LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshttp://science.howstuffworks.com/ffw.htm
i can't wait to get me one of those.
discuss.
July 11th, 2005, 05:53 AM
Interesting that a bunch of low tech terrorists can hold a world at bay with their bombings and threats while all this equipment is being used isn't it? The Teliban is also using low tech equipment to keep the US troops guessing where they are and making them look foolish by hit and run tactics. Billions of dollars against pennies is what the great armies of the world are up against today.
The insurgents travel light and use makeshift equipment to keep the well armed armies trying to figure where they will strike again. The insurgents hit soft targets that cause much human tragedy while avoiding the well armed army. It would seem that the monies spoent on the war can't stop the terorists from accomplishing their mission to disrupt the governments and bring fear to the people that are within those countries that are at war.
makeshift and Cheap equipment.
most of the equipment you see them using are your typical AK's and RPG's, ocasionaly you might see a 50. Caliber machine gun or Russian sniper rifle, but mainly just stuff over the black market.
besides it is much harder to fight Gurilla fighters than it is to fight a proper Army. After all the US wrapped up the main Iraqi forces in what... 6 weeks, but it is the Gurilla fighters and insurgents that have done most of the damage.
Then they need to think like the insurgents and do as the terrorists do in order to fight them on their level. All this new fancy equipment won't be able to take many of them out.
We can't even armor our soldiers today. Most of this technology is pie in the sky stuff from defense contractors.
As an ex-Army officer, you'd all (if you've never served) be surprised at just how fucked-up the Army, at least, really is. I've never been more disillusioned by anything in my life, except maybe for Christianity. "The best army in the world!!" Maybe, but still not at all like what is portrayed in the recruiting ads and propaganda. Utterly political, especially in the officer ranks, utterly bureaucratic, and utterly destructive of those with any real potential as leaders or true soldiers. If you don't want to brown-nose or back-stab to get ahead, stay as far away from the Army, and I would guess most of the other branches as well, as you can.
Cottontop 3000 wrote:
What a frustration. As an Army-officer myself, I know you are partly right about the system. But I believe we need a defence hard in this times.If you don't want to brown-nose or back-stab to get ahead, stay as far away from the Army, and I would guess most of the other branches as well, as you can.
It is not the equipment, but the motivation of the defenders, that makes the difference against terrorism. And the awareness of the people.
the people are aware of it.
you can't look in a newspapper or watch the news without hearing about Terrorism.
while the equipement may not make a difference on whether the terrorist are brought to justice quicker it may protect soldiers from insurgents and terrorist attacks.
don't you think it would be better to know that if some jackass shot you on the battlefield that it would not nessisarily mean death.
I am happy with every improvement of our equipment. Only, not the soldiers but the civilians have to suffer most by terrorist attacks. Look at New York, Madrid and London. Nobody can tell where terrorists strike next. And when they do, again most casualties will be civilians.Originally Posted by wallaby
You are rigth for places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
One of my brothers and his son are both marines, they are both happy with the corp. No offense to the army, but it's not the marines. Not to say the army doesn't play an important role in the world. I'm not sure if they just do a better job brain washing people, but for the most part I've found those that have been in the marines tend to stay very loyal to service for the rest of their lives. I could not say the same about the air force or the army. The navy I'm not sure about. Not everyone makes it as a marine, many of the same could make it in the army or the air force. I really don't feel these are just stereotypes, but I'm also not trying to piss off those who are in the other branches.
My father was with the Dutch Marine Corps and before I joint the Army, I was with the Air-force. So I can say something about all these branches. I know, apart from training, there is no big difference between them.
Besides, the branches need to work together in their battle against terrorism and not fight about who is better. If not, we all lose! And the better the equipment, the greater the chance of succes.
As an Australian i don't know much about the Marine corps but why were was Marine Corp created seeing as they seem to do the same job as the Army?
It is an historical difference.See the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine
Nowadays marines and army-soldiers fight side-by-side on the same battlefields. However, traditions make them feel different.
My project "ArmeeHelm" could be well used here. Its basicaly a military helmet, hardly penetretable, durable, with visor in front which enables night vision, navigation etc.. data transfer and similar. And looks "intimidating" too (which is very important).
Picture on the first link the topic started gave makles me laugh.. military will never be a comic cartoon sim.. PLASTIC !? It will take a while i see..
it always takes time.
i think the altimate goal of the millitary would be to be able to breed or create people specificaly for being soldiers.
