns on the ground?
[Edited on 7-19-2005 by HarmNone]

Question 1. I would say that they weren't necessarily acting calm, but they had no idea where the shots were coming from. They did attempt to find some cover in the middle of an open area.

Question 2. I don't think that's a tractor, maybe it is...but it looks far to small to be a tractor. Most tractors that I've seen are definatly as large as the truck on the far right.

Question 3. No, it doesn't. It looks like tire tracks through the desert.

I suppose I'm different than a lot of people. I believe that our military knows what they're doign when they fire at someone, especially since they should know that their actions are being watched by the rest of the world....and I just don't believe that anyone would be dumb enough to video tape themselves shooting civilians.

As far as the questions you asked, they don't have any impact on who these people are. So what if it's a farm? Maybe the people that "work" on the farm use the farm for covering up what they really do.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV
US soldiers on the ground are already at risk of having their armorless vehicles blown the fuck up. I know you used gunships in your example, but there are other methods of being killed in war. Currently, the bombs and explosives account for what, 70% or so of US soldier casualities even now.

Those casualities are primarily due to the US military having to fight the "ground war" against the Insurgency on the Insurency's terms.

Political consideration at home (bleeding-hearts) and geopolitical concerns in regard to the rest of the MiddleEast, renders safer ways (leveling hostile cities) to not be available options.

In effect, this is what happens when the US Military is forced to handicap itself.

I dunno. What is more telling is what Dave posted... that someone felt a need to try and explain why those men were killed. Thought crime.

^

You have to do this anyway.

As for the video. It's definately a tractor, look behind (below) it. Of course, that means absolutely nothing as insurgents rarely walk around with uniforms on carrying guidons in a formation.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Ukraine will never become part of NATO.

It's unlikely at the present time.

But that is what was believed of Poland and other MiddleEuropean counties not that long ago.

.

In any event, any country part of the European Union can be considered a force of the West. The European Union is halting its current eastward expansion, but every single previous and future eastward expansion of the EU diminishes Russia's abilty to return to its days as a "super power" (despite its resources).

The US is not necessary a fan of the EU, but does support any eastward expansion, as I mentioned before, the intent is to more permanently deny the ability of Russia (and other countries) from challenging US geopolitical might.

Also I almost jizzed myself watching that

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Arkans
Atlanteax reminds me of the rookie cop that scored all A's on the written test, but then got completely pwned by the first mugger on the street.

- Arkans

And you remind me of Xcalibur! :rolleyes:

:rofl: Good one, but at least my assessment has actual bearing.

- Arkans

[Farquar]

*Again, if you're sensitive to the depiction of death and destruction in war, don't click on this link* ~HarmNone

Here's a clip from the other side http://www.4th25.com/Tawidhumveeattack.wmv

It's about 1.3 MB. It's just as unsettling as the other video, maybe even more so, but it's something that people should come to terms with.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by HarmNone]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Arkans
:rofl: Good one, but at least my assessment has actual bearing.

- Arkans

:shrug: If you think so.

I don't see how a couple of one-liners can be considered an assessment though.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Those casualities are primarily due to the US military having to fight the "ground war" against the Insurgency on the Insurency's terms.Well, I'm hoping the US military didn't expect them to give up peacefully. I have full faith in the soldiers being able to distinguish the difference as well as the fact that we are on foreign turf, and it will be more difficult to fight on our terms on that foreign soil.
In any case, what you stated above is a given.


Political consideration at home (bleeding-hearts) and geopolitical concerns in regard to the rest of the MiddleEast, renders safer ways (leveling hostile cities) to not be available options.
Political consideration... bleeding hearts... sounds like some hogwash rherotic to me. What exactly have the bleeding-hearts done to cause the deaths of US soldiers due to their armored vehicles lacking the proper plates to protect them when a bomb explodes under their transport? Here we are talking about sparring civilians in the best effective way possible and you are saying we are inhibited because we are unable to level entire cities... what. the. fuck.


In effect, this is what happens when the US Military is forced to handicap itself. Forced to handicap itself. It's called war. No one has forced anyone to not have proper armor when someone decides to drop a bomb, so to speak.

You are talking in circles and not making much sense from the original information I posted.

Read more into them. You don't need to post a giant college essaysque response to make a point.

It's just funny with all the book work you do that you can actual and go and speak in absolutes and say that the US will *NEVER* be faced on equal terms. Sure, maybe within the next year or something won't happen (though we still can't predict what can happen one year from now). This type of mistake has been made so many times historically that it really boggles the mind on how on Earth can someone make it again.

Then again, The Roman Empire doing pretty damn well these days.

- Arkans

[Delirium]

Here is a longer video of the same thing with the apache which shows better what happened.

*Do not click on this link if you're sensitive to images of death and destruction during warfare* ~HarmNone

http://www.secretsituation.com/crap/apache_mission_in_iraq2.mov

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by HarmNone]

[HarmNone]

Folks, I've been inserting disclaimers before each of these links. Please, if you're going to post a link to videos of death and destruction, place a disclaimer before the link to allow those who might be sensitive to such images to make the decision not to click on the link. Thanks. :)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Of course, you could argue that by spending less on weapons, we would be losing less lives... Just look at how many people died in the Cold War, an era of unparalleled weapons development.

[Delirium]

Hehe sorry Harmnone :)

[HarmNone]

Not to worry, Delirium. I have to view them anyway. :(

[Farquar]

Yeah the longer video definitely evinced a kinder, more caring U.S. Military.

Except the one guy who kept saying "SMOKE EM" every two seconds.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV
Political consideration... bleeding hearts... sounds like some hogwash rherotic to me. What exactly have the bleeding-hearts done to cause the deaths of US soldiers due to their armored vehicles lacking the proper plates to protect them when a bomb explodes under their transport? Here we are talking about sparring civilians in the best effective way possible and you are saying we are inhibited because we are unable to level entire cities... what. the. fuck.

Think about it. It is admittedly cold and callous. But if it was done practically and without heart... carpet-bombing say Baghdad, to ensure that there's no population to resist means that there's little chance of US troops arriving afterwards to be at risk of becoming a casualty.

When I refered to the bleeding-heart considerations at home... I'm refering to how there would be a significant outcry at all the civilian deaths.

Don't forget that minimizing civilian casualty never truly became a priority of US warfare until this past few decades. The principle now is to further refine existing technology so that it can eliminate hostiles while sparing the innocent.

However, we have yet to reach the stage where that is the status quo on the ground. Probably not until you see well-armed individual US soldiers all operating via instructions given from their headsets as the view from their visors and GPS locations are easily accessible to the local HQ of operations and above in the command structure. The suits would also be able to alert the the soldiers of possible nearby explosive devices, and also of what direction is hostile gunfire is coming from, without having to look for it.

So until then, with the self-handicap of having to fight the "ground war" on the insurgency terms, we're going to unfortunately be exposed to higher US military casualties.


Forced to handicap itself. It's called war. No one has forced anyone to not have proper armor when someone decides to drop a bomb, so to speak.

You are talking in circles and not making much sense from the original information I posted.

See above, we don't have the technology for the proper equipment yet. Also, we unfortunately do not have the supply of it as well (some may be still on US soil, but logistics is apparently another issue that the US military needs to resolve). Overall, the US military is still stuck in the Cold War mentality of warfare. In 10-15 years, the US military will have some of the described technology to aid its ground troops on a non-prototype manner (there are currently protoypes under development).

When that happens, it'll be easy to say "geez, if only we had this equipment for when we were in Iraq".

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Arkans
Read more into them. You don't need to post a giant college essaysque response to make a point.

It's just funny with all the book work you do that you can actual and go and speak in absolutes and say that the US will *NEVER* be faced on equal terms. Sure, maybe within the next year or something won't happen (though we still can't predict what can happen one year from now). This type of mistake has been made so many times historically that it really boggles the mind on how on Earth can someone make it again.

Then again, The Roman Empire doing pretty damn well these days.

- Arkans

I never said "never".

I have said "for the foreseeable future".

There is a difference.

[DeV]

We have the technology to properly armor military vehicles in war zones in Iraq right now. I'm not sure why you think we don't. Civilians HAVE been dying in this war and there has not been a significant outcry, it has been surprisingly minimal.

What I don't understand is why you feel we should level the Middle East when we are there under the guise of freeing it's law-abiding citizens from an evil ruler.

Originally posted by Atlanteax

Originally posted by Nieninque
Would the guns be as sexy and the joke be as funny if they were US or British soldiers in that video being killed?

That is not an anticipated risk for the known future.

The US/UK militaries will never be at such a disadvantage...



pwnt.

- Arkans

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV
We have the technology to properly armor military vehicles in war zones in Iraq right now. I'm not sure why you think we don't. Civilians HAVE been dying in this war and there has not been a significant outcry, it has been surprisingly minimal.

What I don't understand is why you feel we should level the Middle East when we are there under the guise of freeing it's law-abiding citizens from an evil ruler.

The vast majority of civilian deaths have been caused by the Insurgency, not by US (or UK and allies) forces.

I don't recall saying that we should level the cities, I'm saying that if someone was solely concerned for the health of the US Military, that would be the way to go.

But obviously, there is a bigger picture to factor in.

I was attempting to point out that because... (1) we cannot do that (level cities) and (2) do not have the appropriate technology and equipment ... that is why we have US military casualties.

Of course, if we had gone in with 400k troops instead of 150k, as the Pentagon initially planned for... Iraq probably would be a more stable situation due to the manpower available.

So we've been unstaffed from the start (due to bad assumptions that there'd be no Insurgency and that the Shiite will willingly join in), and starting in 2006, we'll see reductions in US troop levels in Iraq, as they instead retreat into fortfied postions and let the Iraqis deal with the insurgency while providing tactical support.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Arkans

Originally posted by Atlanteax

Originally posted by Nieninque
Would the guns be as sexy and the joke be as funny if they were US or British soldiers in that video being killed?

That is not an anticipated risk for the known future.

The US/UK militaries will never be at such a disadvantage...

pwnt.

- Arkans

Geez...

The second statement was based on the first.

But feel free to be a nitpicker... :shrug: ... if that's all you got to run with.

[Back]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
The vast majority of civilian deaths have been caused by the Insurgency, not by US (or UK and allies) forces.

Bzzt. Only 4.3%. 64% were from arial assaults.

Recent report (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount/index.html). Making up facts is bad for your argument. But you are just following our president’s lead.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Backlash]

You're guilty of the same exact thing. That makes me laugh. A lot. Kind of. Yeah.

But speaking in absolutes like that makes you look like you just spent a day huffing chemicals considering history is like, "Hey dude, you're wrong"

- Arkans

[DeV]

My post comment had everything to do with our ability to properly armor our soldiers in the war zone even though it has not been sufficient up to this point.

The fact that that is being done at such a slow pace is not the insurgents fault directly, though the resulting death and injury from such an incurrence most definitely is their ultimate goal and fully their blame.

That was my point, but thanks for clearing up that tangent you went off on.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Atlanteax
The vast majority of civilian deaths have been caused by the Insurgency, not by US (or UK and allies) forces.

Bzzt. Only 4.3%. 64% were from the initial arial assault.

Recent report (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount/index.html).

Clipped:

The report also said that "U.S.-led forces were sole killers of 37 percent of civilian victims" and that "anti-occupation forces were sole killers of 9 percent of civilian victims." It added that "criminals killed 36 percent of all civilians."

.

I'd group the criminal element with the Insurgency. Also there seems to be a missing 18%.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government also disputed the findings stressing that the majority of casaulties were caused by the Insurgency and not by Coalition forces with attempted to minimize casualties. Nevermind that the study was prepared by human rights and anti-war activities, who collectively have a bias towards inflating the #s on the US military side as opposed to the Insurgency.

It's obviously not to be taken at face value. Especially when you factor in how Insurgents don't care who they kill, such as the tragic sucidide attack that killed more than 20 children. Of course the anti-war activitists would blame the US troops for that, stating that if they weren't there, there would had been no suicide bombing. Quite a form of asinine dedctive logic.

Editted to properly refer to the study as "findings" and not "facts".

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Atlanteax]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Of course, you could argue that by spending less on weapons, we would be losing less lives...

No, doesn't work that way, with technology as it is now.

Just look at past war casualty statistics. Sure new weaponry made more people die at one point, but now it's going back down the bell curve.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV
My post comment had everything to do with our ability to properly armor our soldiers in the war zone even though it has not been sufficient up to this point.

The fact that that is being done at such a slow pace is not the insurgents fault directly, though the resulting death and injury from such an incurrence most definitely is their ultimate goal and fully their blame.

That was my point, but thanks for clearing up that tangent you went off on.

Yes, the equipment would had helped, and there was a signficant logistic problem (for whatever reason, possibly funding issues) in supplying the equipment.

However, the equipment in question probably would not have been as effective as it's been made out to be. Where the real problem is lack of detection equipment as opposed to some additional armor (which may still not suffice against a well-position explosive).

I'll let Daniel correct me on that if he disagrees with that assement.

[Anebriated]

3 down...

[DeV]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Of course the anti-war activitists would blame the US troops for that, stating that if they weren't there, there would had been no suicide bombing. Quite a form of asinine dedctive logic. Why would they blame the US troops? Most anti-war critics, including myself would rather blame someone who has the power to make such an important decision which would lead to war, insurgency, and mass suicide, namely the government than our troops who are doing their JOB.

Many of us have friends and family serving, which [some] conservatives like yourself fail to remember when they claim things like what you've posted in your above.

[Anebriated]

Who do you blame, the person sent to do the killing or the person sending others to do the killing...


The pen is mightier than the sword because the pen gives word to send the swords to war.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by DeV
Why would they blame the US troops? Most anti-war critics, including myself would rather blame someone who has the power to make such an important decision which would lead to war, insurgency, and mass suicide, namely the government than our troops who are doing their JOB.

:yeahthat:

-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Yes, the equipment would had helped, and there was a signficant logistic problem (for whatever reason, possibly funding issues) in supplying the equipment. My point exactly.


However, the equipment in question probably would not have been as effective as it's been made out to be. Doesn't mean it still isn't needed. Being injured as opposed to dying. It's like bicycle helmets; not many people wear them, but it wouldn't hurt to have one on your head just in case you fell off one day and busted your head one day.
Where the real problem is lack of detection equipment as opposed to some additional armor (which may still not suffice against a well-position explosive). It still is what it is Atlanteax. If they need it, they should have it which is my point.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Of course the anti-war activitists would blame the US troops for that, stating that if they weren't there, there would had been no suicide bombing. Quite a form of asinine dedctive logic. Why would they blame the US troops? Most anti-war critics, including myself would rather blame someone who has the power to make such an important decision which would lead to war, insurgency, and mass suicide, namely the government than our troops who are doing their JOB.

Many of us have friends and family serving, which [some] conservatives like yourself fail to remember when they claim things like what you've posted in your above.

I was refering to how they would determine what category to place the death when compiling the statistics for that study.

Again, I was refering to the study, and not general public opinion.

I believe that for that study, there was likely a strong bias towards placing debatable casualties (those that are not obvious) at the fault of the US troops instead of the Insurgency.

