Elmar Bijlsma
-
Posts
3,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Elmar Bijlsma
-
-
I suggest a certain person at least put the term Persians through wikipedia. Look at the definition, look at the number of Persians estimated to be in Iraq. Now look up Babil Province in wiki. Look at the population. Do the math.
-
But we ARE fighting the poppy (and marihuana) growing. We ARE trying to dismantle the power of the warlords in favour of the central government. And any other news source then Fox will tell you that the Taliban is having a resurgence amongst the Afghani populace. Not in small part because of the aforementioned undertakings, I might add.
The Taliban are still capable of attacks involving hundreds of soldiers at a time. Operations against the Taliban still require heavy air and artillery support. Support that's eroding Afghan support for NATO troops btw. For every battle we fight there's dozens village that never sees a coalition patrol. And in those place is where the Taliban thrives and grows
Ofcourse, it isn't all bad. From what news I can gather the ANA and police forces are actually willing to fight side by side and are given (opprtunistic) support by villagers. Not just "good on ya" support, villagers come out to fight the Taliban, especially foreign Taliban. And with the influx of US Marines (and Uruzan recently got a helping of Ghurkas) we might just tip the balance. It's winnable, more so then Iraq even post surge IMHO but sadly, it's winnable for both sides.
-
Back off topic. I reckon they dislike being blown up even more. Anyway, if you do not know who Bill Hicks is and why he said what he did (satirizing the US history of warfare) you are doing yourself a disfavour.Originally posted by abneo3sierra:the same person defending Elmar who posted"And all that's the cost efficiency of an army that blows the **** out of nations of little brown people on a regular basis. For nations with a lesser bloodthirst, such expenditure is perhaps prudent but wasteful too"
as if they would enjoy being termed little brown people...
And I reckon BD6 "defended" me (labelling me quite rightly as an equal opportunity offender) because large I try not make statements about stuff I know nothing about.
-
Truthiness alert!Originally posted by wolf66:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dean F.:
Really ? So what would the body count be on the US side and on the Iraqi (including civilians) side since the invasion ? </font>Dean is right in saying that by and large the US tries harder then most. Hard enough to warrant a mention, dare I say praise even. But let's not pretend that they are extraordinarily prone to self sacrifice for fear of civilian casualties either. They carry a big stick and are not overly discreet in using it.
-
I do apologize if you perceive me as trolling, that wasn't quite what I intended. I'm afraid when I set out to be thought-provoking I put as much effort in provoking as thought.
My OTT satirical statement in my first post here was perhaps best left out.And yet, in some way I feel mission accomplished. Because you are right, every one's history is *ahem* chequered. In a thread where $100.000 is put forward as a worthwhile expense to save/kill people, that's not a wholly undesirable sentiment to keep in mind. But perhaps that's a tad too philosophical for this thread.
But again, sorry for the offence.
On Afghanistan, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Casualties are low, you say. Well thank goodness for that. But low bodycounts are a poor way of tracking success. I don't know how things are in eastern Afghanistan but in the south it's still a mess and getting worse. The Taliban are less prone to the mass attacks of 2005, in part to the severe kicking the Canadians and UK forces gave them. Yet they are controlling more territory then ever. We are winning battles, in no small part due all our technical advantages. Yet the war is being lost. There are frequently large operations now where coalition forces clear out Taliban strongholds. That the Taliban even have strongholds at all is pretty damning. That these battles are so damaging to Afghan public opinion and that we are bagging so few Taliban is alarming too.
abneo3sierra,
I'm not proposing we send our soldiers out to the front with a stick and our best wishes. But I'm wondering if perhaps we are taking things tro far. (we as in, the Dutch army has some pretty nifty toys too) 100.000 is money well spent to save a soldier. Okay, this might be so, but is there an upper limit where you have to ask yourself if things aren't a bit silly. $1mln? $10mln? There comes a point where one has to except that people are going to end up dead if you fight a war. And I'm more and more of the thinking that the adversity to casualties and the costs that come along with preventing death is preventing Western armiess (as mentioned not just the US, but they are leading from the front, pardon the pun) from leaving a big enough footprint to win wars. Battles, yes. Wars, not so much.
I do agree on your view of Iraq though. Political dithering made sure a tricky situation just got completely FUBAR. In Afghanistan I feel the politicians were doing a lot better. Yet the inability to provide security for anyone not living directly near a coalition compound, coupled with the ill timed efforts to eradicate poppy fields undid everything.
-
In the places coalition forces are present they are doing a bang up job blowing up Taliban and random villagers. Hurray! In the places they aren't, warlords and the Taliban are calling the shots to our detriment. And they are gaining terrain on us. The Taliban are burning the schools and hospitals much, much faster then we can build them. While B-1b's are giving CAS(!) to our troops fighting the Taliban in one village the Taliban march in to another one and tie a young man to a tree and set him on fire for assisting the coalition. How's that for winning militarily?Originally posted by abneo3sierra:Actually, both wars are being militarily won. What the politicians do with the victory is another issue.
Iraq is a different kettle of fish. And wouldn't you know it, most of the cock ups result from faulty intelligence* and... with not going in with enough men in the first place. Because it was too expensive. Ofcourse, I grant you it's a long string of political cock ups from there on in. But point is still that the military in Iraq, for all it's prowess is too thin on the ground to protect citizens from bandits, zealots and/or militia.
On the rare occasion that I smoke, I try to do so like Bill Hicks did. You should try it some time.Your last paragraph is insulting, and entirely inaccurate.As for it being inaccurate, I urge you to find a list of wars the US has been involved in and going down that list picture the skin colour of the opposition.
*Not enough agents in the field, too much reliance on gadgets (waitaminute, that sounds familiar!
-
I disagree, and think Redwolf has a valid point.
