Monday, October 31, 2005
From the comments section...
This is from an anonymous commentor:
I guess it's a good thing that this ignoramous has gotten a chance to lead such a sheltered life thanks to the sacrifices of others.
It's also a good thing that he doesn't have the courage to provide his own name.
For the record: My own battalion, the 1-124th Infantry Regiment, took more than fifty wounded in and around Ramadi. And we didn't call in a single airstrike.
It's better, anonymous, to keep your mouth shut than to put your ignorance on a stage.
Splash, out
Jason
The funny part is when the psyops geeks tried to taunt the Taliban, as it's always funny to hear the world's biggest cowards try to accuse someone else of cowardice, a typical example of what a psycologist would call 'projecting'.
I ask you, has anyone ever seen a more pusiillanimous, cowardly bunch of wretches than the sissyfags of the U.S. "military" who call in air support every time a car backfires or when someone slams a door loudly? They encounter three or four Rebels and instead of fighting like REAL infantry and using fire & maneuver tactics, they instead scream for air support while they're hiding in a shellhole, then after the Air Force flies in and does the killing they "bravely" raise their head up out of said shellhole and proceed to beat their chests about how "brave" they think they are. Disgusting.
Try fighting like a REAL army instead of a bunch of glorified forward air controllers before you start calling an opponent "cowardly", because the whole world is laughing at the U.S. "military" and its aversion to real fighting. Just be glad you're not up against a REAL army, like North Korea's or China's or Iran's because the U.S. "Army" would be a grease spot.
I guess it's a good thing that this ignoramous has gotten a chance to lead such a sheltered life thanks to the sacrifices of others.
It's also a good thing that he doesn't have the courage to provide his own name.
For the record: My own battalion, the 1-124th Infantry Regiment, took more than fifty wounded in and around Ramadi. And we didn't call in a single airstrike.
It's better, anonymous, to keep your mouth shut than to put your ignorance on a stage.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
He probably got kicked out of basic training and now holds a grudge against the military because of his own failings. LOL.
# posted by 
: 10:39 AM
: 10:39 AM
The funny thing is, that the fact that our men will and CAN call in vastly superior firepower, while remaining undercover if the situation warrants it, is the very reason our military is to be feared and admired. . .rather than laughed at.
After all, their duty is not to die for our country (if it can be avoided), but to make the other guy die for his.
I can't look into the heads of the soldiers of other countries' militaries, but I'll bet that in the back of their minds, every time they think about our armed forces, they hope they never have to fight against them.
After all, their duty is not to die for our country (if it can be avoided), but to make the other guy die for his.
I can't look into the heads of the soldiers of other countries' militaries, but I'll bet that in the back of their minds, every time they think about our armed forces, they hope they never have to fight against them.
When I was in the 101st Artiller, we had motto: Never send a grunt where a 105mm round didn't go first.
Any military that COULD use firepower and maneuver before closing with the enemy and DIDN'T do so would rapidly find itself without grunts to do the closing.
Any military that COULD use firepower and maneuver before closing with the enemy and DIDN'T do so would rapidly find itself without grunts to do the closing.
Why glorify anonymous comments like these with the attention they crave? I know, I'm anon too, for ironic effect.
# posted by : 12:34 PM
: 12:34 PM
There is a throwout/wannabe side to this post: he plainly knows what a FAC is, for example. I wonder what his problem is. He doesn't know much, though, if he thinks the Iranians or the DPRK are better trained (to say nothing of conditioned and nourished) than the U.S. Army. Sounds like a disgruntled wargamer who took the numerical ratings in "Squad Leader" a little too seriously. Better get him another Mountain Dew.
BTW, I'm not THE anonymous
BTW, I'm not THE anonymous
# posted by : 3:40 PM
: 3:40 PM
The kind of ignorance displayed by the commenter is breathtaking (and sadly, all too common). But "ignorance" doesn't do it justice. How about "meta-ignorance"?
While it’s tempting to engage comments like these on the facts, it seldom works because the commenter is proceeding from emotion and belief. Their minds are made up.
His choice of examples is revealing, too: The two remaining Communist states and an Islamic theocracy.
I see this all the time, especially from a certain type of leftist. It isn’t just a rank ignorance of military doctrine and reality; it’s based on certain willful and mistaken beliefs about the world.
The commenter seems to argue (based on confusing war with sports, perhaps?) that we should fight 'fair', whatever that means. In this mindset, 'fair' consists of US forces forgoing their size/quality/equipment/training/logistical advantages and fighting on the enemy's terms and choice of ground.