HMMWV's In Iraq are now armored. Come up with a new line to attack the administration with please, it was so 8 months ago.

Hell I got a bunch that just got armor sitting in my motorpool, and we are not even over there.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Dave]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Yes, the equipment would had helped, and there was a signficant logistic problem (for whatever reason, possibly funding issues) in supplying the equipment. My point exactly.

Glad we agree!



Where the real problem is lack of detection equipment as opposed to some additional armor (which may still not suffice against a well-position explosive). It still is what it is Atlanteax. If they need it, they should have it which is my point.

Yes, they should have had the extra armor equipment for the duration of the conflict. But we currently lack the appropriate technology to truly reduce casualties further, but it's being developed.

However, I'm going to have to clarify my point to be that...

Regardless of what (available) equipment that the US military lacked in the Iraqi theatre, the need for such equipment would had been a moot issue (not completely moot, but relegated to a minor issue) if the US military did not have to fight the current conflict on the insurgency's terms.

However, the more pragmatic (but brutal) options/tatics are not available due to domestic (American) political concerns and due to geopolitical issues.

So as a result, unfortunately for our men (and women) in arms, the US military in Iraq can be considered to be "stuck between a rock and a hard place". ... and we unfortunately have a higher casualty rate because of that.

Hence the relatively desperate emphasis that the Adminstration (and the Pentagon) is placing on getting the local Iraqi forces prepared to take over, so that the US military can retreat into a series of bases in Iraq (and effectively reduce by a significant degree the exposure of the US military to potential casaulties).

[Skirmisher]

You could tell that to all those soldiers previously injured or maimed Dave.

I'm not sure it would be warm consolation at night though.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
HMMWV's In Iraq are now armored. I guess ATL's point of it not really being needed has been thumped. I'm very glad to hear this.

Come up with a new line to attack the administration with please, it was so 8 months ago.Try 3 months ago.

Stop taking things so personally. It definitely is not an attack on the administration. Soldiers, kind of like yourself, were the ones attacking Rumsfield if I remember correctly, not myself.


Hell I got a bunch that just got armor sitting in my motorpool, and we are not even over there.
That is really awesome Dave.

[Back]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Clipped:

The report also said that "U.S.-led forces were sole killers of 37 percent of civilian victims" and that "anti-occupation forces were sole killers of 9 percent of civilian victims." It added that "criminals killed 36 percent of all civilians."

.

I'd group the criminal element with the Insurgency. Also there seems to be a missing 18%.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government also disputed the findings stressing that the majority of casaulties were caused by the Insurgency and not by Coalition forces with attempted to minimize casualties. Nevermind that the study was prepared by human rights and anti-war activities, who collectively have a bias towards inflating the #s on the US military side as opposed to the Insurgency.

It's obviously not to be taken at face value. Especially when you factor in how Insurgents don't care who they kill, such as the tragic sucidide attack that killed more than 20 children. Of course the anti-war activitists would blame the US troops for that, stating that if they weren't there, there would had been no suicide bombing. Quite a form of asinine dedctive logic.

Editted to properly refer to the study as "findings" and not "facts".

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Atlanteax]

Ah, missed that part, my bad. But funny you want to use the report to attempt to make your point, which was nowhere near the trusth, then denounce it.

Its all there is because the coalition isn’t keeping tabs. That in and of itself says quite a bit. So much concern over Iraqis.

Regardless. There is no point arguing with you. Any differing points provided to you will just get rationalized away.

And horseshit on your anti-war = anti-US. Then again, you’re the same guy who thinks Greenpeace are terrorists.

[DeV]

ATL, I didn't bother to read that wall of text, sorry.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV
ATL, I didn't bother to read that wall of text, sorry.

The "wall" was quoting your quoting of me.

Just read the last 4-5 paragraphs for a conclusion then.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Backlash
Ah, missed that part, my bad. But funny you want to use the report to attempt to make your point, which was nowhere near the trusth, then denounce it.
Actually my point is quite near the truth. You just don't think so.


Regardless. There is no point arguing with you. Any differing points provided to you will just get rationalized away.Is that not the natural process of debate... to counter opposing arguments with rationale and to provide fresh points until the final conclusion?


And horseshit on your anti-war = anti-US. Then again, you’re the same guy who thinks Greenpeace are terrorists.

I clarified the anti-war = anti-US statement, to be the percieved bias in the study, not in reference to general public opinion.

Some (not all) of the activities pursed by Greenspeace does indeed resemble terrorist behavior. Particularly when it involves intimidation and an element of destruction.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
The "wall" was quoting your quoting of me.

Just read the last 4-5 paragraphs for a conclusion then. 4-5 paragraphs for a conclusion? Ok then. We both made our points, came to somewhat of an agreement. I know you'd like to get the last word in edge-wise, and you got it. :)

[Back]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I clarified the anti-war = anti-US statement, to be the percieved bias in the study, not in reference to general public opinion.

Some (not all) of the activities pursed by Greenspeace does indeed resemble terrorist behavior. Particularly when it involves intimidation and an element of destruction.

