Why aren't Humvee's outfitted with Dillon M134's? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why aren't Humvee's outfitted with Dillon M134's? (Page 2 of 5)

Posted: 10/17/2007 11:28:38 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The question there is one of center of gravity. In Iraq it is the people. In Germany it was the industry.

We bombed civilians indiscriminately during WW2.

Sure... but was that what ended the war? Probably not. Certainly not in Europe.

Wrong, its one of the things that greatly contributed to the end. If you can't admit that, then you have your head in the sand.

It had a minimal effect on the end of the war. As stated previously, Albert Speer increased production in the war economy throughout the bombing campaign.

Atomic bombs and the firing bombing of Tokyo sure got Japan to surrender quick.

Japan is a different case. You think the warlords surrendered because they lost enough people? They couldn't care less about how many died. In addition to factories, the Japanese war economy was spread into individual houses across cities. Each home might have a lathe or a press or some other piece of equipment in it. Firebombing cities destroyed their war economy. The atomic bombings weren't even that necessary, from a military standpoint. All they did was reiterate to the warlords that they could not compete with the american war machine.

Dead civilians were the last things on their mind.

Posted: 10/17/2007 11:39:41 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The mass bombing of cities during WWII was one of the most profound exercises in futility in the whole of modern warfare.

A) During our bombing campaign against Germany, even at the height of it, with thousand-bomber-raids and all the destruction it rained down.... Albert Speer's armaments ministry INCREASED PRODUCTION across the board in all areas, despite the attacks.
B) Bombing civilians did not decrease their will to fight. Witness the Brits during the Blitz or the German civilians joining in the fight for a completely ruined Berlin.

You have no idea what "strategic bombing" is. Gulf War I was strategic bombing. OIF was strategic bombing. One bomb, one specific target, total destruction. Completely obliterating the enemy's ABILITY to fight, not his will. What you advocate is simply lobbing bombs into a populace to "teach them a lesson."

So your saying not bombing their industry and denying their ability to wage war would have a better choice?

No, I'm saying that the tactic you advocate - mass aerial bombing - is completely ineffective. The only way aerial bombing can be effective is if it is used the way we do now: as a comprehensive attack using precision weapons against the entire military and industrial complex. Thousand bomber raids that don't hit the intended target and only kill civilians don't work.

Even if true, the fact that they increased production is irrelevant. If the bombing didn't happen, then they could have increased production 10X.

Have you read what Albert Speer had to say on the subject and what the U.S. Army had to say on the subject?

Both agree, our strategic bombing campaign in WWII did not do much.

Your advocation of WWII-style strategic bombing has been proven flat-out wrong by history.

German industry wasn't at full capacity when they started the war. They were increasing production when we started bombing. It took the allies time "catch up" to the German industry and slow production.

And? Conventional (and your) wisdom is that the bombing accomplished anything. It accomplished few, if any, tangible benefits. If it worked, Speer wouldn't have been able to increase output throughout the campaign.

Your post implies the bombing was the cause of an increase in German productivity.

No, you assume that because it is the last straw you can grasp at to hold onto your antiquated and weak ideas.

Our bombing did little to nothing to check the German war industry. That is the only thing I am saying.

Posted: 10/17/2007 11:44:30 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
7.62 is for pussies

www.angelfire.com/ca6/modelci/hmmwv/c_hmmwv.jpg

Exactly, Lets talk GAU-19/A shall we

GAU-19/A Video

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:00:56 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

No, I'm saying that the tactic you advocate - mass aerial bombing - is completely ineffective. The only way aerial bombing can be effective is if it is used the way we do now: as a comprehensive attack using precision weapons against the entire military and industrial complex. Thousand bomber raids that don't hit the intended target and only kill civilians don't work.

A country in war needs people to wage war. They can't do it if they are dead.

Our bombing did little to nothing to check the German war industry. That is the only thing I am saying.

Your position is absurd.

You don't think bombing ball bearing factories, tank/aircraft factories, or oil fields denied resources to the axis?

Do you think they just magically rebuilt these factories after the bombing without expending any resources or effort? Those same resources and efforts that could have been used to wage war instead of rebuilding.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:12:02 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, I'm saying that the tactic you advocate - mass aerial bombing - is completely ineffective. The only way aerial bombing can be effective is if it is used the way we do now: as a comprehensive attack using precision weapons against the entire military and industrial complex. Thousand bomber raids that don't hit the intended target and only kill civilians don't work.

A country in war needs people to wage war. They can't do it if they are dead.

Our bombing did little to nothing to check the German war industry. That is the only thing I am saying.

Your position is absurd.

You don't think bombing ball bearing factories, tank/aircraft factories, or oil fields denied resources to the axis?

Do you think they just magically rebuilt these factories after the bombing without expending any resources or effort? Those same resources and efforts that could have been used to wage war instead of rebuilding.

And what nation are we at war with, exactly? So burning villages in Vietnam was OK because we were depriving them of their population? You're playing awful close to genocide here.

How many ball bearing factories did we actually hit? How effective were the bombs at putting them out commission? The answer is that we didn't. Very few of the bombs hit their intended targets and the damage was usually minimal.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:24:37 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, I'm saying that the tactic you advocate - mass aerial bombing - is completely ineffective. The only way aerial bombing can be effective is if it is used the way we do now: as a comprehensive attack using precision weapons against the entire military and industrial complex. Thousand bomber raids that don't hit the intended target and only kill civilians don't work.

A country in war needs people to wage war. They can't do it if they are dead.

Our bombing did little to nothing to check the German war industry. That is the only thing I am saying.

Your position is absurd.

You don't think bombing ball bearing factories, tank/aircraft factories, or oil fields denied resources to the axis?

Do you think they just magically rebuilt these factories after the bombing without expending any resources or effort? Those same resources and efforts that could have been used to wage war instead of rebuilding.

A piece of advice. You need to do a bit of research beyond the history channel and wikipedia.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:32:07 PM EDT

[#7]

Like Col. Kurtz, Mr. Ryan has a point.
The use of horror in war is a very effective way to prevent the next generation from wanting to become the next crispy critters. The tactic was used in Vietnam by our enemy to prevent civilian cooperation with the U.S. efforts, and dispite our 'Hearts & minds' agenda....it was successful.

It may not be moral, or justifiable, but it is effective.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:35:38 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Like Col. Kurtz, Mr. Ryan has a point.
The use of horror in war is a very effective way to prevent the next generation from wanting to become the next crispy critters. The tactic was used in Vietnam by our enemy to prevent civilian cooperation with the U.S. efforts, and dispite our 'Hearts & minds' agenda....it was successful.

It may not be moral, or justifiable, but it is effective.

Exactly

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:39:15 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Like Col. Kurtz, Mr. Ryan has a point.
The use of horror in war is a very effective way to prevent the next generation from wanting to become the next crispy critters. The tactic was used in Vietnam by our enemy to prevent civilian cooperation with the U.S. efforts, and dispite our 'Hearts & minds' agenda....it was successful.

It may not be moral, or justifiable, but it is effective.

Al Qaeda used the same types of tactics in Anbar. Read Yon's website to see how that turned out.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:48:04 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

HMMV is the better terminology I know.

HMMWV.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:48:22 PM EDT

[#11]

We are not Al Qaeda, when we fling poo, it sticks and stays.

We have the power to inflict upon our enemy such devistation and death that they would be effectivly removed from the face of the earth. The fact that we restrain ourselves in spite of mounting casulties is a show that we hold the moral high-ground.
At some point however, more 'drastic means' may become necessary. If we use these heavier tactics, we may lose the moral standing we have in the world community, but we will end a threat that effects everyone in the world.

If we would have used this level of restraint in WWII, we would be a bunch of rice eating fools right now.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:49:11 PM EDT

[#12]

They just can't admit that devestating military operations like Shermans march to the sea and the firebombing of Tokyo don't work because they are not politically correct in today's world.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:51:07 PM EDT

[#13]

The war in Vietnam became a failure as the US abandoned a UW approach and went with bombs. Not a case for you to use.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:51:45 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

If we would have used this level of restraint in WWII, we would be a bunch of rice eating fools right now.

Pretty much sums it up.

Just like we will be praying toward Mecca in a few generations while we let the ROP take over the world and we sit and try to passivate them.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:55:29 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
The war in Vietnam became a failure as the US abandoned a UW approach and went with bombs. Not a case for you to use.

It's not about why we lost, it's about why the hamlets had AKs & RPGs hidden under the bags of rice "Donated by the caring people of the United States" for the use of the NVA & VC. If they didn't do this what would be the result to that hamlet? You know the answer.

You could give them anything, and they will still succumb to those who would carve up their parents and children.

Like it or not, fear is the ultimate persuader, not good will and commodities.

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:57:11 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
We are not Al Qaeda, when we fling poo, it sticks and stays.

We have the power to inflict upon our enemy such devistation and death that they would be effectivly removed from the face of the earth. The fact that we restrain ourselves in spite of mounting casulties is a show that we hold the moral high-ground.
At some point however, more 'drastic means' may become necessary. If we use these heavier tactics, we may lose the moral standing we have in the world community, but we will end a threat that effects everyone in the world.

If we would have used this level of restraint in WWII, we would be a bunch of rice eating fools right now.

This is NOT WWII. They are two completely different military and political situations. If you try to compare the two, you'll be doomed to failure. Remember Vietnam? We approached it like we approached WWII. We bombed the north, did body counts in the South, and equipped the S. Vietnamese like they were the Free French. Where did that get us?

Posted: 10/17/2007 5:59:34 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The war in Vietnam became a failure as the US abandoned a UW approach and went with bombs. Not a case for you to use.

It's not about why we lost, it's about why the hamlets had AKs & RPGs hidden under the bags of rice "Donated by the caring people of the United States" for the use of the NVA & VC. If they didn't do this what would be the result to that hamlet? You know the answer.

Where we attempted to win hearts and minds with handouts and freebies, that's all you were. A source of food. How much loyalty and respect do you expect to command by tossing food at them like coins to a bum? Where we lived in hamlets and fought alongside Vietnamese, we had great success. Unfortunately Westmoreland wasn't too fond of such a policy.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:03:44 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We are not Al Qaeda, when we fling poo, it sticks and stays.

We have the power to inflict upon our enemy such devistation and death that they would be effectivly removed from the face of the earth. The fact that we restrain ourselves in spite of mounting casulties is a show that we hold the moral high-ground.
At some point however, more 'drastic means' may become necessary. If we use these heavier tactics, we may lose the moral standing we have in the world community, but we will end a threat that effects everyone in the world.

If we would have used this level of restraint in WWII, we would be a bunch of rice eating fools right now.

This is NOT WWII. They are two completely different military and political situations. If you try to compare the two, you'll be doomed to failure. Remember Vietnam? We approached it like we approached WWII. We bombed the north, did body counts in the South, and equipped the S. Vietnamese like they were the Free French. Where did that get us?

In WWII we took ground & held it. Not so in Vietnam. Once liberated a French town was done with the war. When we passed through a village in Vietnam we did the "Heatrs & minds" thing....then the sun went down, and we weren't there.......How did that turn out?

ETA/ The Iraqi people who give info to our troops on the insurgents.....what happens to them? What happens when we roll back to a FOB & they sit there in their little dark corner? Have you seen the pics of the bodies?

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:07:43 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We are not Al Qaeda, when we fling poo, it sticks and stays.

