Jump to content

Stryker meets big IED


akd

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nearly everything that people enjoy has an element of tragedy in it. Even a beautiful sunset is dreaded as the end of the day by some.

Using unconventional tactics against military targets is perfectly valid. No body wants a fair fight. The reason American forces want to face an enemy straight up is because we know it would be decidedly unfair. Unfortunately the enemy is often not stupid enough to play by our rules. So you adapt and keep fighting.

Now putting bombs in the middle of a civilian market, that is cowardice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When deploying a defensive perimeter the first thing you do is place "mines."

OK, I'm sorry - It's now an IED. Everytime an infantry platoon is sent out in harms way there's always a box of M18A1 Claymore mines just waiting to be used and can be deployed at any time with the platoon commander's order. They're impressive to watch go off. Hate to be on the other side, and yes they can be command controlled by the use of a "clacker."

The Claymore mine is no different then a couple of 155mm shells stuck together with bubblegum, tied up with a shoestring and remotely detonated.

I bet if we were in conflict with a more capable mechanized force. There would be a bigger claymore mine and our troops would have a great time knocking over a couple of APCs from a distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

IED bombers a[re] cowards

Interesting where that line of thought leads ... basically, you seem to be saying that seeking a competitive advantage in a struggle for power is cowardice. Thus all 'warriors', ever since Thog picked picked up a rock to club Dirk with, who fight with anything other than their bare hands are cowards. Furthermore, the side with the greatest competitive advantage at any given point in time also become the greatest cowards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1898 the British under General Kitchener defeated a Muslim army two to three times greater in number at the Battle of Omdurman. The Muslim army heroically charged the British lines and were cut down by artillery and maxim machine guns. Depending on who you read, British losses were between 50 and a few hundred. The Muslim army lost something like 10-11,000. Obviously the magnitude of this defeat is not lost on those in the Muslim world who oppose us now! You can't really expect them to "fight fair" given the technological superiority of America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandmother's brother(my uncle)flew B-24s during WW2. He flew on some of the most dangerus missions during the war to include the Polisti oil field raids. He was the squadron commander and was always in the lead plane on all mission. After the war, he was flying a B-29 or B-50 over England when a fire broke out on the plane. He ordered his crew to bail out but was unable to himself becuase they where over a city at the time. While trying to get the plane to a safe area, it exploded. He died. His crew surfived and he probaly saved many lives on the ground because of his actions. I would hardly call him or any one else who flies a coward. Before you call these men and women who fly and flew, maybe you should read a little about air war fair first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest all of you go rent "Battle of Algiers".

The film makes some intellegent points on fighting insurgency, parallels of which you cannot help to see in the current war in Iraq, including the lowering of ethical standards on both sides.

" Journalist: Don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets. "

I dont think it is possible to argue that one means of killing is 'more ethical' then another. You must meet your opponent in the most effective way at your disposal, you cannot expect small groups of guerrillas to follow the rules of regular armies.

Near the end of the film, a french colonel asks a group of journalists the question " Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences. "

This is the question we are faced with in the US today.

...and we 'enjoy' playing a game based on this reality. Makes you think, doesn't it.....

- wunwinglow

An interesting thought. Why do we crave ever more realistic representations of war for personal enjoyment? I dont deny that i do, nor that i dont enjoy such representations in film, books, and games, but it certianly is interesting to think about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting thought. Why do we crave ever more realistic representations of war for personal enjoyment? I dont deny that i do, nor that i dont enjoy such representations in film, books, and games, but it certianly is interesting to think about.
We crave victory in whatever form it takes.

Regarding the person who called IED people cowards, i personally think it takes the same bravery to sit there and know that your actions will lead to certain death (yours or theirs), and take the lives of others with you. Everyone is just doing their job.

Regarding the The Warrior who's uncle was a pilot - those men are terribly brave because they too faced certain death, at some points during the war they faced even higher odds than their friends on the ground. I think Nemesis Lead was trying to say that its morally the same thing to press the button to drop the bomb as it is to press the button to detonate in the street. I happen to agree with Nemesis Lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

Humans by their very nature are violent, aggresive super monekeys with no hair that like to wage war on each other, sort of like what chimps do, but with lazer-guided weaponry.

Absolutely not.

Read "On Killing" by Grossman to find out how much training and indoctrination are, in fact, necessary to get soldier to kill the enemy.

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...