How are you making a distinction between anti-war and anti-US when you claim the people who did the report are throwing numbers towards the US? If someone is anti-war, thats what they are, anti-anyone-with-a-gun-who-kills-people, not anti-us. Insurgents are anti-us. See the difference?

And Greenpeace is a non-violent organization. Always has been. For you to claim they are terrorists... well, that makes you a lunatic, and criminal for slander. Its really really fucked up how you want to sling around the word terrorist in today’s world.

[Taernath]

Originally posted by Farquar

Here's a clip from the other side http://www.4th25.com/Tawidhumveeattack.wmv

For anyone who's curious, this clip was filmed and broadcast by Aljazeera, who was notified of this IED by insurgents and set up cameras to catch the attack on film. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[Edited on 7/19/05 by Taernath]

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Just read the last 4-5 paragraphs for a conclusion then.

This statement makes me chuckle.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I clarified the anti-war = anti-US statement, to be the percieved bias in the study, not in reference to general public opinion.

Some (not all) of the activities pursed by Greenspeace does indeed resemble terrorist behavior. Particularly when it involves intimidation and an element of destruction.

How are you making a distinction between anti-war and anti-US when you claim the people who did the report are throwing numbers towards the US? If someone is anti-war, thats what they are, anti-anyone-with-a-gun-who-kills-people, not anti-us. Insurgents are anti-us. See the difference?

And Greenpeace is a non-violent organization. Always has been. For you to claim they are terrorists... well, that makes you a lunatic, and criminal for slander. Its really really fucked up how you want to sling around the word terrorist in today’s world.

Some of Greenpeace's past actions proves otherwise, particularly within the past several years compared to earlier, as they've gotten more "daring".

Anyhow, at least I try to make my statements in a civil manner...

[Taernath]

Originally posted by Backlash
And Greenpeace is a non-violent organization. Always has been.

No. They claim to be a non-violent organization, yet they are constantly involved in physical altercations, and participate in civil disobediance, trespassing and vandalism. And not once have I seen an official condemnation of something their more militant members have done.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Taernath

Originally posted by Backlash
And Greenpeace is a non-violent organization. Always has been.

No. They claim to be a non-violent organization, yet they are constantly involved in physical altercations, and participate in civil disobediance, trespassing and vandalism. And not once have I seen an official condemnation of something their more militant members have done.

:yeahthat:

[DeV]

For a minute there I thought you were talking about the civil-rights movement.
:whistle:

Edited to add a smiley.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by DeV]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
64% were from arial assaults.The number is actually 64% of "more than half" (referring to explosives deaths), not 64% of all. The 4.3% is also incorrectly attributed, "anti-occupation" forces have killed 9% according to the article. 4.3% is the number for those killed by suicide vehicle bombs.

Wasn't there an article a while ago by a similar organization that had the count closer to 100,000?

[Back]

Originally posted by Taernath

Originally posted by Backlash
And Greenpeace is a non-violent organization. Always has been.

No. They claim to be a non-violent organization, yet they are constantly involved in physical altercations, and participate in civil disobediance, trespassing and vandalism. And not once have I seen an official condemnation of something their more militant members have done.

Great, lets make up stories. Our president does, why not everyone?

Protesters, activists, actionable people trying to do good in the world. Far far from what a terrorist is.

[Taernath]

How is it a made up story? Do a simple google search and you'll find many articles on Greenpeace clashing with whatever group they're currently trying to demonize.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV
For a minute there I thought you were talking about the civil-rights movement.
:whistle:

Edited to add a smiley.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by DeV]

That's a cheap shot.

Nevermind that I don't think civil-rights activitists strapped explosives on themselves and hurled themselves at whites.

.

Just the same as if one was calling the those in the American revolution terrorists.

Which has been demonstrated several times to not be comparable in that manner. :rolleyes:

[Back]

Originally posted by Taernath
How is it a made up story? Do a simple google search and you'll find many articles on Greenpeace clashing with whatever group they're currently trying to demonize.

I tried. Didn’t see what you were talking about. Show me what you mean.

And Greenpeace activities have resulted in violence. Against Greenpeace, not the other way around.

How did things become so backwards?

Anyway.. whew waaaay off topic.

The longer video explains quite a bit more about the situation. I had doubts that it was just American itchy trigger finger from the first one, but obviously it wasn’t.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
That's a cheap shot. Yeah, I know. Admittedly, I don't know much about the organization known as Greenpeace. I've never heard of them being considered a terrorist group until joining these boards.

I don't know, calling them terrorists could be considered a cheap shot also. :shrug:


Nevermind that I don't think civil-rights activitists strapped explosives on themselves and hurled themselves at whites.Nah, but look at the methods that had to be utilized before something actually happened. It's all about making a statement as loud as you can, depending on the perspective and goal of course.
It's the tactics, and those specifically described in that post, not as a whole which was the basis of my sarcasm.

[Tsa`ah]

4 pages wow.

I saw this video a few months after we invaded Iraq. An idiot was fired over it. He put all@ourcompaniesemail.com and put this as his attachment. Needless to say his defense of "showing his patriotism" didn't hold much water.