We have the power to inflict upon our enemy such devistation and death that they would be effectivly removed from the face of the earth. The fact that we restrain ourselves in spite of mounting casulties is a show that we hold the moral high-ground.
At some point however, more 'drastic means' may become necessary. If we use these heavier tactics, we may lose the moral standing we have in the world community, but we will end a threat that effects everyone in the world.

If we would have used this level of restraint in WWII, we would be a bunch of rice eating fools right now.

This is NOT WWII. They are two completely different military and political situations. If you try to compare the two, you'll be doomed to failure. Remember Vietnam? We approached it like we approached WWII. We bombed the north, did body counts in the South, and equipped the S. Vietnamese like they were the Free French. Where did that get us?

In WWII we took ground & held it. Not so in Vietnam. Once liberated a French town was done with the war. When we passed through a village in Vietnam we did the "Heatrs & minds" thing....then the sun went down, and we weren't there.......How did that turn out?

That is exactly why, since Pratreus took command, we have went out into the neighborhoods of Iraq. You go in, and you perform "community police" functions.

Is the term "police" distasteful for your average combat troop? Probably, but that is exactly what we did post WWII. The major combat operations phase, ie the phase against an organized military is over. It was over 4 and a half years ago. Now is the time to employ proven COIN techniques. Guess what? Bombing the ever living shit out of the people is not a proven COIN technique.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:08:52 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The war in Vietnam became a failure as the US abandoned a UW approach and went with bombs. Not a case for you to use.

It's not about why we lost, it's about why the hamlets had AKs & RPGs hidden under the bags of rice "Donated by the caring people of the United States" for the use of the NVA & VC. If they didn't do this what would be the result to that hamlet? You know the answer.

Where we attempted to win hearts and minds with handouts and freebies, that's all you were. A source of food. How much loyalty and respect do you expect to command by tossing food at them like coins to a bum? Where we lived in hamlets and fought alongside Vietnamese, we had great success. Unfortunately Westmoreland wasn't too fond of such a policy.

You forgot the wonderful policy of relocating villages. I'm sure that did wonders for our support. Go into a village. Round up the people. Forcibly move them to a new location. Burn their old village. Yep, that'll work.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:16:01 PM EDT

[#21]

I wasn't thinking that carpet bombing is the answer.

Something more like the Phoenix Program. It would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the humanitarians, but it would be more effective.
This is still war, and the U.S. hasn't been too good at limited warfare. If the numbers of insurgents entering from outside Iraq continue to increase, we will need to step up our aggression....or they will win.

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:19:53 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

If it was a matter of destroying an army, bombing might be an answer. However, we're talking about individuals. We have to approach it be addressing the causes.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:25:54 PM EDT

[#23]

The Malaysian Emergency and the Boer war have shown that moving a population can work under some circumstances. A modern corollary would be separating the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.

That said, Westmoreland caused the failure of SFs inroads when he ordered the removal of villagers. Before that they were willing combatants on our side. And they actually held the ground. The only way to really hold grond is to do so with the cooperation of the people.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:28:11 PM EDT

[#24]

Google Transformation: A Bold Case for Unconventional Warfare by Simmons and Basilici.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:31:14 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
7.62 is for pussies

www.angelfire.com/ca6/modelci/hmmwv/c_hmmwv.jpg

Exactly, Lets talk GAU-19/A shall we

GAU-19/A Video

Does that have an eotech on it?

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:31:18 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

If it was a matter of destroying an army, bombing might be an answer. However, we're talking about individuals. We have to approach it be addressing the causes.

I kinda look at it this way:
If I'm trying to remove weeds from a lawn, but next door to this lawn is a weed infested field, I must clear the field also, to preserve the work I'm doing. If the field's owner allows it, I will kill only the weeds. If he doesn't, I will defoliate the whole damn thing.....and say "I'm sorry bout that" after it is done. - End result=weeds gone.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:32:22 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

If it was a matter of destroying an army, bombing might be an answer. However, we're talking about individuals. We have to approach it be addressing the causes.

You just don't get it do you. I never said bombing was the only solution. The whole point of my stance is to go in hard and kill the enemy. No passivation. No shitty ROE.

We could go in on the ground and get some collaborators in a village to snich out who is an insurgent. Then go hunt those people down and kill them.

Similiar tactics as the Einsatzgruppen did in eastern Europe and no I am not advocating genocide. I said use similar tactics, not political motivations.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:33:10 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

If it was a matter of destroying an army, bombing might be an answer. However, we're talking about individuals. We have to approach it be addressing the causes.

I kinda look at it this way:
If I'm trying to remove weeds from a lawn, but next door to this lawn is a weed infested field, I must clear the field also, to preserve the work I'm doing. If the field's owner allows it, I will kill only the weeds. If he doesn't, I will defoliate the whole damn thing.....and say "I'm sorry bout that" after it is done. - End result=weeds gone.

People are not weeds.

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:35:20 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

If it was a matter of destroying an army, bombing might be an answer. However, we're talking about individuals. We have to approach it be addressing the causes.

I kinda look at it this way:
If I'm trying to remove weeds from a lawn, but next door to this lawn is a weed infested field, I must clear the field also, to preserve the work I'm doing. If the field's owner allows it, I will kill only the weeds. If he doesn't, I will defoliate the whole damn thing.....and say "I'm sorry bout that" after it is done. - End result=weeds gone.

People are not weeds.

Your right. Weeds didn't kill my best friend.

ETA/ ....and thousands of other Americans

Posted: 10/17/2007 6:37:13 PM EDT

[#30]

The Germans never won against an insurgency...

And we used to do what you are talking about until we relized that we were doing other peopes killing for them and digging a hole for ourselves. Royal we.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:00:28 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Collateral damage would be a little excessive.

We don't really need it.

Joe would be writing profanity all over Iraq with bullet holes instead of spray paint, ruining our public image.

There you have it, as I have been saying all along. This mentality is why this nation will eventually lose the WOT.

Not using inappropriate weapon systems to do a job that weren't designed for is going to cause us to lose the war on terror? WTF, over.

That wasn't the point I was making. The poster was using "too much excessive force" as a reason to not use it. There is no such thing as excessive force in war.

No the poster stated that, "collateral damage would be a little excessive."

It doesn't matter. My point is still the same. There is not such thing as too much collateral damage.

Ok, since collateral damage is not an issue lets just nuke the country a few times or bomb every town. Your tinfoil is a bit tight.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:03:37 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

I'm not going to cave in on anything you are saying. The ROE is there to fight a politically correct war/

No shit. War is politics by other means. You cannot separate the two. The only people who do are people who can't stand reality and need neat and clean rules for their simple minds. I know you're not one of them.

You cant or won't defend any American serviceman that is getting the book thrown at them for doing his job. Instead you question my firsthand knowledge of the incident.

Because there is two sides to every story.

The Marines in afganastan got send home because they did their job too well.

And you know that how?

The Marines who are being railroaded about the thing in Haditha

A trial is where we try to find the truth. The fact that they even when to trial showed the Iraqi people that the US holds their own people accountable. Something they had not experienced since Saddam took power. That's a powerful statement.

The rouge General after the two Rangers.

The dead Seals.

I bought the book. I stopped reading it because it was obvious there was blame laying going on. Those Seals should have never been put in that situation in the first place.

This is complete bullshit.

So all knowing one, just what are the RsOE in Iraq and A-stan right now?

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:05:15 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Those that don't- are supporting them, and should share their fate.

Interesting. But I wouldn't be so quick to condemn until you and your family have been threatened. Have you read Yon's blog? The types of thing AQ was doing to people was barbaric. I doubt you'd be eager to help a force that was hunkered down in their FOBs when AQ was in the same building or on the same block as you, and had proven their resolve to do nasty things to you and yours.

