what the crap?

[Graham]

They pay scientists big bucks to develop these things.Unfortunately, it seems that maybe too much time, effort, and attention is put into making something to take a life rather than something to save it.

Or the fact that its easier to make something that kills someone than make something that cures a disease or will save lives. Hell I can go make something that can kill a few people right now... All I have to do is go break a heavy stick off a tree.

[Radical Terrorist]

True... And that's all it takes, but they dump wasted money into developing bombs, chemical weapons, thermonuclear weapons, Guns...

When cavemen started clubbing each other with rocks and sticks was when Humanity's downhill slide started.

[Graham]

True... And that's all it takes, but they dump wasted money into developing bombs, chemical weapons, thermonuclear weapons, Guns...

When cavemen started clubbing each other with rocks and sticks was when Humanity's downhill slide started.

So you would give military terrible weapons and have your countrymen slaughtered if they have to go to war? Seems reasonable... and hey you can always draft!

[Radical Terrorist]

Not saying to give em crappy weapons and get em all killed, but perhaps put reasearch into ways of preventing poverty, and other world problems that would prevent war, or decrease the likelyhood of it breaking out.

[Svirin Kerath]

Recoilless rifles?

Why would you need a friggin bigger calibre.

Range. That is all.

Also, you're forgetting that no matter how many people we kill, we are a limited occupational force in a spawning pit for insurgents. We could kill 10 or 15 to each US soldier and it wouldn't make much difference. You're measuring victory in WWI-era terms, not the terms of modern warfare.

Actually, just checking now, it is 14 insurgents per US Soldier and that is a load of bullfeck. The truth is that the insurgency is so pathetic that they just get raped in every conflict, and Iraq doesn't exactly breed insurgents like rabbits.

I totally called that, without even researching the stats on how many are killed per U.S. soldier. Oh wait but no, statistics

are always very inaccurate.

=(

But yeah, they get raped in every conflict! That's why "combat operations in Iraq have ended" right? That's why we're still there 4 years later, right? That's why a civil war started, right? Cause we rape them all the time?

"Combat operations in Iraq" are over because the insurgents left the government/political arena, the troops that are there now are making sure the Iraqis set up their democracy, If we stay, they could create a stable government, if we leave then they have no chance for that and everything we have done so far will be meaningless.

Yes, statistics should be weighed very lightly, The insurgent death rate could very likely be much higher than that, since we don't stick around to count their dead.

You mean the insurgents that weren't there until combat operations in Iraq "ended?" Because until that point we were fighting Suddam's Iraqi army. And about the stable gov't: LOLZ We've already done so much on that account.

And actually, U.S. military has a history of artificially inflating the numbers of supposed enemy guerrilla casualties. See: Vietnam. So your point's sort of weak.

But anyway.
Another reason it's easy to make weapons is you don't actually have to test them in real life to get a contract, just a range. So as long as it works hypothetically, you can get funding. But for, say, cures for cancer, you have to test it on living animals and rate progress and note side effects and all that, and if it passes that test it on living volunteers, rate progress, with more pressure to succeed and not have side-effects, and then it goes into production.

If the company fecks up , they go "please don't sue us."

With guns they just go "oh well!" and send you a cleaning kit.

[a-4-year-old]

A company would rather develope treatment for cancer than a cure. A cure is only marketable to one person one time, were as treatment would be that same person for potentially the rest of their life.

There were always insurgents in iraq, ask someone who was carbomed on the way in to Baghdad.
Combat operations in Iraq is a meaningless term. It only meant that there was no more army to slaughter.

In one firefight, there were hundreds of insurgents attempting to retake a city, there were two squads on a rooftop, hundreds of casualties later, a Humvee convoy shows up with more ammo. Insurgents lost. Bad.
History channel ftw.

I have no idea where you got the notion that the US Army skewed casualties. I have never heard that, and google had nothing on it.

[Svirin Kerath]

A company would rather develope treatment for cancer than a cure. A cure is only marketable to one person one time, were as treatment would be that same person for potentially the rest of their life.

There were always insurgents in iraq, ask someone who was carbomed on the way in to Baghdad.
Combat operations in Iraq is a meaningless term. It only meant that there was no more army to slaughter.