At first I thought the big truck was a military transport and the vehicle to the far left was an atv pulling some sort of gun. I didn't bother to look at the ground as it looked like a parking lot or road.

Now that I look at it closer, the vehicle to the left is either a small tractor or large mower. The white/hot bar at first looked like big gun or launcher barrel that had just been used ... but it's white ... like an exhaust. If you look at the ground directly in front of camera view you can see that the ground is tilled or mowed from right to left ending at the tractor. While the ground from in front of the tractor proceeding left is unmowed/tilled.

So yes, the vehicle to the far left is an ag vehicle of some kind doing something to the ground.

I'm not going to say that they were civilians or not. There's simply not enough there. They are a bit suspect in that after the first guy got the business end, the guy at the tractor was frantically pulling what looked like a tarp or cover off of something.

They could have been farmers, they could have been insurgents laying mines ... who knows. I'd be suspicious of anyone using such old footage claiming we were killing farmers. We know there have been massive civilian casualties, this footage doesn't further that in any way however.

Originally posted by Skirmisher
You could tell that to all those soldiers previously injured or maimed Dave.

I'm not sure it would be warm consolation at night though.

What about it. It is war. If the equipment is not available you adapt as needed. Its the way it is, was and always will be. We don't have all the gear we need. We could use better sights on our weapons, we could use better tires, better armor on our vehicles and on our person, We could use better night vision equipment, thermal sights, we could use a lot of things, but you make due with what you have. when a 500lbs bomb blows up under you the amount of armor means shit, the enemy is never using the same tactics. If they can blow the fuck out of a tank, a HMMWV armored or not wont be able to stand its ground.

People are not willing to pay the billions of dollars it would take to keep our troops safe as you want them to be. Nor is the American defence industry able to produce equipment in the numbers that were needed at the time. You see, the military does not build things, they do not manufacture, other private industry does it for us. .

[DeV]

At least the soldiers spoke up and demanded what they needed directly to the source instead of taking the stance of making do and saying nothing. It worked.

And the "demand" doesn't change anything. There are proper channels you go though to get stuff done. Those that did SHOULD have been punished accordingly. Things had already been in the works before they "spoke out." A bunch of truck driving pussies who were to scared to do their job. They swore an oath to follow orders and that is what they should have done.


Sergeant: "Private, run across that street and pull security on the other side!"

Private: "No sergeant, mean men might try to shoot at me."



and thats how i see it.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Dave]

[DeV]

Um no, I'm referring to those who addressed Donald Rumsfield directly when he came to deliver an address to a company of soldiers.

How you figured I was referring to the group of reserves that refused to obey orders actually getting something done on the level we've seen this year is waaaaaay out in left field.

Those who refused to do their job were disciplined as I understood and they should have been.

[Skirmisher]

Dave, you see everything in black and white and that is a huge part of what is wrong with how you "see" everything in this world we live on.

At least inhale one breath in a combat zone before you decide that having gone through the most basic of trainings, you are fit to judge the motivations of soldiers asking a question as they had been gathered together for a photo op and told to do.

[Artha]

Protesters, activists, actionable people trying to do good in the world. Far far from what a terrorist is.
These terrorists that we're fighting think that the world would be an awesome place if everyone was Muslim.

They're just trying to make the world better, you ignorant fucks!!!1!

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha

Protesters, activists, actionable people trying to do good in the world. Far far from what a terrorist is.
These terrorists that we're fighting think that the world would be an awesome place if everyone was Muslim.

They're just trying to make the world better, you ignorant fucks!!!1!

Artha Artha Artha... if people trying to do good = terrorist, that means everyone is a terrorist, except the real terrorists!

[Artha]

But who's to judge what's good or not!?

[Back]

Anarchist!

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Dave, you see everything in black and white and that is a huge part of what is wrong with how you "see" everything in this world we live on.

At least inhale one breath in a combat zone before you decide that having gone through the most basic of trainings, you are fit to judge the motivations of soldiers asking a question as they had been gathered together for a photo op and told to do.

Ive been in the army for a year. The most basic of trainings ended 10 months ago for me.

Breath one day in the life of a soldier and then you can comment on the way things in the military are.

And lets not talk about the STAGED QUESTION FROM A REPORTER that was asked of Mr. Rumsfield. (but little bits of information like that don't matter do they. It doesn't fit into your agenda so the fact that the question was asked makes all the difference.)

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Dave]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave

Ive been in the army for a year. The most basic of trainings ended 10 months ago for me.

Oh well then I take it back, you are a finely tuned weapon clearly poised and ready to strike and any pussy soldiers actually serving under fire should take your criticism as the golden law it must be.





And lets not talk about the STAGED QUESTION FROM A REPORTER that was asked of Mr. Rumsfield. (but little bits of information like that don't matter do they. It doesn't fit into your agenda so the fact that the question was asked makes all the difference.)


Please do outline my agenda Dave if you think you know it so well.

And regarding the question posed to Rumsfeld, I'm sure it was irksome for him while in the time set aside for a supposed 'real opportunity' to ask impromptu questions, to face a question that wasn't scripted by his own people.

