Panzer76
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Panzer76
-
-
Indeed it is, and I would just like for people to recognise it for what it is instead of spouting off some ideological crap.Originally posted by NG cavscout:It's called "realpolitik" I believe. Welcome to the real world.
-
How about just trying to be fair? That would be a good start.Originally posted by lucero1148:It's easy to speculate about turning our backs on Israel to appease the Muslims but would it work?
-
And on what grounds should one take military action, or indeed invade Syria?Originally posted by NG cavscout:Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel? If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces?
If the basis is the suspected link to the assasination in Lebanon, then USA and most larger powers in the world should have been invaded many times over.
-
Steve, it sounds like you are preaching that a Striker Company makes Tank companies obsolete.
Now, I dont really think thats what you are saying, but it might seem like it. Also, seems like the Tank company in your scenario lives in a vacume, which I dont think it would do.
My scanrio could be: Stryker Company on advance, runs into tank ambush = one dead Stryker Company. These scenarios do not tell much about te eabililties of the units as they are fictional and would seldom, if ever happen IRL.
-
This is getting very political, and farther and farther away from the game..
-
Panzer76, "could you do us all a favour and not quote the WHOLE post your are replying to just to add a sentance? It quickly fills the threads and are not nessacery. Thank you."Originally posted by Znarf:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:
I thought your cause was democracy and freedom, and the rights that follows, like the right for a fair trail?
Sound familiar????
</font> -
Yes I suppose you are right there. I just have a feeling that the trial will do more harm than good for our cause. </font>Originally posted by GSX:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />GSX. That's a good point re. Saddam should have been executed on capture but that's the easy way out. At least for myelf bring him to trial may be arduous and a pain to suffer listening to Saddam defend himself, but it is necessary for the Iraqi's, the region and ultimately the world to realize that justice can be meted out to criminals like Saddam. To have had him killed out of spite would have made him a martyr automatically to the Arab world. Now if he's prosecuted and sentanced by his own people no one can fault that as it would be the will of the nation doing the punishment. My thoughts only.
-
-
Is that the red or the blue pill? Nevermind, I'll just follow that nice rabbit down the .. err. spider hole?Originally posted by GSX:Maybe you should take a realism pill.
-
Well, you would be amazed what they call WMD these days. Like a 20 yr old Arty shell with traces of chemical gas on it.Originally posted by Philippe:I wasn't aware that chemical weapons were WMD's.
But I think chemical weapons, along with nuclear and biological weapons are classified as WMD.
-
Bah, while I doubt US has the manpower to put boots in sufficent numbers on the ground in Syria now, it would not matter if they had. Why? Because with GWB falling and record low approval rates in the US, I don't think the US voters would be too keen on sending their boys to yet another quicksand deployment.
-
So, can we post links to videos of US personell/vehicles being blasted to pieces by IEDs etc?
I mean, it would show how a Stryker would hold up vs a IED for example, or a Black Hawk vs a AA rocket. But I guess it would upset many of you. Conversly, perhaps ANY videos of battles in Iraq/Afgan would be upsetting and should not be posted here?
-
Tom, could you do us all a favour and not quote the WHOLE post your are replying to just to add a sentance? It quickly fills the threads and are not nessacery. Thank you.
-
Wrong. U.S. leg coalition, was in accordance with UN resolutions, but was not a UN action. Gulf War II was also in accordance with UN resolutions, but was not a UN action - it was predominately a US/UK operation.Originally posted by Znarf:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew H.:
The coalition troops in GW1 were UN troops, which must have been why they were so horrible.
Big difference: U.S. led = Objectives met; UN led = objectives discussed and discussed and discussed... </font>
-
Does this mean that we will retain the "feature" from CM1 where a tank in motion could be hit while it was out of LOS because it was in LOS when the "hit" was calculated?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The missile, if it is supposed to hit, will hit.
Steve
-
You mean since it aint in Iraq it HAS to be in Syria? I mean, it gotta to be somewhere, right?!Originally posted by RMC:I read a piece about Syria a year or so ago when the buzz was that the US was going to have to invade Syria to get the WMD that Saddam snuck over the border just before the invasion.
Oh uh, I feel a political chill down my neck..
-
Double post
-
Which is why I said you could likewise include gun camOriginally posted by Pirx:I don't think it is inconsistent with the player's role as "commander", because the game already lets you move the camera anywhere you like.
-
*Walks over to the penalty box* :mad: :mad:Originally posted by J Ruddy:Penalty: Two Minutes for overuse of UPPER CASE letters...!
-
Because YOU are NOT the crew, you are the commander.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:Why Panzer 76
-
Well, I think it is as realistic to ask for that as the rest of your suggestionsOriginally posted by Peter Cairns:I wouldn't want bomb or shell view where you fly to the target, as short of "Dr Strangelove", you can't do it.
-
I think, albeit realistic, it would be too much of an annoyance for the player.
-
As some have mentioned, CMx2 will perhaps not cover WWII, and will surely move to other timeframes later on atleast.
So, can we all agre that smoke is being activly used ny inf in more modern ages?
Should not then inf smoke be modeled?
-
You just found that out?Originally posted by Andreas:Yeah, and I think he doesn't know what he is talking about.
</font>
We could be in Syria well before 2007
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted