juan_gigante
-
Posts
796 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by juan_gigante
-
-
I'd further like to point out that the "Withdraw" command we have now really sucks. Yeah, no command delay, but the unit is "Run"ing, which makes them very vunerable to fire, and they have an automatic chance to panic. We should have something better.
But, if I'm recalling the movement bones Steve threw us a while ago, I think that when you give a movement order, you can specify a priority - on this move, emphasize speed. On this one, send out lots of fire. On this, avoid enemy fire. I think that through smart use of those options, you should be able to fix the problem to some degree.
-
Well, golly. I'm positively tickled! I guess this means another sig change. Thanks to the Olde Ones, the Justicar, and my liege Sir v42below. I am honored to serve the Mutha Beautiful Thread any way I can.
-
Now that stoat can drive (such a big boy!), shouldn't he be out cruising for chicks instead of trying to be like Seanachai and writing long, meaningless rambles with lots of big words, hoping to impress us with his skill with a thesaurus, assuming (correctly? perhaps just the Aussies) that we're a bunch of simpleton nincompoops with nothing to do but sit around to the ramblings of some idiot who sat awake at night thinking and suddenly believes he's the next Nietzsche, but come the next morning will realize he's just another Midwestern boob doomed to a 3.1 GPA degree from Nebraska State University and a meaningless and unrewarding job as a deputy assistant manager at some accounting firm that no one recognizes the name of but really controls the money of everyone South of the Mason-Dixon line, with a over-weight but good-cooking wife named Barb, and two kids, a 10 year old snot-nosed boy who absolutely adores farting and a 6 year old girl who wears nothing but jumpers expect when playing (poorly) for the U-6 soccer team that Barb made her join (kids need exercise) but she doesn't really like, but he still needs to drive her there every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday in his Ford Focus ST that kind of needs a new transmission, but not enough to make it worth it and everything that goes along with that, and (lest we forget the point) will go to school again the next day just the same as normal, but will have forgotten his biology homework, which is irritating because the teacher never reminds them, and then he'll go home and spend the afternoon reading fiction 2 grade levels ahead of where he is, but not really understanding it 100%, and then he'll come here and post all fancy-schmancy again in the evening, and repeat the cycle?
Or you could, y'know, fix your computer and send out some damn turns.
-
I think Peter's point revolves around the comparative benefits per cost of the V-22 and, say, better equipping our guys on the ground. Like it or not, the military will not have unlimited amounts of money to spend. That money which we do have available should be spent as efficiently as possible. I personally believe that the money spent on the V-22, great vehicle that it is, would be better spent on higher pay and better equipment for soldiers.
Do I wish that the Marines could have the V-22? Yeah. As LtCol West pointed out, it is a really good vehicle that fills a need we don't have adequately filled. But given the choice between the V-22 program and having enough body armor for our troops (something we don't have yet), I'll take the body armor every day of the week. I'd also take more money on Strykers and other ground armored vehicles, including up-armoring HMMWVs, more money on VA hospitals and such, and more money spent researching energy independance, so we won't have to worry so much about the Middle East and oil at all, among other things.
There's things I'd cut before the V-22, even. I honestly think that the US probably never needs to build another submarine for another 50 years. Our naval supremacy is absolutely unquestionable, and to be building even more ridiculously expensive hunter-killer submarines to kill enemy navies that do not now and likely won't any time soon exist is a waste, in my book. Same for the F-22.
If I were in charge of the US defense budget, I'd immediately slash the Air Force and Navy's budgets by a third, and give that money to the Army and Marines, and insist they spend it on useful things.
LtCol West points out, correctly, that we do need to be prepared for the possibility of high-intensity warfare against a reasonably competent foe. But, I would argue that two basic points refute that:
1. I think we already have the capability to win any war against any foe, and that's a capability we aren't likely to lose any time soon. And besides, taking money from fancy projects and giving to soldiers on the ground will still help our high-intensity warfare capability.
2. The chances of a high-intensity war are, in my mind, fairly low. For all the talk of some Pentagon war simulators, we aren't going to be fighting China tomorrow or something. I do know, however, that now and in the near future, the US will be guaranteed to be involved in low-intensity conflicts in failed states, dictatorships, and peacekeeping missions. Why not concentrate on those capabilities we know we need instead of the maybes?
-
-
I think that US public opinion depends more on the conflict than on how many died. After all, a whole lot of Americans died in WWII, and America's resolve stayed pretty firm. I think that a better judge of resolve is what the people see for the future and the nature of the conflict itself.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:I am not sure it's even at all, The Vietnamese were prepared to give 1 million to reunify their country, Us resolve began to crack at 50,000.
The Iranians lost close to 1 million fighting Iraq, Saddam over 100,000 in Kuwait, US public opinion is shifting against US forces in Iraq at less than 3,000.
When the Chinese invaded Vietnam over Cambodia, in a month they took 60,000 casualties, with 20,000 dead. The chinese leadership were disappointed by the result, but didn't bat an eye at the casualties.
Even if the US was to kill at a rate of 20 to one, which would be unlikely given the scenario, if the Chinese were prepared to sacrifice 1 million men, the US would need to be prepared to lose 50,000, Korea only cost 33,000.
Peter.
In WWII, people would support the war despite high casualties because 1: it was clear we were winning and 2: it was clear we were doing the right thing by fighting evil. In Vietnam, the public didn't support the war because 1: no end was in sight and 2: after a while, people saw the war less as a crusade against communism and more as a attempt to prop up a failing state on grounds of questionable legality.
I think that if China were to do a Pearl Harbor attack on America, the American people would likely support a war with China through to its end, despite the high costs along the way. I do not, however, think that the American people would support the cause of Taiwanese independance so strongly.
-
Are we still talking about dildos?
-
I agree that the small core of extremely dedicated terrorists won't be deterred by winning hearts and minds. But I believe that 99% of terrorists (and I use that term to describe Palestinians suicide bombers, Iraq insurgents, who are terrorists in my mind, AQ foot soldiers, and more) joined originally because of fundamentally economic reasons.Originally posted by LtCol West:Juan, you are confusing the Islamic terrorits types with the insurgents in all of the countries you have mentioned. Hearts and minds is absolutely vital in fighting the insurgencies, (which we are not losing, but things are difficult in key areas of the country). And you cannot engage an insurgent without thinking about the repercussions of the collateral damage. You dont want to kill one insurgent and make his family into 10 more. At the same time, doing nothing has a similar price, as it emboldens insurgents. By the way, dont think of the insurgents as Washington's or Lee's army. Most are really just fighting gang style for their piece of stakes. They are not fighting for a free Iraq. Even the Sunni insurgents are very divided amongst themselves into their various tribes.
But none of that works with AQ types. And you are right, changing the Middle East so people are free to pursue happiness and a better way of life is the long term solution. Making democratic governments in the Arabic culture is difficult, but making pro-US, benign governments that promote free enterprise is much more doable. And, in my humble opinion, that economic equation will finally snuff out Islamic extremists (there will always be some, just like the David Koresh types in the US), and more importantly, the mainstream Muslims in those countries will completely reject them.
A thriving Iraq will economically crush Iran and Syria and it would spread a dominoe effect. It would still take time, but the entire world is moving towards globilization, like it or not. Maybe true democracy will follow, but the economics will flourish the fastest as soon as it can start.
But the core terrorists, the ones killing more Iraqis than US military personnel, the ones that will do anything to hurt the US and any other non-believer, the ones who use kids as suicide bombers, those are the ones that we need to continually hunt. Day and night, for as long as it takes.
Here's another way of putting it. You mention "the ones who use kids as suicide bombers". What if no kid wanted to be a suicide bomber? What if instead of blowing themselves up, they had a job and a prospering family? How long would it be before society marginalized the AQ types itself?
How things are going in Iraq is a debate I don't think we should get into today.
I just don't think you can separate the WoT into "The part where you win hearts and minds of the ordinary people" and "The part where you kill terrorists". Each affects the other.
-
A parallel that we won't know what will decide the war on terror? A parallel that we won that one and will also win this one? To say that we'll win just because we won last time is a little silly. Now, I personally feel that, if we do the right thing, we are capable of winning, and I hope we do. But I also recognize the potential for us to screw this up.
I guess my fundamental problem with the author is that he discounts hearts and minds out of hand. I do think he has a point in some areas - for years I've decried the Navy and Air Force's bloated and useless budgets, wasting money on things that aren't necessary. I wholly agree that modern military theorists sometimes convince themselves technology can win battles by itself.
I absolutely agree. But right now, they're the biggest "front" on the WoT. And, I'd argue, Iraq is serving as the incubator and training ground for a new generation of terrorists in the same way that Afganistan and the Soviets did in the '80s. We'll feel the real repercussions of losing in Iraq (which, IMHO, we are - I define US withdrawal in the face of civil war as a defeat) in 10 years when that Iraq-trained new generation strikes back at America. Looking at it at a very simple level, I think a progression like this is pretty true:Originally posted by LtCol West:Iraq and Afghanistan might not last a long time, but the War on Terror will. It has just started really.
1. Terrorists dislike America
2. Our current course is making more people dislike us
3. Hence, more terrorists
As I see it, we want the people of the Middle East to be happy and to like America, and to promote freedom, democracy, etc. at the same time, and to protect our oil interests (which, like it or not, are in the ME and are very, very important to us), and to remove horrible despots. The problem is that the first one and the last three are really, really hard to do simultaneously. Hell, I think we've proven that promoting freedom and such is tough, no matter how you cut it.
But to say that the feelings of individuals don't matter is silly. You can kill terrorists quickly, easily, and cleanly, but if every time you kill a terrorist, you create two more, then you're just wasting bullets.
What this is all building up to is that a far, far more effective way of fighting terrorism is to remove the reason for anyone to become a terrorist. I disagree with the author's assessment of why people become terrorists. Yeah, OBL and the other higher-up clerics and such are nutsos, but the foot soldiers, especially in Palestine, Chechnya, Afganistan, and Iraq, but in global terror networks as well, are ordinary people who have really crappy lives. They're poor, are unemployed, have to live under an oppresive regime, and terrorism gives them an easy out. The cleric says, "Hey, your life sucks? It's America's fault. You wanna hurt them back?", and the kid, who really has nothing else to do, says sure, I'll see what you have to say, and gets indoctrinated.
What if all those poor, unemployed, oppressed kids had money, jobs, and freedom? They'd recognize the clerics are wack jobs, and firstly, OBL and company would be out of a supply of recruits, and secondly, they wouldn't complain when we hunt down OBL and company and capture them. Honestly, I think that until the living conditions of the terrorist breeding grounds goes up, they'll stay terrorist breeding grounds, and keep on pumping out terrorists faster than we can kill them.
To say that somehow, there is finite number of terrorists or potential terrorists in the world, and that if we kill them all, we'll be sitting pretty is a kind of silly thing to say, I think.
To say that somehow, if we remove the motivation for becoming a terrorist, people will stop becoming terrorists, and then we'll be sitting pretty - I think that makes more sense.
-
I'll dissent, to a degree. I agree, it's a great game, but other than the setting, it's not quite as different from CMBB as you might think, in my opinion. When I bought CMAK, I expected CMBB with Americans, and I think that more or less, that's what I got. Now, CMBB with Americans and Brits is totally cool, and I love it. But I thought that a lone voice of disagreement was, to some degree, in order.
-
Hmmph. I read the title of this thread, and I must say the contents are not quite what I hoped for.
-
He's crazy. Because the BBC opposes his crazy, incorrect worldview (understandably, because he is wrong, and the BBC's job is to be right about stuff), he assumes they must be part of the enormous liberal conspiracy. You can't reason with him.
-
Well, I suppose that, as a loyal squire, I should finally take a shot at one of my squirely quests - one of which, you maybe remember, was to irritate Berli. I decided that nitpickery would be fairly irritating, so I decided to pick some nits. One nit, in particular. I loaded up a quick game of Beril's Stalingrad Pack level My City Of Ruins, the version from the Scenario Depot 1 dump. Germans, natch. In the briefing, I was told I would have "a platoon of early Panzer IVGs", whereas in game, I actually got (gasp!) two Panzer IV Fs and two Panzer IV F2s! The briefing either lied about the player's own starting force, or was in error. I humbly request an explanation.
-
I agree with Bigduke. Simply killing the enemy certainly fights the symptoms of international terror, but, especially in a local area like in Iraq, the causes for people to join up with terrorists are more likely to because they are, as Peters says, a "jobless, unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond.". Here is a BBC article on how the Iraq insurgency is 90% local. It's not the only one - most of the defense establishment acknowledges now that most of the insurgency are Sunnis who fear their sect will be marginalized.
Anyways, I agree with Bigduke.
-
Shouldn't that be "ain wee name grog" or something? I almost feel let down not to get the full OGSF experience.
-
As I understood relative spotting, it's the first thing you listed. I could be wrong, but I believe that's it.
-
I'd say that an active, questioning media is always a good thing. Think about how many times the media has used its powers to uncover wrongdoing and campaign for truth. Exhibit 1: Watergate. I would say that a dissenting and probing media certainly helped us there. And I see many examples nowadays of scandals and wrongdoing which I feel the media should cover, so as to bring the people's attention to it so something can be done. For example, what if Bill O'Reily started having episodes about the Sudan genocide? I bet in just a few days of concerted media coverage, the public could be mobilized enough to pressure policymakers into doing something, and we could start saving lives. That's just one example. You could go on for days listing all the horrible things the media has been remiss in reporting on, things that something might be done about if the media did so. So, I guess I would argue the opposite. The media needs to do even more investigation and dissention, and fulfill its proper role as a watchdog.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:Peter,
I agree that it is difficult and that you can't really go around censoring the news, but still I feel that the media often behave in an irresponsible manner these days. They go after ratings by digging up scandals or manufacturing scandals based on very little wrong doing. We see it all the time in the way they hound politicians out of office once they get their teeth into a story. Sometimes they seem like a pack of wolves baying for blood rather than responsible people who believe in truth and justice. I studied American history at college and I remember my lecturer saying that when Roosevelt died, most Americans were not even aware that he was essentially a cripple. The media of that era did not think that was something they should report or that the public needed to know. Can you imagine that happening these days? Nowadays they'd run story after story asking if he was fit for public office and whether he shouldn't just stand down.
I broadly agree with your sentiments but the media do need to learn a bit of self-restraint as well and not just think of lurid publicity for the sake of ratings.
But this is a little off topic. Sorry.
-
I'm sick, so no turns for a while, and that's why I haven't been sending for a bit. I know how stoat worries about such things.
-
Your armor was a King Tiger, a Sturmtiger, and a Half-track? You are a gamey bugger, ain't you.
-
Steve, much of this can be explained away by the AI using covered arcs. You say you're sure there are no arcs, but I'm not. Your examples of AI behavior are textbook examples of covered arcs in action. Now, without word from BFC, we can't really know, but I think you're dismissing arcs to quickly. On what basis are you doing this?
-
This is Western Civilization.
And NG Cavscout, I'd like to let you know that here at the UW, we're working on a momument that honors all 5 UW alumni Medal of Honor winners, not just Pappy. Further, this issue is complicated by the fact that there are those on the campus who want to make this into a political issue rather than a personal one, and the fact that a few people said really dumb things. Now, I hope you'll take me at my word that, despite being a college campus in the Pacific Northwest, we are not quite the hotbed of wacko liberalism and hate for the military that we may appear to be. Especially with those two quotes. Yeah, they're dumb, but to judge a campus of 35,000 by the words of two idiots? I know lots of the people involved in the decision-making process, and many of them opposed the Pappy monument because they wanted a monument for all 5 MoH winners, or because they wanted the text on the plaque of the monument rewritten, which I think are sensible reasons. So, in conclusion, UW = not hating military as much as you think.
-
As a student at the University of Washington, I like to know a little bit more about what you meant by that. </font>Originally posted by NG cavscout:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by NG Cavscout:
Western Civilization is the University of Washington denying "Pappy" Boyington a memorial
-
As a student at the University of Washington, I like to know a little bit more about what you meant by that.Originally posted by NG Cavscout:Western Civilization is the University of Washington denying "Pappy" Boyington a memorial
-
More evidence -
Today, I was playing CMAK. One of my flamethrower teams was captured by the A.I. enemy. In the middle of the turn, same turn it was captured, the FT team starts to move back towards the enemy's rear. The A.I. captured it, took control, gave it a move order with no command delay and the team executed the order, all in one turn. I can't think of another explanation.
****ROW V (Part 5)****
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
May I recommend that somebody makes a separate thread for the AARs so that we non-ROWers hear the good news and get to check out those AARs?