The answer to fear is not more fear from a different source. The answer to fear is hope and commitment to a brighter future.

Good luck with that idea.
It seems to be working so well with our gang problems in our lower income areas here. Last night 3 blocks away, a home invader shot a 27 y/o man. The brighter future plan sure is paying off around here.

I really do hope we can end this without the deaths of too many bystanders. I'm just not counting on it, and better their bystanders than ours.

Nothing is 100% and life is not risk free. But are you overcome by fear to where you cannot have an ordinary life? I think not.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:06:38 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Interesting. But I wouldn't be so quick to condemn until you and your family have been threatened. Have you read Yon's blog? The types of thing AQ was doing to people was barbaric. I doubt you'd be eager to help a force that was hunkered down in their FOBs when AQ was in the same building or on the same block as you, and had proven their resolve to do nasty things to you and yours.

The answer to fear is not more fear from a different source. The answer to fear is hope and commitment to a brighter future.

Agreed, because frankly, I don't think we can compete with our enemies in barbarism, nor should we attempt such a task.

Tom Odom piece:
smallwarsjournal.com/documents/swjmag/v8/odom-swjvol8-excerpt.pdf

Thanks. I didn't need to read past the first sentence. He was right on.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:06:43 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

A trial is where we try to find the truth. The fact that they even when to trial showed the Iraqi people that the US holds their own people accountable. Something they had not experienced since Saddam took power. That's a powerful statement.

An investigation can be launched without a trial and ruining the lives and reputation of these men for the rest of their lives for doing their job.

And the bottom line is none of this would have happened in WW2. The ROE was killed or be killed. Anything less is putting our soldiers at unecessary risk.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:07:41 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A trial is where we try to find the truth. The fact that they even when to trial showed the Iraqi people that the US holds their own people accountable. Something they had not experienced since Saddam took power. That's a powerful statement.

An investigation can be launched without a trial and ruining the lives and reputation of these men for the rest of their lives for doing their job.

So you are willing to stick up for the integrity of the Marines who fought, but not the integrity of the Marines that investigated their own?

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:10:05 PM EDT

[#37]

I guess that my thinking is a bit heartless.

But, as long as the enemy can use tactics & strategies that we cannot, go places we cannot, and be protected by human shields in the AO, they will be able to outlast us, and keep control of the population through fear.
We can only give them commodities, and a half-assed level of security that fails to protect them & their families from those who are willing to use all that is available to keep them from supporting us. We are in the FOB, the enemy is in their attic.

ETA/ Hence my reason for saying a M134 would be OK on a hummer.
It would be the gunner who must make the decision on how much spray is enough for a given situation.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:10:33 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A trial is where we try to find the truth. The fact that they even when to trial showed the Iraqi people that the US holds their own people accountable. Something they had not experienced since Saddam took power. That's a powerful statement.

An investigation can be launched without a trial and ruining the lives and reputation of these men for the rest of their lives for doing their job.

So you are willing to stick up for the integrity of the Marines who fought, but not the integrity of the Marines that investigated their own?

Military court is out of control and needs to be slashed. Judges, proscecutors, and lawyers need full courtrooms to perpetuate their existance.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:15:19 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A trial is where we try to find the truth. The fact that they even when to trial showed the Iraqi people that the US holds their own people accountable. Something they had not experienced since Saddam took power. That's a powerful statement.

An investigation can be launched without a trial and ruining the lives and reputation of these men for the rest of their lives for doing their job.

So you are willing to stick up for the integrity of the Marines who fought, but not the integrity of the Marines that investigated their own?

Military court is out of control and needs to be slashed. Judges, proscecutors, and lawyers need full courtrooms to perpetuate their existance.

So in order to defend the honor of the Marines, you slander the honor of the military court system.

Guess what, the JAG corps has enough work without looking for work. Also the investigations are normally done by what we in the Navy would call "line" officers.

