[quote]Dustin wrote:
jawara wrote:
There’s an new Iraqi patrol base being built right up the road from us. We were supprised to see them using m-16s ourselves. I guess the idea is to try to get them into the whole NATO thing. Myself and alot of others really dont think they are going to clean them the way they need to be cleaned so I’m going to predict alot of jams in the future. Oh and they also have the 1151 humvees too!
Damn, I haven’t heard of any of this. What area of Iraq are you in?
I’m in the south. I haven’t seen any Iraqis with M-16s. What markings do they have on their 1151s? Do they look just like ours, or are they painted differently?
Dustin[/quote]
I’m at FOB Stryker in BIAP. Their 1151’s have Iraqi flags painted of the sides and some have red squares on the windows. The internet here is really slow but when we go out on patrol again (in the daytime) I’ll take a pic and try to upload it for you.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
You have proven yourself stunningly ignorant.
If an insurgent rifleman using guerilla warfare is synonymous with a terrorist, when his acts are no more terrifying than that of any other rifle man.
Then I suppose being stunningly ignorant is synonymous with being an absolute genius.
So Thank you.
It wasn’t so much the use of rifles that makes insurgents terrorists, it’s their torture chambers and beheadings - you know, things that instill terror. [/quote]
Jeez. For the last time:
A civilian who attacks civilian targets is a terrorist.
A civilian who attacks military targets is a guerrilla.
A military man who attacks military targets is a combat soldier.
A military man who attacks civilian targets is a war criminal.
The type of weaponry each uses in his attack makes not one whit of difference to their respective designations.
However, the use of the M-16 rifle will make them all less effective, whatever their job.
I’m at FOB Stryker in BIAP. Their 1151’s have Iraqi flags painted of the sides and some have red squares on the windows. The internet here is really slow but when we go out on patrol again (in the daytime) I’ll take a pic and try to upload it for you.[/quote]
I’m down in Tallil. I was in Seitz a couple of days ago. I went out on a convoy with one of our CETs.
Yeah, I’d like to see pic when you get the chance.
Military who attacks civilians…its almost imposible to prevent civilian victims in a war.
Its just absurd. Media wars.
Inteligent weapons. Humanitarian strikes…
Bullshits.
Just a tender way to make the war acceptible for the western people and to excuse some goverments terrorism.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Legionnaire wrote:
““We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK … it’s more durable,” said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who’s in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.”
There’s no way in hell the m16 is more durable than the AK-47.
What a joke, huh?
While the M-16 can be considered superior in some areas durability/reliability is not one of them.
I hope the Iraqis like cleaning caked-on carbon out of upper receivers. The AK, for its inaccuracies, at least has a piston.[/quote]
And fires a round that is worth a damn.
Check out this guy coating his AK w/ mud then firing it. Try and do that w/ an M-16/M-4
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
This reminds me of a story of when I was in the Phillipines. I’m trying to fill my truck up with as many guns as possible so I grab a Filipino soldier to stick in the back seat. I figure he’d be a pretty good tool for discerning Abu Sayef from civilians.
So he’s sitting back there and his M16 is atrocious. I asked him, “You ever clean that thing?” “Sure,” he replied as he pulled a rag from the hollow of the pistol grip and wiped down the outside.
When I’m done picking my jaw up off the floor I take his rifle and break it down shotgun style. The soldier protested because he thought I was breaking it. I pulled his bolt carrier out and disassembled it. The bolt was so badly rusted that one of the teeth was actually broken off.
I pulled out a Mk19 bore brush and gave the whole thing a one over before putting some CLP on it and doing a function check after putting it back together. The guy looked shocked at how smooth the action was, “Ahhh, no stoppages!”
I pray the Iraqis do better, but I won’t hold my breath.
mike[/quote]
Ha…Were you down in Zambo? I love Fil weapon Maintenance. What’s really fun is guiding 'em in a night live fire excercise.
At least the M14’s were rockin!
Military who attacks civilians…its almost imposible to prevent civilian victims in a war.
[/quote]
There is a difference between incidentally killing civilians in a military assault, and intentionally targeting them. The firebombing of Tokyo was a military operation with heavy civilian “collateral damage” casualties. The My Lai massacre and the Rape of Nanking were war crimes. Fallujah is somewhere in the middle. I stand by my definitions.
Military who attacks civilians…its almost imposible to prevent civilian victims in a war.
There is a difference between incidentally killing civilians in a military assault, and intentionally targeting them. The firebombing of Tokyo was a military operation with heavy civilian “collateral damage” casualties. The My Lai massacre and the Rape of Nanking were war crimes. Fallujah is somewhere in the middle. I stand by my definitions.[/quote]
The fire bombing of Japanese cities and the carpet bombing of German cities was designed to kill as many civilians as possible.
And they did.
The idea that “collateral” damage is somehow different from other civilian casualties is an idea that is a side product of the deeply Western idea of a decisive battle, which is a whole set of ideas not shared by other cultures.