In one firefight, there were hundreds of insurgents attempting to retake a city, there were two squads on a rooftop, hundreds of casualties later, a Humvee convoy shows up with more ammo. Insurgents lost. Bad.
History channel ftw.

I have no idea where you got the notion that the US Army skewed casualties. I have never heard that, and google had nothing on it.

Always insurgents in Iraq? There were carbombs before we went there? Given Hussein's 1984ish fear-driven grip on the country I severely doubt that and I'd like to see your sources.

And actually, there was plenty army left, but after the U.S. took Baghdad, the Iraqi army tried to join the U.S. forces to hunt down the growing number of insurgents and  restore order. The U.S. instead disbanded them, effectively leaving thousands of able-bodied men jobless, with access to military-grade weapons. Epic win, right?

And boy that story sounds a bit like a mini Tet offensive, which was also massive fail for the Vietnamese- yet the war dragged on for 5 more years afterwards. I'm glad we're defeating them so soundly.


By the way, I guess Google only works for me.

http://www.cjr.org/politics/the_rebirth_of_body_counts.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301273.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1202-07.htm
link 3 (very long url)
link 4

[a-4-year-old]

You tried to make a false statement, that insurgents only started coming out until after the Iraqi army was defeated, when this is not and was not the case. Insurgents aimed against Coalition forces were there when troops first came in.

You should have seen the special forces guys who took a city with a group of Iraqis they trained. Just listening to the interview he described being shot at by insurgents. They have no training even when compared to the barely trained militia.

"There’s no reason to automatically doubt information offered by the military, which has in this war been infinitely more forthcoming with the press than it was during Vietnam."
"Pressure on U.S. units to produce high death tolls led to inflated tallies, which tore at Pentagon credibility."
You tried to paint the picture that people in the pentagon were pulling numbers out of their asses.

 "We've been killing and capturing bushels of these guys, but no one was talking about it," said one senior military officer, who asked that his name not be used but was delighted with the new approach. "This is a conscious change in policy…. For a while there it was beginning to look like only Americans were being killed."

[Graham]

Not saying to give em crappy weapons and get em all killed, but perhaps put reasearch into ways of preventing poverty, and other world problems that would prevent war, or decrease the likelyhood of it breaking out.

Irrational thinking. As long as money is money there will be poverty and people being stepped on. Heck as long as there are positions of power people will be stepped on.

[Svirin Kerath]

You tried to make a false statement, that insurgents only started coming out until after the Iraqi army was defeated, when this is not and was not the case. Insurgents aimed against Coalition forces were there when troops first came in.

You should have seen the special forces guys who took a city with a group of Iraqis they trained. Just listening to the interview he described being shot at by insurgents. They have no training even when compared to the barely trained militia.

"There’s no reason to automatically doubt information offered by the military, which has in this war been infinitely more forthcoming with the press than it was during Vietnam."
"Pressure on U.S. units to produce high death tolls led to inflated tallies, which tore at Pentagon credibility."
You tried to paint the picture that people in the pentagon were pulling numbers out of their asses.

 "We've been killing and capturing bushels of these guys, but no one was talking about it," said one senior military officer, who asked that his name not be used but was delighted with the new approach. "This is a conscious change in policy…. For a while there it was beginning to look like only Americans were being killed."

The "insurgents" the US fought before, during, and for a short time after the defeat of the Iraqi Army were Saddam sympathizers. I said "Saddam's Iraqi army," including them under the umbrella of "clear-cut enemy fighting for Saddam." As opposed to, say, Al Queda, or a mass of radical Muslims from Saudi Arabia. While I should have been more specific in my statement about the insurgents in Iraq after the defeat of the IA, it's pretty clear what we consider the "insurgency" now is completely unrelated to the Saddam sympathizers at the outset of the war, who operated more like the VC branching from the NVA than Jihadists or revolutionaries (they were fighting for the regime which was in power until the IA was defeated).

Now, all of those links showcased evidence that the US had a muddy history when it came to body counts in Vietnam. I found it amusing that simply typing in "vietnam inflated body counts" on Google led to articles talking about Iraq, citing that very example. In 30-40 years we may be able to say with more confidence what the U.S. military did and did not cover up during this war. It is true it has been more forthcoming than it was in the past, which is a good sign. But you said that the U.S did not "stick around to count their dead," which, as those articles and military testimony prove, they apparently do.