Firstly, the soldier is there to protect the citizen, not the other way around. Remember, they volunteered. Few citizens volunteer to pay tax.
And plenty of people do quibble about it. People complain about the cost of the war in Iraq. That war is costly for a reason.
Secondly, it's got to stop somewhere. I honestly believe that the USA is on the tipping point of crossing the boundary as to how expensive is worth the while. You now have planes flying that have the value of a town, dropping weapons with a value of a sizeable home on targets that have not the value of a home made tree hut. You can't seriously think that's sustainable on the long run.
And it's not just bean counter objections. The US army is developing all kinds of hideously expensive gadgets of marginal value. Sure, it might save a life on occasion. But it also burdens your troops and logistics and and the money for it comes out of the same jar that pays for more troops.
For now things are going OK, with Muqtada al-Sadr keeping the truce as long as the surge is on. But the US can't sustain the surge indefinitely. The extra troops are de-facto hostages of al-Sadr.
In Afghanistan however the coalition is severely short-handed and that war is just plain being lost right now because of it.
I honestly believe that had the US put more money in manpower and less in expensive gadgets it would have a similar butchers bill and victory in both conflicts.
And all that's the cost efficiency of an army that blows the **** out of nations of little brown people on a regular basis. For nations with a lesser bloodthirst, such expenditure is perhaps prudent but wasteful too.
-
Wiki says it's planned to be deployed in 2015(!) so I don't reckon BFC have any plans for it.
-
It would be nice to have more put direction of defences put in to the players hands instead of the designers, I agree. If the engine can make bomb craters during gameplay, I would hope it's possible to make trenches and such during setup also.
-
It should work, and it does. Select unit, hoover over target vehicle with cursor, LEFT click.
You wouldn't happen to have an ATI card, would you?
-
Besides agreeing with the points Dorosh made, I wouldn't put the Poles among the victors of WW2. I reckon they were the biggest losers of all.
-
If I wanted to know what 1.07 fixed I would read the 1.07 sticky.
-
Yup, no doubt changed because of the many, many people coming to the forum complaining that the Javelin doesn't work. But I do prefer the old way as it gave more freedom.
Not that having four launchers and at least as many missiles in a single squad can't be fun.
-
With the small unit sizes it only gives you a single platoon out of the chosen OOB. (in this case heavy inf) Infantry or tank, not half a platoon of one and half a platoon of the other. Once you get to bigger battle sizes things are more representative of the choice you made.
But in the current state I'd have to concur with Adaml. QBs are more trouble then they are worth. Once in a while CMSF might throw a fun QB your way, most times they are SNAFU.
-
That does sound interesting.
It's basically a Steel Panthers like campaign, am I right? Sweet! That's the major annoyance with Combat Mission, the lack of a serious long play campaign. Even CMC wouldn't have been quite enough for me, I suspect.
This OTOH sounds right up my street.
A campaign stretching from '41 to '45 with as many battles in between as I like? That's a sale.
-
Even with modules it's still going to be a narrower experience then that, Omenowl.
CM:WW2 is going to be Normandy US v Germany and modules most likely will be more along the lines of: Commonwealth in Normandy, Airborne in Normandy with possibilities for further Market Garden, Bulge or crossing the Rhine modules. We'd end up CMBO like scope, max.
If I understood Steve correctly, that is.
-
I really don't get this complaint, which I've seen before. Why does it matter, what's so damned awful about going to Gamershell or such?Originally posted by GSX:What I do have an issue with is the proxy servers used by BF to update its own game. Surely they should offer the BF patch on the BF site and not some of sites it is on?
BFC doesn't have to pay for bandwidth, Gamershell gets you to drop by, you get to download at a good speed from a fairly local server. Why isn't everyone happy? :confused:
-
What's this Arnheim you speak of? You could even have looked at how Nidan1 wrote it, though I fully understand the dangers of following Nidan1's lead.
And back again.
-
That would be good.Originally posted by FAI:I was hoping for something worthy of the venerable X-COM's successor.
-
And where is the MC Escher mod?
-
I do believe that the will of the Kosovar majority told the will of the Serbian majority to get lost. You illustrate everything that's wrong with Serbia right now. You apparently hadn't even considered the Kosovar viewpoint on the mattter, but instead thought of the Serbian majority as the only relevant opinion.Originally posted by Marwek77 aka Red Reporter:17.02.2008, when Kosovo has declared independence against the will of majority, which will lead to the new destabilization of the region...
And if you were willing to look seriously at how the Serbs ruthlessly dominated their neighbours for so long, it is not hard to understand why the Kosovar people decided to go their own way. The recent more inclusive Serbian policies were too little, too late.
Oh poor bully, why will the other kids not play with you?
-
While a worthy suggestion, I would think it has one major flaw. The Jordanians will not draw a lot of people in to purchase the mod, compared to a Marines/Brits/Germans module. They are neither well know or perceived as cool and that would be a real headache for marketing the module.
What's wrong with the Enlish? Nothing that I could see. The German of most here would be far, far worse.
-
The people with pistols are simulated as having pistols, there just doesn't seem to be a pistol animation for it. Combat results are unaffected by this oversight.
-
From what I've seen campaign battle no.1 is affected, but not disastrously so IMHO. In it the AI can still put up a fight. Indeed, the surprise value means it's just as good if not better then before.
Battle two is seriously, seriously crippled though, with many Syrian troops in the open, bunkers completely out of place, etc.
But the other scenarios in the campaign seemed fine to me. I didn't get all the way to the end but you should be able to get pretty far without seeing it again, if ever, once you get past the 2nd battle.
My OTT satirical statement in my first post here was perhaps best left out.
it's been 7 months Hunter
in Combat Mission Campaigns
Posted
Indeed, the term "patient" is only busied around here in connection with mental institutions.