You'd rather impugn the integrity of the investigators, the prosecutors and the courts members themselves, all military member, than admit that someone might have gone overboard in their response to an ambush.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:21:22 PM EDT

[#40]

Overboard in response to an ambush?
Crazy shit is happening, and you are so scared that you have to pull the seat covers of your hummer out of your ass to dismount. Overreaction is not a concern, enough reaction is.....like a M134 up in the turret would be nice about then.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:23:01 PM EDT

[#41]

The first investigation into Haditha was conducted by MajGen Eldon Bargewell, who was with MACV-SOG in Vietnam and commanded Delta Force at one point. But I'm sure he's just looking for another notch on his belt and knows nothing about what it's like to lose friends in combat.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:25:12 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Overboard in response to an ambush?
Crazy shit is happening, and you are so scared that you have to pull the seat covers of your hummer out of your ass to dismount. Overreaction is not a concern, enough reaction is.....like a M134 up in the turret would be nice about then.

Yes, you can overreact to an ambush. For instance, killing unarmed people inside a building would be an overreaction.

If people happen to be on the street in the crossfire, that is unfortunate. Going into a building, which may be necessary, and then killing unarmed occupants is going overboard.

Finding and killing armed people in said building I have no problem with. Nor do I have a problem with going SAS on those combatants already shot.

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:26:41 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A trial is where we try to find the truth. The fact that they even when to trial showed the Iraqi people that the US holds their own people accountable. Something they had not experienced since Saddam took power. That's a powerful statement.

An investigation can be launched without a trial and ruining the lives and reputation of these men for the rest of their lives for doing their job.

So you are willing to stick up for the integrity of the Marines who fought, but not the integrity of the Marines that investigated their own?

Military court is out of control and needs to be slashed. Judges, proscecutors, and lawyers need full courtrooms to perpetuate their existance.

So in order to defend the honor of the Marines, you slander the honor of the military court system.

Guess what, the JAG corps has enough work without looking for work. Also the investigations are normally done by what we in the Navy would call "line" officers.

You'd rather impugn the integrity of the investigators, the prosecutors and the courts members themselves, all military member, than admit that someone might have gone overboard in their response to an ambush.

What kind of excuses can you make for Gen Kearney after the two Rangers who have been cleared twice before and now he is going after them a third time?

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:26:54 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Overboard in response to an ambush?
Crazy shit is happening, and you are so scared that you have to pull the seat covers of your hummer out of your ass to dismount. Overreaction is not a concern, enough reaction is.....like a M134 up in the turret would be nice about then.

Yes, you can overreact to an ambush. For instance, killing unarmed people inside a building would be an overreaction.

If people happen to be on the street in the crossfire, that is unfortunate. Going into a building, which may be necessary, and then killing unarmed occupants is going overboard.

Finding and killing armed people in said building I have no problem with. Nor do I have a problem with going SAS on those combatants already shot.

Agreed

Posted: 10/17/2007 7:32:25 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Link?

One general, however, is not the entire JAG corps. In fact, it appears the JAG corps seems to be at the heart of the reduced charges of the Haditha Marines.

We have a system with due process. You ought to try and trust it once in a while.

Posted: 10/17/2007 8:03:56 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, I'm saying that the tactic you advocate - mass aerial bombing - is completely ineffective. The only way aerial bombing can be effective is if it is used the way we do now: as a comprehensive attack using precision weapons against the entire military and industrial complex. Thousand bomber raids that don't hit the intended target and only kill civilians don't work.

A country in war needs people to wage war. They can't do it if they are dead.

Our bombing did little to nothing to check the German war industry. That is the only thing I am saying.

Your position is absurd.

You don't think bombing ball bearing factories, tank/aircraft factories, or oil fields denied resources to the axis?

Do you think they just magically rebuilt these factories after the bombing without expending any resources or effort? Those same resources and efforts that could have been used to wage war instead of rebuilding.

Read a goddamn book. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Educated people are here trying to instill a little knowledge in you, and you insist on being obtuse. Go read Albert Speer's memoirs, and do a google search for the U.S. Army report on the effectiveness of the bombing campaign.

Posted: 10/17/2007 8:06:13 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

If it was a matter of destroying an army, bombing might be an answer. However, we're talking about individuals. We have to approach it be addressing the causes.

You just don't get it do you. I never said bombing was the only solution. The whole point of my stance is to go in hard and kill the enemy. No passivation. No shitty ROE.

We could go in on the ground and get some collaborators in a village to snich out who is an insurgent. Then go hunt those people down and kill them.

Similiar tactics as the Einsatzgruppen did in eastern Europe and no I am not advocating genocide. I said use similar tactics, not political motivations.

You really are out of your fucking mind.

Posted: 10/17/2007 8:33:47 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, I'm saying that the tactic you advocate - mass aerial bombing - is completely ineffective. The only way aerial bombing can be effective is if it is used the way we do now: as a comprehensive attack using precision weapons against the entire military and industrial complex. Thousand bomber raids that don't hit the intended target and only kill civilians don't work.

A country in war needs people to wage war. They can't do it if they are dead.

Our bombing did little to nothing to check the German war industry. That is the only thing I am saying.

Your position is absurd.

You don't think bombing ball bearing factories, tank/aircraft factories, or oil fields denied resources to the axis?

Do you think they just magically rebuilt these factories after the bombing without expending any resources or effort? Those same resources and efforts that could have been used to wage war instead of rebuilding.

Read a goddamn book. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Educated people are here trying to instill a little knowledge in you, and you insist on being obtuse. Go read Albert Speer's memoirs, and do a google search for the U.S. Army report on the effectiveness of the bombing campaign.

Educated

Posted: 10/17/2007 8:35:30 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, I'm saying that the tactic you advocate - mass aerial bombing - is completely ineffective. The only way aerial bombing can be effective is if it is used the way we do now: as a comprehensive attack using precision weapons against the entire military and industrial complex. Thousand bomber raids that don't hit the intended target and only kill civilians don't work.

A country in war needs people to wage war. They can't do it if they are dead.

Our bombing did little to nothing to check the German war industry. That is the only thing I am saying.

Your position is absurd.

You don't think bombing ball bearing factories, tank/aircraft factories, or oil fields denied resources to the axis?

Do you think they just magically rebuilt these factories after the bombing without expending any resources or effort? Those same resources and efforts that could have been used to wage war instead of rebuilding.

Read a goddamn book. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Educated people are here trying to instill a little knowledge in you, and you insist on being obtuse. Go read Albert Speer's memoirs, and do a google search for the U.S. Army report on the effectiveness of the bombing campaign.

Educated

I took an USAF course on air planning. Even they say their strategic bombing campaign in WWII was largely ineffective. In fact, they say that less attention should have been paid to irrelevant things like ball bearings and more attention paid to the Nazi's real achilles heal, oil.

Posted: 10/17/2007 8:36:27 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, what will we do about these importers of enemy? As long as their home turf is untouched, they will grow like weeds in an unkempt lawn.

If it was a matter of destroying an army, bombing might be an answer. However, we're talking about individuals. We have to approach it be addressing the causes.

You just don't get it do you. I never said bombing was the only solution. The whole point of my stance is to go in hard and kill the enemy. No passivation. No shitty ROE.

We could go in on the ground and get some collaborators in a village to snich out who is an insurgent. Then go hunt those people down and kill them.

Similiar tactics as the Einsatzgruppen did in eastern Europe and no I am not advocating genocide. I said use similar tactics, not political motivations.

You really are out of your fucking mind.

You can't comprehend anything I'm saying.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why aren't Humvee's outfitted with Dillon M134's? (Page 2 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us