"There’s no reason to automatically doubt information offered by the military, which has in this war been infinitely more forthcoming with the press than it was during Vietnam. But there is ample reason to remind readers that a one-source story is just that — a one-source story." You omitted the context.

"Pressure on U.S. units to produce high death tolls led to inflated tallies, which tore at Pentagon credibility."
I used that exact word, "inflated," and I never mentioned the Pentagon, actually. Please read my posts more carefully before responding to them.

'"We've been killing and capturing bushels of these guys, but no one was talking about it," said one senior military officer, who asked that his name not be used but was delighted with the new approach. "This is a conscious change in policy…. For a while there it was beginning to look like only Americans were being killed."'

This is basically saying that the decision to count bodies was one done for PR. Also note his decision to withhold his name.

[a-4-year-old]

You stated that the US military artificially inflated their statistics, which implies that some general or head is sitting there making up numbers, when in reality it was the troops on the ground lying to the higher-ups.

I specifically quoted that since you obviously overlooked it when you were trying to say how the US military was unreliable.

[Svirin Kerath]

You stated that the US military artificially inflated their statistics, which implies that some general or head is sitting there making up numbers, when in reality it was the troops on the ground lying to the higher-ups.

I specifically quoted that since you obviously overlooked it when you were trying to say how the US military was unreliable.

O...k? US troops on the ground aren't part of the US military? They are actually the ones I had in mind. They were rewarded marginally for having more kills.

[PaFel]

1. Please stop makin' such a ling posts. They're damn hard to read.

2. Insurgents - Svirin Kerath is right.

3. Svirin, are you interested in history etc.? Your knowlage is huge

4.

"- One point for military Inteligence.
  - Yea. Hooah..."

CoD 4, TV station mission

The main reason that insurgents are in Iraq is that Bin-Laden hasn't been catched yet. His "forces" train other muslims and persuade 'em that their duty is to fight against other nations because other nations want to kill their faith and that the only way to stop 'em is to kill as much enemies as it's possible. What I said here is only part what I think about it and from what I know but I'm not as good in english to tell you everything. Middle-East conflicts are damn hard to understand because of completly other culture.

Btw: My dad was in Iraq and he sometimes makes "lectures" for me about Middle-East culture etc.

Btw2: Now I realised that what I wrote here have no cohesion...

[tehsnipah]

holy crap is this talking mostly about barret or something else! im so confused now!

[O.R.I.O.N.]

It moved towards the whole deal in Iraq for some reason.

Lawrd, just when we needed Carl.

[DT]

A moderator sort of bumped it into the war.... But of course guns are related to war, and war is related to blasting people's heads off... (Not decapitating.)

[Lord Frunkamunch]

holy crap is this talking mostly about barret or something else! im so confused now!

Would it really have been that hard to actually read a few sentences to try and figure it out yourself? Are you so pathetically dependent that you're afraid to do anything without asking for it first, regardless of how much time you could save doing it alone? I seriously doubt you're 15. 

"ok soldatforms, i need sum help here. i was taking a crap and i lookd ovr adn saw that i dident hav any toyliet (did i spel that rite? o well lol) paper left. what do i do/ plz answer quick i don't have any pants on and i think my moms comin home soon. "

Date Posted: February 04, 2008, 03:09:04 pm"help me pleas i dont no wht too do. do i pull my pants on? which hand do i use to wipe? do you guyz have any toyliet paper u cn lend me?"

Date Posted: February 04, 2008, 03:10:03 pm"wtf y is no1 ansring i rly need hlp here"

[DT]

Not having toliet paper is serious buisness.

[a-4-year-old]

You stated that the US military artificially inflated their statistics, which implies that some general or head is sitting there making up numbers, when in reality it was the troops on the ground lying to the higher-ups.

I specifically quoted that since you obviously overlooked it when you were trying to say how the US military was unreliable.

O...k? US troops on the ground aren't part of the US military? They are actually the ones I had in mind. They were rewarded marginally for having more kills.

A more accurate statement would be that the US military gathered artificially inflated data. The ground troops are not the ones in charge of releasing estimates, you shift blame up the ladder.

[Radical Terrorist]

Not having toliet paper is serious buisness.

Always replace the crap tickets. It doesn't matter if you have 2 rolls left, get wiped out (pun intended) pretty quickly.