However, history AND game theory show us that fights between closely-matched forces, from heavyweight boxers to ships-of-the-line, are usually bloody and inconclusive. This fits neatly with the belief that war is always costly, pointless and stupid. Keep the fighting ‘fair’, and it will be (costly, pointless and stupid).
The demand to fight ‘fair’ is also a military parallel to many hyper-egalitarian Leftist economic arguments: if you win and win big, you must have cheated and/or gotten lucky. Either way, you are immoral and/or undeserving.
The “Western way of war” is, after all, an extension of the so many other things the Left despises: individualism, true (as opposed to mob-rule) democratic values, ‘hard’ science, engineering, materialism and capitalism.
This type of commenter usually romanticizes the indigenous irregulars, no matter how barbaric, fascist or anti-modern. They’re culturally ‘authentic’ underdogs and therefore morally superior to us – beheadings, burkas and clitoridectomies for all!
It almost makes me nostalgic for the old-fashioned Leftists who weren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. You could respect them after a fashion.
Give this guy some credit, though. He didn’t spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a thing or two about courage. ;-)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Phil. May I ask what nation you represent?
While it’s tempting to engage comments like these on the facts, it seldom works because the commenter is proceeding from emotion and belief. Their minds are made up.
His choice of examples is revealing, too: The two remaining Communist states and an Islamic theocracy.
I see this all the time, especially from a certain type of leftist. It isn’t just a rank ignorance of military doctrine and reality; it’s based on certain willful and mistaken beliefs about the world.
The commenter seems to argue (based on confusing war with sports, perhaps?) that we should fight 'fair', whatever that means. In this mindset, 'fair' consists of US forces forgoing their size/quality/equipment/training/logistical advantages and fighting on the enemy's terms and choice of ground.
However, history AND game theory show us that fights between closely-matched forces, from heavyweight boxers to ships-of-the-line, are usually bloody and inconclusive. This fits neatly with the belief that war is always costly, pointless and stupid. Keep the fighting ‘fair’, and it will be (costly, pointless and stupid).
The demand to fight ‘fair’ is also a military parallel to many hyper-egalitarian Leftist economic arguments: if you win and win big, you must have cheated and/or gotten lucky. Either way, you are immoral and/or undeserving.
The “Western way of war” is, after all, an extension of the so many other things the Left despises: individualism, true (as opposed to mob-rule) democratic values, ‘hard’ science, engineering, materialism and capitalism.
This type of commenter usually romanticizes the indigenous irregulars, no matter how barbaric, fascist or anti-modern. They’re culturally ‘authentic’ underdogs and therefore morally superior to us – beheadings, burkas and clitoridectomies for all!
It almost makes me nostalgic for the old-fashioned Leftists who weren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. You could respect them after a fashion.
Give this guy some credit, though. He didn’t spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a thing or two about courage. ;-)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Phil. May I ask what nation you represent?
# posted by : 6:28 PM
: 6:28 PM
"The “Western way of war” is, after all, an extension of the so many other things the Left despises: individualism, true (as opposed to mob-rule) democratic values, ‘hard’ science, engineering, materialism and capitalism"
That's an interesting comment, since the many of the Greek and Roman philosophers who originally recognized and put to paper the relationship between materialism/capitalism and warfare are the same individuals who put to paper the ideology behind liberal thought (by which I mean dictionary definition, not what the far left stands for these days). And yes, I do realize the link between capitalism and warfare was recognized and written of even earlier (chronologically) in . . .wait for it. . .China.
"Gold makes war, like other things, go smoothly"
That's an interesting comment, since the many of the Greek and Roman philosophers who originally recognized and put to paper the relationship between materialism/capitalism and warfare are the same individuals who put to paper the ideology behind liberal thought (by which I mean dictionary definition, not what the far left stands for these days). And yes, I do realize the link between capitalism and warfare was recognized and written of even earlier (chronologically) in . . .wait for it. . .China.
"Gold makes war, like other things, go smoothly"
This quote, from Cicero, is even better. . . (sorry for making an additional comment, but just couldn't resist):
"The sinews of war, a limitless supply of money."
"The sinews of war, a limitless supply of money."
Hey, don't discourage him, he's funny!
Anyway, "War is not an Olympic sport."
And, Yashmak, those quotes have nothing to do with capitalism. They have to do with the fact that it takes a lot of money to fight a war. Two very different concepts.