I know Bush has set a fine example in having what is I think the fewest number of questions and answer oppotunities that aren't photo ops, but poor frail Rumsfeld actually got a question he was unprepared for.

Cry about it why don't you.

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Dave

Ive been in the army for a year. The most basic of trainings ended 10 months ago for me.

Oh well then I take it back, you are a finely tuned weapon clearly poised and ready to strike and any pussy soldiers actually serving under fire should take your criticism as the golden law it must be.

You forget I work and socialize on a day to day basis with people who have been there. I don't form my opinions out of ignorance I am as educated as somebody in my situation can be. (which happens to be more so than you :) )

Not to mention, do you honestly think my views are going to change when I do go. Come on be realistic.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Dave]

So, what makes you think skirmisher doesn't talk to people in a war zone

[Asha]

Sometimes, it seems there are threads designed JUST for the trolls to hijack.
When people were joking around at the beginning of this thread it was slightly more fun than seeing someone backed into a corner by other posters. Even if he does bring it on himself.

[Ilvane]

You are always going to have people in the Army or any part of the Armed forces that haven't even seen Iraq that are going to be "Our country do or die", and you are going to have those that have been there that say things are going well..and that we are winning the war.

Then you are going to have good soldiers who worked hard and came back and were horrified at the things they needed to do.

I saw a documentary that had a kid(probably early 20's) saying it wasn't hard to kill people because it was like a video game...

That's scary because there are real lives at stake..It's NOT a damned video game.

-A

[Asha]

I agree life is not a video game, but I can see how people with the tendancy to become a killer can identify, enjoy or even practice on murderous and graphic video games.

It doesn't make seeing people killed like in the clip any easier to see, from seeing death in extremely graphic and realistic video games. But it helps someone like me pretend it's not real.
Becouse what I saw were helpless people being targeted and destroyed.
I prefer to pretend it's not real.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I saw a documentary that had a kid(probably early 20's) saying it wasn't hard to kill people because it was like a video game...

That's scary because there are real lives at stake..It's NOT a damned video game.

-A

I know what you're getting at, but I think emotional detatchment is important in some cases. People deal with stress in different ways; some soldiers get PTSD, some get depressed, and some just go plain nuts. If equating it to a video game will help some kid soldier out there stay more alert and alive, then I really can't fault him for it.

[Artha]

I saw a documentary that had a kid(probably early 20's) saying it wasn't hard to kill people because it was like a video game...

That's scary because there are real lives at stake..It's NOT a damned video game.
People aren't really made to kill other people. You've got to deal with it some way, and that way probably sort of works for him.

[Back]

BOOM! Headshot!

[Asha]

And I bet you don't get nailed for saying that.

[Warriorbird]

Don't worry. (http://www.kizash.com/films/1001/138/index.php)

Originally posted by RangerD1
So, what makes you think skirmisher doesn't talk to people in a war zone
I'm not saying she dosent. There are numbers involved.

[Slider]

Y'know, part of the problem here is the way most of you folks are defining the word "armor" here. First off, the mistake most of you are making is assuming that the word armor = bulletproof.

Speaking from experience, military armor is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination bulletproof. It's not designed to stop assault rifle fire, it is designed to stop shell fragments, say from a grenade, or if your lucky enough to be far enough outside of its footprint, mortar or artillery shells. If your really lucky, it might, repeat MIGHT, stop light pistol fire....wouldn't want to bet on it though.

Mind you, the stuff the military is issued now is a hell of an improvement over the old steel pots and flak jackets from back in the day, but still. No body armor is capable of stopping assault rifle fire, least not that I've ever heard of. Hell, I knew guys that would go out and buy civilian body armor, on their own dime mind you, for just this reason. Still not gonna do you a hell of a bit of good against an AK, but it will at least stop pistol slugs...mostly.

Also, the same thing goes with the "armor" on a HMMWV; it ain't there folks. The HMMWV as originally designed was a utility and transportation vehicle, y'know..it was a replacement for the old Army jeep...you remember those, right...open topped...saw combat damn near everywhere...ok...go watch some old WWII movies then come back.

It wasn't supposed to be a combat vehicle any more than the jeep was. Course, plenty of jeeps had a machine guns mounted on 'em, some of 'em even mounted a Ma Duece. But that don't mean its a combat vehicle. Even the new armor package that got added to some of the Armies HMMWV's won't stop an RPG, it's not designed to, its designed to stop small arms fire not rockets, and for damn sure not anti- freaking TANK mines.

Oh, and as far as Rumsfield getting "nailed" by that question, it wasn't his decision folks, it was the ARMIES decision to NOT up-armor its HMMWV's, not his. The Marine Corps still doesn't have any of 'em, they borrow 'em from the Army (that's gotta hurt too Heh). Remember, armor adds some 2000 lbs to the weight of the vehicle. It makes it slower, harder to transport, and I hate to think what it does to its fuel econemy (and thus, range). The Army made the decision during and after the Kosovo crisis to up-armor a small number of HMMWV's, so it didn't happen on Rumsfields watch, it was back in the Clinton era (Not blaming it on him either mind you, just saying). The Army told its civilian leadership, "Hey, we don't need a lot of armored HMMWV's, just a few". And that is what they got, a small number of 'em.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Drayal
And I bet you don't get nailed for saying that.