The ulitmate goal of any military organisation is to avoid war completely. As Tsung Tzu said in the Art of War [this is from memory, so I'm paraphrasing] our first objective is not to attack our enemy, but to attack the plans of our enemy.
and if your GWB it's attack the plans of your enemy that they don't even know they might have one day.
look at iraq and tell me that the US government, millitary included, was not itching itself to go to war.
If true (which I acknowledge in the case of the government, but seriously dispute in the case of the military) that would simply demonstrate the lack of tactical appreciation, strategic sense and historic awareness, typical of an inept organisation.
In short I should have said: "The ulitmate goal of any effective military organisation is to achieve its governments aims whilst avoiding war completely."
i would have to agree.
as this is often the case, with the exception of a few incidences involving a few dogs who have a thirst for war.
i cant knock the US government for going to iraq, it was clearly getting out of hand there, when a country starts sending peeps to diffrent contrys with the goal to kill tens of thousands of peeps with suicide runs there clearly begging to be ruled. =)
Er pardon me, but when did Iraq send " thousands of peeps with suicide runs" and what evidence do you have to support this?
I'm sorry i don't want to offend you or anyone for that matter, but american people are SO brainwashed. You trully believe that Bush did that to protect the american people? You "invade" another country and you kill innocent people because you "THINK" that iraqis are responsible for the 9/11 incident? And most importantly without PROOF?
Or you did this to save a country from the big mean dictator? Oh, you mother Teresas! Thank you for saving the world!
Sometimes i seriously don't understand.
over generalization, not everyone votes bush and not everyone agreed with going to war.
why do you assume that an American who is in favour of invading Iraq is brainwashed? people do have varying points of view on different issues so how does someone supporting there leaders decision make them brainwashed?
more assumptions. how do you know what 'they' truely believe, have you spoken to all of them?
and while we're on the topic of killing innocent people how about we shift focus from the recent American intervention in Iraq to Sadam's rule.
over 1 million dead in a war with Iran, thousands of casualties (innocent people) killed by nerve agents and mustard gas. just to name a few.
another generalization, have you spoken to every American and asked them who was responsible for 9/11? on what grounds do you believe, or have they stated, that they believe Iraqis are responsible? why not Osama Bin Laden?
that man wasn't going to hang himself. i don't know about you but i for one, and judging from the reaction of the Iraqi people i'm not alone on this, feel better that Sadam is no longer in control of anything and has faced the consequences of what he's done. I'm not American so you still have quite a few people to ask the opinions of yet.
Ok, that i agree, that was a generalization but when a country VOTES again for the same person that means that the majority believes what he is saying, ergo they are brainwashed. Because otherwise you are telling me that they don't believe they went to Iraq to help, but just to "invade" and they are cool with that, which is way worse than being brainwashed.
In this case when i say they, i mean the government, not the american people.
Ok, Sadam wasn't a heaven's creature, but going on war and killing ALL THOSE innocent people (the ones you want to "save"), including kids, you think it's the answer? Puh-lease... And btw, can you please tell me now that bad Sadam is out of the picture, who has the control? Hmmm...
Of course i'm not talking about EVERYONE in the world and i don't represent them. It's just my opinion.
thats the clear cut, black and white version of it i suppose.
there are however more to a government than there millitary actions. while Iraq was obviously a key point of the election the policies on how the country is run, which includes its millitary, is the main idea behind an election, so that the people have there say on how the country is run and who is running it. if the country is being run well then voters are more likely to vote the party back in. so Iraq is not the only reason Bush and the Republicans are still in office.
then as far as Iraq goes there are many different reasons someone might support or reject troops being in Iraq, for instance:
Removal of violent Dictatorship, Rebuilding of countries infrastructure (Iraq borrowed large amounts of money from other arab nations to wage war with Iran), protecting of oil interests in the region (Kuwait and Iraq), the list goes on.
reasons one might reject being in Iraq are pretty well stated and expressed. one who may support the Coalition Millitary presance in Iraq need not nessisarily believe the dogmatic view that the Bush administration puts forward, infact i guess you could even reject that and still support the troop presance.
as long as we're clear on that.
neither was Hitler but we went on a war to stop him and i'm sure that allied forces didn't always end up killing millitary targets or assets every time. two cities full of civilians were nuked in the name of ending the war and saving potentialy millions of soldiers and civilians elsewhere, of course when i say saved i really mean a trade of was made between those that got bombed and those that would have been shot/stabbed/bombed anyway. its just the nature of war that innocent people die. they die in war and they die in peace.
but when a group of people are taken from there families shot and burried in the desert, publicly executed or privately tortured all for having a different opinion or not being a certain type of person. you have to try to stop it don't you?
