0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
Quote from: Radical Terrorist on February 02, 2008, 10:47:37 pmRecoilless rifles?Why would you need a friggin bigger calibre. Range. That is all.Quote from: Svirin Kerath on February 03, 2008, 02:02:10 amQuote from: a-4-year-old on February 02, 2008, 07:34:56 pmQuote from: Svirin Kerath on February 02, 2008, 06:17:53 pmAlso, 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 Quote from: a-4-year-old on February 02, 2008, 07:34:01 pmare 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.
Recoilless rifles?Why would you need a friggin bigger calibre.
Quote from: a-4-year-old on February 02, 2008, 07:34:56 pmQuote from: Svirin Kerath on February 02, 2008, 06:17:53 pmAlso, 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 Quote from: a-4-year-old on February 02, 2008, 07:34:01 pmare 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?
Quote from: Svirin Kerath on February 02, 2008, 06:17:53 pmAlso, 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.
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.
are always very inaccurate.
I AM A SMARTARSED PRICK OF A HUMAN BEINGI AM ALSO DOUCHEBAGGERY, AND I'M SPREADING
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.
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.
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."
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.
Quote from: †on April 14, 2008, 01:25:20 pmTo sum up my point: We had a multipage debate about toilet padding. (Putting TP in the water so you don't get splashed.)And we still don't know if dead guys can keep a stiffy.
To sum up my point: We had a multipage debate about toilet padding. (Putting TP in the water so you don't get splashed.)
holy crap is this talking mostly about barret or something else! im so confused now!
I attend grammar school, last grade, and ignorance is all around me. Well, good for them. Ignorance is bliss.
Quote from: a-4-year-old on February 03, 2008, 10:41:30 pmYou 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.
Not having toliet paper is serious buisness.