The idea that “collateral” damage is somehow different from other civilian casualties is an idea that is a side product of the deeply Western idea of a decisive battle, which is a whole set of ideas not shared by other cultures. [/quote]
Oh, I don’t know. People like Tamarlane, Genghis Khan, Hannibal Barca and Spahbod Surena were not part of Western culture, yet they certainly saw the value of a nice decisive battle, and were not above doing plenty of collateral damage in the process.
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
Suck on this, warmongers!
And what are the warmongers to suck on?
That the US air force will be able to re-fuel more efficiently? [/quote]
Many times, Zap and the others kept repeating that war is good for the economy and that it ultimately benefits the average American (at least, the one lucky enough not to lose a leg or relative in the process).
The reported story shows that the MIC is nothing more than a money-making machine, and that it isn’t really concerned with flags or the other insanities sold to the American public.
So, Americans’ taxpayer money is going to Europeans (heck, Airbus has gigantic plants in Morocco too!) to wage war on a people that’s on the other side of the planet, and that’s served no other purpose than to exacerbate the hatred towards the US. Despite the low-low dollar…
[quote] international warmachine wrote:
So what, I will happily suck every miserable war-torn cock, as long as it’s bloody splooge will fill up my bottomless belly.
[/quote]
Enjoy the happy meal, you adorable, chubby little glutton!
I see a long row of circumsized dicks in the middle east waiting to unload for generations to cum.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, I don’t know. People like Tamarlane, Genghis Khan, Hannibal Barca and Spahbod Surena were not part of Western culture, yet they certainly saw the value of a nice decisive battle, and were not above doing plenty of collateral damage in the process.[/quote]
V, I agree with your accessment on terrorists vs soldiers…war crimes vs collateral dammage.
In the past, the rule was (from Crusaders time till the Manchus marched on China) if you were in a walled city and you surrendered, your city was looted, and a garrison was put in charge. If you resisted in any way, your city was eventually looted, but everyone inside was slaughtered.
That was pretty much the way it was in warfare before it became PC.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
international warmachine wrote:
So what, I will happily suck every miserable war-torn cock, as long as it’s bloody splooge will fill up my bottomless belly.
Enjoy the happy meal, you adorable, chubby little glutton!
I see a long row of circumsized dicks in the middle east waiting to unload for generations to cum.
[/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
…Many times, Zap and the others kept repeating that war is good for the economy …[/quote]
I have never said that you lying sack of shit. War is a horrible waste. It is unfortunate that your murderous friends make it necessary. the sooner peace can be reestablished the better for all. Unfortunately peace never lasts.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, I don’t know. People like Tamarlane, Genghis Khan, Hannibal Barca and Spahbod Surena were not part of Western culture, yet they certainly saw the value of a nice decisive battle, and were not above doing plenty of collateral damage in the process.
V, I agree with your accessment on terrorists vs soldiers…war crimes vs collateral dammage.
In the past, the rule was (from Crusaders time till the Manchus marched on China) if you were in a walled city and you surrendered, your city was looted, and a garrison was put in charge. If you resisted in any way, your city was eventually looted, but everyone inside was slaughtered.
That was pretty much the way it was in warfare before it became PC.[/quote]
Warfare did not “become PC,” that’s stupid. There have always been laws and norms in warfare, they have just changed over time.
The idea that “collateral” damage is somehow different from other civilian casualties is an idea that is a side product of the deeply Western idea of a decisive battle, which is a whole set of ideas not shared by other cultures.
Oh, I don’t know. People like Tamarlane, Genghis Khan, Hannibal Barca and Spahbod Surena were not part of Western culture, yet they certainly saw the value of a nice decisive battle, and were not above doing plenty of collateral damage in the process.[/quote]
Have to agree with Orion on WWII, the terror bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, etc., was done to try to break the enemy’s will through killing civilians. We were obviously fighting a just war, but let’s not use euphemisms to kid ourselves about what we were doing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
…Many times, Zap and the others kept repeating that war is good for the economy …
I have never said that you lying sack of shit. War is a horrible waste. It is unfortunate that your murderous friends make it necessary. the sooner peace can be reestablished the better for all. Unfortunately peace never lasts.[/quote]
Oh, really?
In that case, what did you mean by this comment on the “Bill the Iraqis for War Costs” thread?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sifu wrote:
It would be nice if they could pay for it. However in the greater scheme of things I think it is more important right now that we get them up and functioning as an independent nation.
The money that is going into the arms industry is keeping a sizable chunk of our economy running. You should consider that.
That money comes from the army. The army’s money comes from the government. Guess where the governments money comes from?
Yes, it is all a circle. That is why the cost of war talk is a bit phony. It is not a zero sum game as many of the libertarian phony economists would have us believe. [/quote]
The idea that “collateral” damage is somehow different from other civilian casualties is an idea that is a side product of the deeply Western idea of a decisive battle, which is a whole set of ideas not shared by other cultures.
Oh, I don’t know. People like Tamarlane, Genghis Khan, Hannibal Barca and Spahbod Surena were not part of Western culture, yet they certainly saw the value of a nice decisive battle, and were not above doing plenty of collateral damage in the process.[/quote]
This looks like a discussion straight out of Keegan’s History of War. Anyone who hasn’t read that book definitely should. Like all of Keegan’s stuff it’s a fine read.