Anyway, "War is not an Olympic sport."
And, Yashmak, those quotes have nothing to do with capitalism. They have to do with the fact that it takes a lot of money to fight a war. Two very different concepts.
The world's biggest cowards? I don't recall asking his opinion on what constitutes cowardice. I think he wet himself twice when his water pistol
leaked.
leaked.
# posted by : 9:43 AM
: 9:43 AM
Yashmak:
Your point is well taken. Part of what I meant about "the Western way of war" is that the efficiencies of industrial capitalism are what the military call a 'force multiplier'.
Part of the context of both the Chinese and Roman quotes is the fact that, in the ancient world, war was ruinously expensive. Money was the gold, silver and copper one had in hand, or could predicably tax/extort/plunder. Resources were wood, iron, grain and young men, with the last two available only seasonally. Credit and bonds were unheard of.
For all the crying about how much money is spent on the military, industrial capitalism has made war 'affordable'. Many a king won a war, but was bankrupted by it; the United States has twice spent in excess of 100% of GDP on a war (Civil War, World War II) and not been ruined. The U.S. now spends less than 4% of GDP on defense (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2034.html) but spent up to 8% during the height of the Cold War. (P.S, when ranked by spending a a %age of GDP, the U.S. comes in at 27th between Eritrea and Equitorial Guinea!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_gdp)
Military spending *is* ruinous for many undeveloped and developing nations; they simply can't afford it because they don't have the economic prosperity, i.e., the tax base, to pay for it.
The advantages of having a professional military that trains constantly is another subject....
Your point is well taken. Part of what I meant about "the Western way of war" is that the efficiencies of industrial capitalism are what the military call a 'force multiplier'.
Part of the context of both the Chinese and Roman quotes is the fact that, in the ancient world, war was ruinously expensive. Money was the gold, silver and copper one had in hand, or could predicably tax/extort/plunder. Resources were wood, iron, grain and young men, with the last two available only seasonally. Credit and bonds were unheard of.
For all the crying about how much money is spent on the military, industrial capitalism has made war 'affordable'. Many a king won a war, but was bankrupted by it; the United States has twice spent in excess of 100% of GDP on a war (Civil War, World War II) and not been ruined. The U.S. now spends less than 4% of GDP on defense (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2034.html) but spent up to 8% during the height of the Cold War. (P.S, when ranked by spending a a %age of GDP, the U.S. comes in at 27th between Eritrea and Equitorial Guinea!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_gdp)
Military spending *is* ruinous for many undeveloped and developing nations; they simply can't afford it because they don't have the economic prosperity, i.e., the tax base, to pay for it.
The advantages of having a professional military that trains constantly is another subject....
# posted by : 10:25 AM
: 10:25 AM
"And, Yashmak, those quotes have nothing to do with capitalism. They have to do with the fact that it takes a lot of money to fight a war. Two very different concepts."
I don't see how you figure that, considering that capital and its generation is a central concern in capitalism, something that might easily be discerned from the word itself. . .and something that those same philosophers discussed at great length.
I don't see how you figure that, considering that capital and its generation is a central concern in capitalism, something that might easily be discerned from the word itself. . .and something that those same philosophers discussed at great length.
You find it cowardly to call in air support when there are people hiding on top of roofs waiting to ambush you? I think I would call that intelligent. Not to mention that our tanks were designed to take out other tanks at several hundred yards away (and were NOT designed for this war) and are still extremely effective at taking out encampments 50 yards away. Might I also bring to your attention that the tactics that are taught to our soldiers are based on previous wars and not the current ones. All the tactics put into play right now are mostly adapted. I think thats pretty damn honorable don't you think? The people that make the difference aren't even our generals, its our fielded officers. I don't call it cowardly to search a building of people who could be armed, but are dressed like civilians. We don't call in air strikes when it puts civilians at risk, that includes those Close Quarters situations. You may want to read up a bit on how we fight before making an idiot out of yourself.
# posted by : 5:11 AM
: 5:11 AM
I was just searching blogs and found yours.It's interesting. I'm going to bookmark you and return.
Regards
Alex dvd authoring and replication
Regards
Alex dvd authoring and replication
# posted by : 8:50 PM
: 8:50 PM
I was just searching blogs and found yours.It's interesting. I'm going to bookmark you and return.
Regards
Alex shooting video tutorials
Post a Comment
Regards
Alex shooting video tutorials
# posted by : 9:48 PM
: 9:48 PM