Ok, seriously, you believe that the US government wanted to help? that they don't have any interest whatsoever. Come on! no one is THAT naive. And if that's the case, why now?
Maybe the "black gold" crisis has something to do with this? Wild guess...
Ok, so here you've got it all wrong. First of all Hilter was known for his aggressive foreign policy in order to expand Germany. He INVADED other countries, he wasn't in his country dictating. The world War II started mostly because countries (Poland, Austria, Czech republic) where DEFENDING themselves. So as far as you can see that's 100% completely irrelevant.
Ok now, i don't know what channel you were watching during the war in Iraq, but if you have watched the AlJazeera news you would see kids without limps covered in blood crying, their parents laying dead next to them, innocent people WOMEN, CHILDREN, OLD people EVERYWHERE. Who did that? Saddam? Well actually we knew (by we i mean the whole world) from the start that Saddam wasn't in Iraq, but somehow they (US military) kept killing and destroying everything they could, even hospital, museums, schools, monumets (here i have to say that NO ONE, during any war, destroys monuments, it's a world wide known unwritten law. The only one who did that was Hilter and now Bush). You would have seen people, IRAQI people talking to the camera about how they hate the US army and how they have killed so many innocent people. But of course FOX news would never show that. So you see, you should always look it from both sides, and ask now people in Iraq if they are happy about this war, if they are grateful to the US. But of course we will never know that. Because now the US has all the control and power, and sadly that's the cruel reality. MONEY + POWER equals i can do whatever i want, that's the only law we have nowadays, and the war in Iraq is the brightest example.
And one question, they kept destroying because they were searching about the infamous weapons of mass destruction. But in the end somehow (again) they never found them. Maybe because they've never existed? Wild guess again...Oh, and also, how do you feel about the fact that US has NO problem with Israel having WOMD. Weird stuff...
And also Hilter was known for his charisma and the use of propaganda, how he good make unreasonable things appear reasonable. He made a whole country, army, believe that what they did was noble and for the general good of mankind. Now, i won't give that much credit to Bush of course, but you can see the similarity, no?
About those comments, I don't know how that escapes you, but Saddam and Osama Bin Laden where "made" by the US. That's something EVERYBODY knows. Osama Bin Laden used to work for the CIA, he was trained by them. And about Saddam, the US government was cooperating with Saddam, i don't know if you are familar with the "oil for food" program between the US and Saddam. The world with Iran (that you bring to the surface) was 100% fully supported by the USA. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. Hence they gave them weapons! Gave weapons to Saddam. It's pure history.
And suddenly you are telling me that they wanted to save Iraqi people from this "dictator" that all those years they supported. Oh dear God! That's obsene!
no i don't believe the government wanted to help, i guess i really should have stated that i was not refering to the government. but agreeing with a governments actions and agreeing with there reasons for commiting them are two different stories.
not when it comes to the death of innocent civilians in war, which was the point i was making in response to the point you made. of course Iraq and WWII are two different senario's and i'm not putting the cause for going into Iraq against that of WWII. but a war is a war and innocent people die.
whenever i watch the local news there is often a mention of a murder, drug bust, fire or disaster happening somewhere. yet why do i not get the feeling that the whole country is burning down, why do i not feel that half the country is being assaulted, robbed or having some form of crime commited against them? there not.
if you see everyday that a bus has blown up, if you see crying children bloodied and orphaned, then you might be inclined to think that half the population is suffering under the weight of being bombed or terrorised by the big bad american troops, if theres a motive as to why fox wouldn't show that then you can't rule out a motive as to why AlJazeera would.
ohh and Americans have control my arse, insurgents are running amuk, and theres not enough of them to provide enough security.
israel has not used them, and indicated no intent on using them.
when you a country surounded by enemies who would kill you and many of the innocent civilians in your country a nuclear weapon is a great deturant.
from where i sit i have to say no. an unreasonable thing is an unreasonable thing and i have not been subjected or affected by propaganda that makes a war seem reasonable. but i can see your point, even though its the same thing from place to place. why justify it when you can just make it seem like the reasonable thing to do.
fine if you're looking at it like that then they're cleaning up a mess they made, is that so wrong.
Osama Bin Laden was of course trained by the US because he was fighting the soviet union, this was cold war era remember. why do you bring this up, does his being trained by the US consitute an excuse to have people fly planes into buildings.
Iran is probably about as anti-US as the arab world gets so why would america want them to win. since America didn't start the Iran-Iraq war its not like they had a choice either. once Iraq invaded Kuwait as an act of desperation, seeing as there millions of dollars in debt and all at that point, America didn't have to back them anymore. the war was over neither side lost and neither side won.
does sadam having US backing in a war against another anti-US nation mean that America supports a brutal dictator? of course not, America doesn't seem to support any type of political system other than a democracy, but seeing as they have no legal authority over other nations then what can they do.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!! A war is a war for crying out loud. There's one thing BEING on an actual war and another one to claim that you want to save a country from a dictator (that you know he's not there) and you "invade" and kill inoccent people. YOU CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE???
Hmm, do you know what Al Jazeera is? It's an arabic channel. If iraqi people where grateful to the american troopers, why would they show that kind of images? I mean america have to hide the fact that they killed innocent people, because otherwise EVERYBODY would hate them, they have to show how good and noble they are. can you see the difference here?
Oh, i didn't know that laws don't apply to everyone. SORRY, my bad. And please can you tell me WHEN iraq indicated that they will use the WOMD?
Are you for real??? That's what propaganda is.LOL
Oh, they are that good! Seriously do you believe what you are saying?
So when someone is anti-your country go on war. How civilized!!
Yes, not to get involved, but then the real anti-us country would have won, and we need the "black gold", don't we?
Yes you've got point. When you support someone it means you loathe him. LOL Puh-lease.
America is happy to provide any arab Nation with 'fire power' so long as it [America] is happy that these weapons will only be used on other arab nations.
"Divide and Conquer" is the phrase that comes to mind here.
America continues to develope new arms, weaponry and military technology - It uses the rest of the world [as it sees fit] as a testing ground.
America is happy to provide "fire power" all over the world. That's how they make money. That's why it is the most powerful country. Whenever they had a financial crisis they went on war.
January 15th, 2007, 04:26 PM
War is a neccesity. Its pointless building robots for our war, because as soon as the robots have been blown to pieces by each other, then well, men would hahve to fight anyway.
wtf you mean wasn't there. he was there when the invason began and he was captured there too.
of course i know what Al Jazeera is. you seem to be either very ignorant of the fact that civilians die in any or every war, or that you believe the exageration of civilians are dying in the masses as the big bad americans come to bomb them for no bloody reason. you're making it sound like the American Millitary is intentionally targeting civilians. they die in every war and you said it yourself a war is a war.
ohh i'm sorry theres a law now is there. if there were then it would not make a difference whether America were happy with it or not. Iraq under sadam husseins rule had a history of un-provoked attacks on neighbouring countries. during the first gulf war they fired bloody SCUD missiles at israel, who were not involved in the war.
what you mean making up your own mind based on the facts that you can see. thats not propaganda thats called making up my own mind, i'm sorry if you actually think that no one can formulate an opinion independant of ones government.
no i believe they did a good thing by hanging that man, but if you want to point out that America made a mistake by supplying Iraq with weapons then you'd also have to conceede the nessesity of fixing it. unless of course you only believe the worst about the American Government.Oh, they are that good! Seriously do you believe what you are saying?
America didn't go to war with Iran. and just what does civilized have to do with anything?
fine call it trying to capitalize on an oportunity.
no it means you can support there actions and hold no reguard for there policies or reasons.
i'm not aware of any financial crisis in 1917 when they entered The Great War. that doesn't explain why they didn't enter world war II until 1941. what financial crisis was there in 1950 or during Vietnam. had they not pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait there would have been skyrocketing oil prices for more than just America.
You were just kidding, I assume! We should wrap explosives around ourselves and run our cars loaded with explosives into groups of them? We should infiltrxate their homes and shoot from them at the indsurgents? Our troops cannot even speak their language. Polls show most Iraqis want us to get out!
charles
| « US Microwave Test (Freaky) | detonation » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