There's no clause in TOS that precludes stupidity. ;)

[Asha]

:lol:

[Back]

Someone here had a thread about movie about a rabid FPS player who shouted BOOM! Headshot! and described how he ran better with a knife in his hand.

My post was tongue in cheek referring to this crazy FPS person and relates to the conversation about video games desensitizing people to violence.

The Army has a recruitment video game thats a multi-player FPS much like Call of Duty and MOH. Its free and its pretty good.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Slider
Y'know, part of the problem here is the way most of you folks are defining the word "armor" here. First off, the mistake most of you are making is assuming that the word armor = bulletproof.
Heh, only a fool would take "armor" to mean bulletproof or completely free from injury, death, or maiming. That is definitely not my meaning. Just speaking for myself.

[Nieninque]

I dont know if anyone noticed, but on the first video, the first man they shot was walking towards someone else who, when they opened fire, was just on the right of the camera shot. When they started firing, he dropped to the floor and they didnt seem to pick him up again, despite the fact that he didnt move again.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Slider
Y'know, part of the problem here is the way most of you folks are defining the word "armor" here. First off, the mistake most of you are making is assuming that the word armor = bulletproof.

...



Here is an article I posted from the NYTimes dealing with exactly that subject Slider. It goes into almost every point you bring up I think. If you missed it you may find it interesting.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=15739

Originally posted by Nieninque
I dont know if anyone noticed, but on the first video, the first man they shot was walking towards someone else who, when they opened fire, was just on the right of the camera shot. When they started firing, he dropped to the floor and they didnt seem to pick him up again, despite the fact that he didnt move again.

The thermal sight would have picked him up if he was there. The things are pretty amazing in what you can see with them. laying down and hiding wouldn't offer much protection because none of the plants in the picture give off any kind of heat signature.
He prolly ran and hid behind one of the trucks or something would be my guess

[Nieninque]

You can still see him there

When they shot the first got his body splattered and left a heat signature on the grass.. The guy that dropped went off frame when they went after the tractor looking thing... hes prolly the guy behind the large truck who poked his head out

Just my guess though, I didn't see anyone still laying in the grass when they scan back.

I saw an apache shoot its 30mm today. It was cool

:) I have to ask is what they were shooting at.

some dude

[Slider]

Don't even get me started on the "military procurement system". Why in the fuck a toilet seat needs a Mil-spec rating to "endure combat conditions" (upping the cost to a whopping price tag of, and I shit you not, 90 bucks apiece) is pure horse-shit!

Or how about this for for really depressing, the computers that the Navy uses for its fire control Radars and Sonar gear looks like something out of a freakin' 1950 Sci-fi flick, not to mention that your average palm-pilot has more processing power than one of these freaking antiques.

Oh, wait, it gets even better....want to know how many U.S. Navy ships have gone out and bought hand-held civilian GPS systems because they are more accurate than the ones we have installed on board? Every single one that I know of!

Mind you, part of this is the militaries fault. Like the stupid contracts that we sign with suppliers. Give you a perfect example; in Basic Electricity & Electronics school in the Navy, we are taught to troubleshoot a malfunction down to the component that went bad (i.e. the resistor on the circuit board that fried), and then remove and replace that component, and test it to see if it works. But, the contract that the Navy signed with the company that supplies, say, the circuit boards for the 5'/54 Gun Mount that I worked on requires us to pull the bad card, trade the old one in to our Supply officer, who then sends the bad card BACK to the manufacturer, who replace that 15 cent resistor that burned out and then SELLS the card back to the Navy. At 2 grand a pop.

Throw in high ranking military personel getting all kinds of bennies, or better yet, jobs after they retire, from these companies who are trying to sell their new and improved peice-o-crap uber-toy for that fat chunk of gov't money, (guaranteed for the next 10-15 years remember). And lets not forget those fine folks on the military appropriations committe who would never DREAM of (not) taking anything so dishonerable as a bribe (well, ok, they won't take a small bribe) from said company. And that folks would be our military procurement system.

You also forgot that it takes over a year to get said replacement parts sometimes.

[Taernath]

Originally posted by Slider
Or how about this for for really depressing, the computers that the Navy uses for its fire control Radars and Sonar gear looks like something out of a freakin' 1950 Sci-fi flick, not to mention that your average palm-pilot has more processing power than one of these freaking antiques.


Let me throw another in there, since I like to vent.

My post recently built a new COR office at a remodeled gate, along with around 10 bunkers, stonehenge-esque monuments that are designed to be bulletproof and provide 'overwatch'. The COR office itself is bulletproof, has bulletproof windows, a venting system to allow operation in... I think a class 5 contamination environment (I'm not NBC), a remote operated camera system, PA system and a gate closure system, along with many other high-tech goodies. The office itself cost $250,000, and the bunkers (only 1 of which will ever be used) cost around $10,000. The gate setup itself cost upwards of several million.

And now for the punchline...

The post closes in 5 years.

Heyyyo!

[Latrinsorm]

I'd take that as a message to request a transfer, personally. Apparently we're already lining up the next war. :help: