"Hopefully, a large portion of them would either refuse or even defend the civilian population."
Yea, good luck with that. See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot.
That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed things I have read in this thread. The truth is that from basic training onward US military personnel are taught that it is *their duty* to disobey illegal orders. Illegal orders include but are not limited to attacking non-combatants. An officer who threatens to shoot a soldier who refuses to follow an illegal order can be immediately relieved and taken in custody, even by a subordinate.
Now to preempt more nonsense hypotheticals you might counter with, reality is that officers survive combat due to the men in their command, not in spite of them. Any officer who acts that way towards his men is suicidal. The men not only heavily outnumber the officer but the men are more heavily armed and practiced. The men, not the officer, are the trigger squeezers. The officer in the read-map-use-radio-call-in-airstike'er. The men don't even have to pull the trigger or roll the grenade themselves, it *has* been done more simply by saluting an officer in the field.
If think you need to spend more time away from the TV and more on the range;-), your faith in the AK is overblown. You are a little too quick to dismiss the humble deer rifle.
Hunting rifles and ammo are deadlier than military rifles and ammo, Hunting ammo is designed to expand as it passes through tissue. The ammo used by hunters would result in a war crime if used by the military.
The difference between some deer rifles and some military rifles is largely cosmetic. A semiautomatic deer rifle may use the same ammo as the M16, but comes with a 5-round magazine rather than a 30-round magazine. The US Marine Corps M16A2 rifle abandons fully automatic operation and operates in a semiautomatic or a 3-round burst mode. Holding down that trigger as you say does little more than waste ammo and make noise, and Marines prefer to hit their targets. So. put a 30-round magazine, a simple sheet metal box, in the deer rifle and how does it differ from the M16A2. Well one round rather than three, sometimes, and well it has a wood look rather than an all black look. Oh, can't forget the bayonet lug, no bayonet for the deer rifle.
Regarding specialized rifles such as sniper rifles, the differences between bolt action hunting rifles and the more common lower end of the military spectrum is one of a heavier barrel and fine tuning. Nothing really beyond the reach of most civilian gunsmiths. The Remington Model 700 comes in deer rifle, police sniper, and military sniper variants. During Viet Nam many snipers literally carried civilian hunting rifles. I think some current units in Iraq may have "augmented" themselves with a Remington Model 700 from Walmart as well.
The gov abandoned the idea of a state regulated militia in favor of a federally regulated national guard. If the right to bear arms only applies to a state regulated militia, then we lost our right to bear arms many years ago. If the DoJ interpretation of the 2nd amendment stands, then we still have it.
I don't think the Congress can "redefine" the militia away. If "militia" referred to private citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution then that should still apply until there is an amendment to the Constitution.
Well the guy stated that the Air Force is happy with the performance of pilots in the F-16 and tried to relate that to the performance of some fat-ass office-worker at a desk.
Did you read the following in my last post? "The seat is fixed in its reclining position so the pilot's 1G work environment is reclined. This offers evidence that mental abilities are not destroyed by a reclined environment, which was the point in question."
Also, I was the "guy". Since you apparently failed to research the context, here is the original question and follow-up: "In other words, can you please do a study confirming (to my employer, of course) that this 135 degree reclined position does not adversely affect my the bloodflow to the brain, attention span, ability to perform complex mental tasks, etc? F-16 fighter seats are in a permanent reclining position. I think the Air Force is happy with the performance in the listed categories."
Now reclined pilots engage in complex mental tasks while calmly cruising in a 1G environment, navigation for example. They also need the ability to pay attention and to have situation awareness, flying in formation for instance, navigation again, scanning for hazards and threats,... F-16 pilots exists in both 1G and high-G environments, however what happens at high-G is irrelevant. That the seat is reclined due to high-G endurance is irrelevant, the seat is fixed and the 1G environment is reclined. Hence the appropriateness for the comparison to be being reclined at a desk and needing to maintain mental activity.
Regarding the rest of your comments. Dude you are clueless, you have watched way too much TV and movies. Pilots are not the supermen you believe, they are merely well conditioned and trained to briefly perform in extreme environments. They can not perform as well inverted (or more accurate a negative G environment since up/down has no meaning with respect to the forces trying to kill the pilot) pilots mere perform adequately under negative Gs for a very brief time frame, lookup redout. Hence the tendency toward an inside loop rather than an outside loop.
Education is probably the best defense against what you describe. I've seen both sides.
I think you may be guilty of what the grandparent was calling hand waving. As described earlier in the thread, crime is a pyramid. Once you rise above the very base level(s) you will find educated people. Crime is not about education, it is often really simple economics (as in microeconomics, how an individual allocates finite resources, time, money, goods, etc). What is the least expensive way that I can satisfy a need or desire? If the risk of being caught committing a crime is low enough, and/or if the repercussion are minor enough, then a criminal action may be the less expensive route. There is also a component regarding the ability to exercise power, which may be a need/desire itself rather then a means to an end. Of course exercising power comes in both legal and illegal forms. Those who are more frequently able to exercise it on the legal side might have a slightly lower barrier to exercising it on the illegal side.
Education is subservient to the political and economic environments. If you have a disfunctional government or economy you will have educated people engaging in crime. The grandparent was correct, the government and economy have to be fixed first. If you look beyond the small scale that you have observed you will find very well educated populations breaking the law, witness the tail end of the soviet bloc and the aftermath. Also witness Iraq, it had one of the best educated populations for the region and these people were unable to correct a disfunctional government or economy.
If science is critical gov't should pay for it ...
on
Saving U.S. Science
·
· Score: 1
If scientists are critical to our future, and if science is unappealing, government should provide incentives. Subsidize college for scientific and engineering degrees, fund more basic research, etc. The problem, as usual, will be the lawyers, the ACLU will file suit because liberal arts majors are not getting subsidized. I love history, history is important, but you only need a small number of historians. However, a critical mass of scientists and engineers will make history. As was witnessed in the post-World War 2 era thanks to the GI Bill and government's subsidizing of college for any veteran. That generation was more inclined towards science and engineering, they were not afraid of hard work.
80s generation didn't do those things ...
on
Saving U.S. Science
·
· Score: 1
Well let me tell you something. While those nerds from the 60s went to the moon and got nothing out of it, my generation of nerds built the Web and Wireless and Palm-based computing so that we can download any type of porn to satisfy any type of fetish at any time, any where. BEAT THAT.
You are confusing when events occured with who was behind those events. It was the nerds of the 40s and 50s who put people on the moon in the 60s. It was the nerds of the 60s and 70s who brought us the web, etc. The nerds of the 80s, we brought the world the.com bubble.;-)
No, I'm not overlooking the obvious. The reclined position was created to handle the G loading of combat maneuvers, not to give the pilot any benefits at 1G.
Irrelevant. The seat is fixed in its reclining position so the pilot's 1G work environment is reclined. This offers evidence that mental abilities are not destroyed by a reclined environment, which was the point in question. Perhaps you should read the top of the thread to understand the context of the F16 reference, you are off topic.
"Because there are plenty of people in Iraq who would love to publicize such events."
I'm sure there are, but do they have the means? There are plenty of people in your adminstration assigned to handle bad PR too, and they have a lot more means at their disposal.
The US media. the European media, the Arab media, etc all have the means and the desire to go with such stories. It is big new and makes them money. The administration cannot control any of them, not even the US media. The terrorists are also well funded, they are media saavy, and very anxious to feed such stories to the press, especially the Arab media. And of course, the Arab media is closely monitored by the western media so that they do not get left behind. When the US and European media do not go with a story there is a credibility problem, gee terrorists just launched mortars into a crowded market, perhaps that is the source of the wounded women and children on Al Jazeera today.
Most of the bad stuff that happens in Iraq never reaches the western press: just compare the Iraq body count numbers (which only count deaths reported in western media) to the epidemiological studies. Things have to be really bad to get attention, no matter how much "al-Quaeda" wants to. (As if. It's more the battered mainstream arab media that pushes the other side.)
"Body count" has the connotation of combat actions. Given that the vast majority of deaths are coming from insurgent and foreign terrorist attacks on civilians, not US operations, "body counts" would be signifcantly lower than the overall casualties. Regarding needing to be bad to get air time, that is true for insurgent/terrorist attacks on civilians. Another day, another mortar launched at a mosque or marketplace. Sadly, such stories are commonplace. However if a US aircraft bombed civilians, or if US soldiers killed a bunch of civilians in a home, then there would be a major news story due to the US involvement.
It's that way in all wars. I happened to hear from direct sources of some soldiers doing something rather contemptible in Kosovo, killing dogs for fun, even when they were leashed in front of the owner's house. It took two years to reach the media from I first heard of it. Makes you wonder what we never hear about.
Yes, bad things happen in every war. However annecdotal stories are a poor basis for a general overview. Even in "good" wars such as World War 2 US soldiers have commited murder, I have family members who witnessed such rare abberations. However, then and now, these are abberations, which is my point, getting back to the foolish notion that started this thread, that US soldiers could open up on a crowd of civilians and get away with it.
Comparing an F-16 to a PC desk is still retarded, which was my point... obviously.
Not at all, the topic is working in a reclined position. Desks and F16s are equivalent *most* of the time, well except for some vibration. F16s spend a lot of time in straight and level flight, 1G in the "normal" direction, where the pilots has many tasks to perform. Your fixation on the very rare combat maneuvering causes you to overlook the obvious.
Er, the Vietnamese won on their chosen battlefield, which was covert warfare. The US lost, repeatedly, for years.
The Vietnamese fought both covertly and overtly. The covert efforts were in support of the overt and they failed except in the gathering of intelligence, as witnessed in the Thet offensive. The covert force, the Viet Cong, were virtually wiped out. Of course, destroying the VC may have been part of the North's plan. Too many VC had nationalistic motivations rather then communistic motivations, they were politically unreliable. During it's heyday the VC lost friendly villages to relocation and were forced to rely more on midnight raids on villages that had no desire to support them. US efforts and arming these villages forced the VC to become more reliant on supplies from the North, becoming less of a local guerilla force and more of an adjunct to the North Vietnamese Army. The VC, like most covert forces, primarily accomplished intelligence gathering and harassment. Even after the US left the South Vietnamese were maintaining control until a full-scale invasion by the North that included large armor and infantry formations. No revoultion, just a conventional invasion.
That the Vietnamese 'won' on TV is simply an artefact of the atrocities commited by their opponents, and the fact that in those days the USA had a real journalism industry which told its people about the horrible things the government didn't want them to know: frequently in very simple, very hideous photographs like the Kim Phuc picture from a napalm attack^Waccident. It should be pointed out that I'm not arguing with your association of the two situations. I think that they are indeed very similar.
Why yes they are similar. In both wars the murdering of civilians was an intentional tactic practiced by the VC and the Jihadists and friends. Except for abberations like My Lai, you did not have US troops doing so. The media, then and now, was imbalanced in its portrayal of events.
The media, like many Americans, go from one extreme to the other, spending little time at the balanced point. At the start of the war excessively positive, later excessively negative. In part, but not a complete excuse, that has to do with access. They have access to US mistakes but they often do not have access to areas where the enemy is intentionally commiting attrocities. The journalists were not spending time in villages that were robbed and those who complained shot, those who were considered politically unreliable assassinated, etc. In short, things were/are far more complex than you seem to realized.
"Do we screw up or some get caught in the crossfire, off course, but far less often than you suggest."
On what basis do you claim this?
Because there are plenty of people in Iraq who would love to publicize such events. Our mistakes are a PR gift to the enemy, an enemy which is PR saavy and has no problem getting their message out to the media.
Sorry, but MyLai was not an aberration...this from Colin Powell's autobiography; "We burned the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters..."
You seem to have no idea what happened at My Lai. At My Lai US soldiers murdered civilians, shot them in cold blood. That is far different from forced relocation. I'm not saying that forced relocation was a good idea, just that forcing farmers to pack up and move to a government camp is far different than shooting them.
"... Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said people were like the sea in which his guerillas swam. We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference does it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?" Starving people to death is not targeting/smart warfare and neither is bombing infrastructure for years and then wondering why these 'people' can't just put it back together again."
You apparently misread/misunderstood your own citation. You do realize that he is referring to the Viet Cong not the villagers? That was the point of the relocation, deprive the VC of the support infrastructure.
Are you intentionally or accidentally engaging in bait-and-switch? I was clearly referring to civilian casualties. Soldiers who did not surrender, armed insurgents, bombers,... those are much of what you cite in the news reports you refer to. I'm referring to civilian casualties, and those are primarily due to the Jihadists, the insurgents, and warring tribal/religious factions. Not US troops. Do we screw up or some get caught in the crossfire, off course, but far less often than you suggest.
Secondly, you are naive to think the only source of info is the US military. There is no shortage of journalists in Iraq, there are doctors to interview, funeral processions to observe, the US military could not hide a large number of civilian casualties. If a mortar round or bomb went astray the media would be all over it, as they *have been* on the rare occasions where it did happen.
If you find it hard to believe that "US forces generally expose themselves to extra risk in order to avoid endangering civilians as much as possible" then you are pretty ill-informed regarding training, rules of engagement, etc. Again, if this training and rules were not being followed you would know it, the media would be all over it. As they have been on the abberations that did occur. It could not be hidden.
"First, it is no secret and it could never be kept secret."
It's not a secret because there ARE no statistics kept by the military. The military is either profoundly uninterested or afraid of the consequences of keeping a tally. Either way it sucks.
There is no shortage of reporters in Iraq, there are doctors to interview at hospitals, funeral processions to witness. You can not keep civilian casualties a secret.
"Manufacturing" images of atrocities. I like that. Because, you know, no atrocities or civilian casualties occured, they simply made it all in photoshop.
Actually some bombing damage was photoshoped, CNN had to retract a bunch of photos. Also there were some images of a wailing woman pointing at rubble saying her family was under there, different locations, same woman, same rescue crew,... So yes, there is some manipulation of reports, as I said, the battle for the TV is more important than the actual battlefield. And no, no one is claiming that everything shown is faked, just that there is a serious effort to overstate and to falsely attribute some casualties to US forces. Both sides are lying, however with respect to civilian casualties I tend to believe the side whose soldiers endanger themselves to avoid such casualties as opposed to the sides that *intentionally* set off bombs in crowds of civilians.
My Lai was an aberration, and US soldiers endangered themselves to stop it, unlike the VC and NVA, or whom going into a village and assassinating the politically unreliable or uncooperative was a standard procedure.
You couldn't get away with firing an automatic weapon into the crowd during a riot in L.A., but something tells me it wouldn't be a problem in Iraq.
You are quite clueless regarding the rules of engagements. US forces generally expose themselves to extra risk in order to avoid endangering civilians as much as possible.
.
Unless you haven't noticed, it's not exactly like we're going out of our way to detail the number of Iraqis killed by Americans in the news.
First, it is no secret and it could never be kept secret. You might want to keep in mind that *both* side are trying to manipulate you, that the enemy is working very hard at their media campaign to manufacture images of atrocities and civilian casualties. Hence the videos in Lebanon at different sites but with the same people. The enemy has learned very well from Vietnam, that you can lose on the battlefield, but prevail if you can win on the TV. The Jihadist leadership is very media saavy.
Secondly, Iraqis killed by Americans is a number dwarfed by Iraqis killed by Jihadists coming from other nations and killed by fellow Iraqis. Hence the news coverage.
Would a metal plate reflect the radiation back at them?
That could be interpreted as an offensive act that permits escalation. While channel surfing I caught a show going over less-than-lethal weapons, it seems that the US Marine Corp is doing a bit of research in this area. At the end the reporter asked something like: Wouldn't the Marine with the sticky foam gun be at risk if the opponent is armed? The general being interviewed responded that every Marine employing a less-than-lethal weapon will be accompanied by several Marines with highly lethal weapons.
In short, don't be bouncing their hi-tech rays back at them if you are not prepared for them to go ballistic, literally, on you.
"CNN Money is reporting that graphics chipmakers Nvidia and AMD (who recently acquired NVidia rival ATI) said Friday that they received subpoenas from the US Department of Justice as part of a probe into potential antitrust violations involving graphics processing units and cards. Each company controls about 25% of the entire graphics chip market."
Meanwhile, the RIAA, who has a stranglehold over the music industry, gets to drive their truckloads of money straight to the bank.
To make a video chipset you need millions of dollars. You can make music and market it worldwide with a guitar, a computer, and an internet connection.
This is like requiring shoppers at Walmart to pay a fee for stolen merchandise.
Uh, shoppers do pay for stolen merchandise. It is part of the retail markup. Like returns and warranty work, the accountants probably have an account for losses due to theft, a percentage of sales based on historical averages goes into the account, actual losses are charged against the account, and there are probably tax deductions. So shoplifters are not stealing from the CEOs pockets, they are stealing from the taxpayers who partially subsidize the losses via tax deductions and the shoppers who pay slightly inflated prices.
The Iraqi War has not really increased the threat to the west or created more jihadists. The outrage amongst extremists would be the same due to the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world would have flocked there rather than Iraq. The Jihadists stress Iraq today because they are media and PR savvy enough to know that Iraq is where they can drive a wedge between westerners. They learned from Vietnam that wars can be won by victories in the press, despite defeats on the battlefield.
Keep in mind that both sides are lying to you and manipulating you. Militant Islam has been attacking the west since the 1970s and they have been getting better and better at it each year. They want a conflict with the west, they want to destroy the west. The only thing that the Iraqi War has changed is that the IEDs are going off in Bhagdad, Iraq rather than Kabul, Afghanistan.
The game probably has a more accurate portrayal than popular culture's TV and movies, especially the TV and movies of past generations, including mine. I'd say today's youngsters playing AA are probably a little better informed than past generations. Gotta give the Army a little credit for that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hopefully, a large portion of them would either refuse or even defend the civilian population."
Yea, good luck with that. See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot.
That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed things I have read in this thread. The truth is that from basic training onward US military personnel are taught that it is *their duty* to disobey illegal orders. Illegal orders include but are not limited to attacking non-combatants. An officer who threatens to shoot a soldier who refuses to follow an illegal order can be immediately relieved and taken in custody, even by a subordinate.
Now to preempt more nonsense hypotheticals you might counter with, reality is that officers survive combat due to the men in their command, not in spite of them. Any officer who acts that way towards his men is suicidal. The men not only heavily outnumber the officer but the men are more heavily armed and practiced. The men, not the officer, are the trigger squeezers. The officer in the read-map-use-radio-call-in-airstike'er. The men don't even have to pull the trigger or roll the grenade themselves, it *has* been done more simply by saluting an officer in the field.
If think you need to spend more time away from the TV and more on the range ;-), your faith in the AK is overblown. You are a little too quick to dismiss the humble deer rifle.
Hunting rifles and ammo are deadlier than military rifles and ammo, Hunting ammo is designed to expand as it passes through tissue. The ammo used by hunters would result in a war crime if used by the military.
The difference between some deer rifles and some military rifles is largely cosmetic. A semiautomatic deer rifle may use the same ammo as the M16, but comes with a 5-round magazine rather than a 30-round magazine. The US Marine Corps M16A2 rifle abandons fully automatic operation and operates in a semiautomatic or a 3-round burst mode. Holding down that trigger as you say does little more than waste ammo and make noise, and Marines prefer to hit their targets. So. put a 30-round magazine, a simple sheet metal box, in the deer rifle and how does it differ from the M16A2. Well one round rather than three, sometimes, and well it has a wood look rather than an all black look. Oh, can't forget the bayonet lug, no bayonet for the deer rifle.
Regarding specialized rifles such as sniper rifles, the differences between bolt action hunting rifles and the more common lower end of the military spectrum is one of a heavier barrel and fine tuning. Nothing really beyond the reach of most civilian gunsmiths. The Remington Model 700 comes in deer rifle, police sniper, and military sniper variants. During Viet Nam many snipers literally carried civilian hunting rifles. I think some current units in Iraq may have "augmented" themselves with a Remington Model 700 from Walmart as well.
The gov abandoned the idea of a state regulated militia in favor of a federally regulated national guard. If the right to bear arms only applies to a state regulated militia, then we lost our right to bear arms many years ago. If the DoJ interpretation of the 2nd amendment stands, then we still have it.
I don't think the Congress can "redefine" the militia away. If "militia" referred to private citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution then that should still apply until there is an amendment to the Constitution.
Well the guy stated that the Air Force is happy with the performance of pilots in the F-16 and tried to relate that to the performance of some fat-ass office-worker at a desk.
... F-16 pilots exists in both 1G and high-G environments, however what happens at high-G is irrelevant. That the seat is reclined due to high-G endurance is irrelevant, the seat is fixed and the 1G environment is reclined. Hence the appropriateness for the comparison to be being reclined at a desk and needing to maintain mental activity.
Did you read the following in my last post? "The seat is fixed in its reclining position so the pilot's 1G work environment is reclined. This offers evidence that mental abilities are not destroyed by a reclined environment, which was the point in question."
Also, I was the "guy". Since you apparently failed to research the context, here is the original question and follow-up: "In other words, can you please do a study confirming (to my employer, of course) that this 135 degree reclined position does not adversely affect my the bloodflow to the brain, attention span, ability to perform complex mental tasks, etc? F-16 fighter seats are in a permanent reclining position. I think the Air Force is happy with the performance in the listed categories." Now reclined pilots engage in complex mental tasks while calmly cruising in a 1G environment, navigation for example. They also need the ability to pay attention and to have situation awareness, flying in formation for instance, navigation again, scanning for hazards and threats,
Regarding the rest of your comments. Dude you are clueless, you have watched way too much TV and movies. Pilots are not the supermen you believe, they are merely well conditioned and trained to briefly perform in extreme environments. They can not perform as well inverted (or more accurate a negative G environment since up/down has no meaning with respect to the forces trying to kill the pilot) pilots mere perform adequately under negative Gs for a very brief time frame, lookup redout. Hence the tendency toward an inside loop rather than an outside loop.
Education is probably the best defense against what you describe. I've seen both sides.
I think you may be guilty of what the grandparent was calling hand waving. As described earlier in the thread, crime is a pyramid. Once you rise above the very base level(s) you will find educated people. Crime is not about education, it is often really simple economics (as in microeconomics, how an individual allocates finite resources, time, money, goods, etc). What is the least expensive way that I can satisfy a need or desire? If the risk of being caught committing a crime is low enough, and/or if the repercussion are minor enough, then a criminal action may be the less expensive route. There is also a component regarding the ability to exercise power, which may be a need/desire itself rather then a means to an end. Of course exercising power comes in both legal and illegal forms. Those who are more frequently able to exercise it on the legal side might have a slightly lower barrier to exercising it on the illegal side.
Education is subservient to the political and economic environments. If you have a disfunctional government or economy you will have educated people engaging in crime. The grandparent was correct, the government and economy have to be fixed first. If you look beyond the small scale that you have observed you will find very well educated populations breaking the law, witness the tail end of the soviet bloc and the aftermath. Also witness Iraq, it had one of the best educated populations for the region and these people were unable to correct a disfunctional government or economy.
If scientists are critical to our future, and if science is unappealing, government should provide incentives. Subsidize college for scientific and engineering degrees, fund more basic research, etc. The problem, as usual, will be the lawyers, the ACLU will file suit because liberal arts majors are not getting subsidized. I love history, history is important, but you only need a small number of historians. However, a critical mass of scientists and engineers will make history. As was witnessed in the post-World War 2 era thanks to the GI Bill and government's subsidizing of college for any veteran. That generation was more inclined towards science and engineering, they were not afraid of hard work.
Well let me tell you something. While those nerds from the 60s went to the moon and got nothing out of it, my generation of nerds built the Web and Wireless and Palm-based computing so that we can download any type of porn to satisfy any type of fetish at any time, any where. BEAT THAT.
.com bubble. ;-)
You are confusing when events occured with who was behind those events. It was the nerds of the 40s and 50s who put people on the moon in the 60s. It was the nerds of the 60s and 70s who brought us the web, etc. The nerds of the 80s, we brought the world the
No, I'm not overlooking the obvious. The reclined position was created to handle the G loading of combat maneuvers, not to give the pilot any benefits at 1G.
Irrelevant. The seat is fixed in its reclining position so the pilot's 1G work environment is reclined. This offers evidence that mental abilities are not destroyed by a reclined environment, which was the point in question. Perhaps you should read the top of the thread to understand the context of the F16 reference, you are off topic.
"Because there are plenty of people in Iraq who would love to publicize such events."
I'm sure there are, but do they have the means? There are plenty of people in your adminstration assigned to handle bad PR too, and they have a lot more means at their disposal.
The US media. the European media, the Arab media, etc all have the means and the desire to go with such stories. It is big new and makes them money. The administration cannot control any of them, not even the US media. The terrorists are also well funded, they are media saavy, and very anxious to feed such stories to the press, especially the Arab media. And of course, the Arab media is closely monitored by the western media so that they do not get left behind. When the US and European media do not go with a story there is a credibility problem, gee terrorists just launched mortars into a crowded market, perhaps that is the source of the wounded women and children on Al Jazeera today.
Most of the bad stuff that happens in Iraq never reaches the western press: just compare the Iraq body count numbers (which only count deaths reported in western media) to the epidemiological studies. Things have to be really bad to get attention, no matter how much "al-Quaeda" wants to. (As if. It's more the battered mainstream arab media that pushes the other side.)
"Body count" has the connotation of combat actions. Given that the vast majority of deaths are coming from insurgent and foreign terrorist attacks on civilians, not US operations, "body counts" would be signifcantly lower than the overall casualties. Regarding needing to be bad to get air time, that is true for insurgent/terrorist attacks on civilians. Another day, another mortar launched at a mosque or marketplace. Sadly, such stories are commonplace. However if a US aircraft bombed civilians, or if US soldiers killed a bunch of civilians in a home, then there would be a major news story due to the US involvement.
It's that way in all wars. I happened to hear from direct sources of some soldiers doing something rather contemptible in Kosovo, killing dogs for fun, even when they were leashed in front of the owner's house. It took two years to reach the media from I first heard of it. Makes you wonder what we never hear about.
Yes, bad things happen in every war. However annecdotal stories are a poor basis for a general overview. Even in "good" wars such as World War 2 US soldiers have commited murder, I have family members who witnessed such rare abberations. However, then and now, these are abberations, which is my point, getting back to the foolish notion that started this thread, that US soldiers could open up on a crowd of civilians and get away with it.
Comparing an F-16 to a PC desk is still retarded, which was my point... obviously.
Not at all, the topic is working in a reclined position. Desks and F16s are equivalent *most* of the time, well except for some vibration. F16s spend a lot of time in straight and level flight, 1G in the "normal" direction, where the pilots has many tasks to perform. Your fixation on the very rare combat maneuvering causes you to overlook the obvious.
Er, the Vietnamese won on their chosen battlefield, which was covert warfare. The US lost, repeatedly, for years.
The Vietnamese fought both covertly and overtly. The covert efforts were in support of the overt and they failed except in the gathering of intelligence, as witnessed in the Thet offensive. The covert force, the Viet Cong, were virtually wiped out. Of course, destroying the VC may have been part of the North's plan. Too many VC had nationalistic motivations rather then communistic motivations, they were politically unreliable. During it's heyday the VC lost friendly villages to relocation and were forced to rely more on midnight raids on villages that had no desire to support them. US efforts and arming these villages forced the VC to become more reliant on supplies from the North, becoming less of a local guerilla force and more of an adjunct to the North Vietnamese Army. The VC, like most covert forces, primarily accomplished intelligence gathering and harassment. Even after the US left the South Vietnamese were maintaining control until a full-scale invasion by the North that included large armor and infantry formations. No revoultion, just a conventional invasion.
That the Vietnamese 'won' on TV is simply an artefact of the atrocities commited by their opponents, and the fact that in those days the USA had a real journalism industry which told its people about the horrible things the government didn't want them to know: frequently in very simple, very hideous photographs like the Kim Phuc picture from a napalm attack^Waccident. It should be pointed out that I'm not arguing with your association of the two situations. I think that they are indeed very similar.
Why yes they are similar. In both wars the murdering of civilians was an intentional tactic practiced by the VC and the Jihadists and friends. Except for abberations like My Lai, you did not have US troops doing so. The media, then and now, was imbalanced in its portrayal of events. The media, like many Americans, go from one extreme to the other, spending little time at the balanced point. At the start of the war excessively positive, later excessively negative. In part, but not a complete excuse, that has to do with access. They have access to US mistakes but they often do not have access to areas where the enemy is intentionally commiting attrocities. The journalists were not spending time in villages that were robbed and those who complained shot, those who were considered politically unreliable assassinated, etc. In short, things were/are far more complex than you seem to realized.
"Do we screw up or some get caught in the crossfire, off course, but far less often than you suggest."
On what basis do you claim this?
Because there are plenty of people in Iraq who would love to publicize such events. Our mistakes are a PR gift to the enemy, an enemy which is PR saavy and has no problem getting their message out to the media.
Sorry, but MyLai was not an aberration...this from Colin Powell's autobiography; "We burned the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters ..."
You seem to have no idea what happened at My Lai. At My Lai US soldiers murdered civilians, shot them in cold blood. That is far different from forced relocation. I'm not saying that forced relocation was a good idea, just that forcing farmers to pack up and move to a government camp is far different than shooting them.
"... Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said people were like the sea in which his guerillas swam. We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference does it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?" Starving people to death is not targeting/smart warfare and neither is bombing infrastructure for years and then wondering why these 'people' can't just put it back together again."
You apparently misread/misunderstood your own citation. You do realize that he is referring to the Viet Cong not the villagers? That was the point of the relocation, deprive the VC of the support infrastructure.
Are you intentionally or accidentally engaging in bait-and-switch? I was clearly referring to civilian casualties. Soldiers who did not surrender, armed insurgents, bombers, ... those are much of what you cite in the news reports you refer to. I'm referring to civilian casualties, and those are primarily due to the Jihadists, the insurgents, and warring tribal/religious factions. Not US troops. Do we screw up or some get caught in the crossfire, off course, but far less often than you suggest.
Secondly, you are naive to think the only source of info is the US military. There is no shortage of journalists in Iraq, there are doctors to interview, funeral processions to observe, the US military could not hide a large number of civilian casualties. If a mortar round or bomb went astray the media would be all over it, as they *have been* on the rare occasions where it did happen.
If you find it hard to believe that "US forces generally expose themselves to extra risk in order to avoid endangering civilians as much as possible" then you are pretty ill-informed regarding training, rules of engagement, etc. Again, if this training and rules were not being followed you would know it, the media would be all over it. As they have been on the abberations that did occur. It could not be hidden.
"First, it is no secret and it could never be kept secret."
It's not a secret because there ARE no statistics kept by the military. The military is either profoundly uninterested or afraid of the consequences of keeping a tally. Either way it sucks.
There is no shortage of reporters in Iraq, there are doctors to interview at hospitals, funeral processions to witness. You can not keep civilian casualties a secret.
"Manufacturing" images of atrocities. I like that. Because, you know, no atrocities or civilian casualties occured, they simply made it all in photoshop.
... So yes, there is some manipulation of reports, as I said, the battle for the TV is more important than the actual battlefield. And no, no one is claiming that everything shown is faked, just that there is a serious effort to overstate and to falsely attribute some casualties to US forces. Both sides are lying, however with respect to civilian casualties I tend to believe the side whose soldiers endanger themselves to avoid such casualties as opposed to the sides that *intentionally* set off bombs in crowds of civilians.
Actually some bombing damage was photoshoped, CNN had to retract a bunch of photos. Also there were some images of a wailing woman pointing at rubble saying her family was under there, different locations, same woman, same rescue crew,
My Lai was an aberration, and US soldiers endangered themselves to stop it, unlike the VC and NVA, or whom going into a village and assassinating the politically unreliable or uncooperative was a standard procedure.
You couldn't get away with firing an automatic weapon into the crowd during a riot in L.A., but something tells me it wouldn't be a problem in Iraq.
You are quite clueless regarding the rules of engagements. US forces generally expose themselves to extra risk in order to avoid endangering civilians as much as possible.
. Unless you haven't noticed, it's not exactly like we're going out of our way to detail the number of Iraqis killed by Americans in the news.
First, it is no secret and it could never be kept secret. You might want to keep in mind that *both* side are trying to manipulate you, that the enemy is working very hard at their media campaign to manufacture images of atrocities and civilian casualties. Hence the videos in Lebanon at different sites but with the same people. The enemy has learned very well from Vietnam, that you can lose on the battlefield, but prevail if you can win on the TV. The Jihadist leadership is very media saavy.
Secondly, Iraqis killed by Americans is a number dwarfed by Iraqis killed by Jihadists coming from other nations and killed by fellow Iraqis. Hence the news coverage.
Would a metal plate reflect the radiation back at them?
That could be interpreted as an offensive act that permits escalation. While channel surfing I caught a show going over less-than-lethal weapons, it seems that the US Marine Corp is doing a bit of research in this area. At the end the reporter asked something like: Wouldn't the Marine with the sticky foam gun be at risk if the opponent is armed? The general being interviewed responded that every Marine employing a less-than-lethal weapon will be accompanied by several Marines with highly lethal weapons.
In short, don't be bouncing their hi-tech rays back at them if you are not prepared for them to go ballistic, literally, on you.
Most of us aren't pulling 9G's at our desks and squeezing our butt cheeks together so hard they hurt to keep blood in our heads.
Neither are F16 pilots 99.x% of the time.
"CNN Money is reporting that graphics chipmakers Nvidia and AMD (who recently acquired NVidia rival ATI) said Friday that they received subpoenas from the US Department of Justice as part of a probe into potential antitrust violations involving graphics processing units and cards. Each company controls about 25% of the entire graphics chip market."
Meanwhile, the RIAA, who has a stranglehold over the music industry, gets to drive their truckloads of money straight to the bank.
To make a video chipset you need millions of dollars. You can make music and market it worldwide with a guitar, a computer, and an internet connection.
Also, just as a side note, goods which are intended for resale are not taxed.
I am only claiming that losses due to theft are tax deductible.
This is like requiring shoppers at Walmart to pay a fee for stolen merchandise.
Uh, shoppers do pay for stolen merchandise. It is part of the retail markup. Like returns and warranty work, the accountants probably have an account for losses due to theft, a percentage of sales based on historical averages goes into the account, actual losses are charged against the account, and there are probably tax deductions. So shoplifters are not stealing from the CEOs pockets, they are stealing from the taxpayers who partially subsidize the losses via tax deductions and the shoppers who pay slightly inflated prices.
It's made that way so that you don't accidentally break your spine when you're maneuvering at 6Gs.
I'm not sure if the orientation helps the spine, but I'm pretty sure it helps keep blood from moving from your brain to your feet.
The Iraqi War has not really increased the threat to the west or created more jihadists. The outrage amongst extremists would be the same due to the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world would have flocked there rather than Iraq. The Jihadists stress Iraq today because they are media and PR savvy enough to know that Iraq is where they can drive a wedge between westerners. They learned from Vietnam that wars can be won by victories in the press, despite defeats on the battlefield.
Keep in mind that both sides are lying to you and manipulating you. Militant Islam has been attacking the west since the 1970s and they have been getting better and better at it each year. They want a conflict with the west, they want to destroy the west. The only thing that the Iraqi War has changed is that the IEDs are going off in Bhagdad, Iraq rather than Kabul, Afghanistan.
The game probably has a more accurate portrayal than popular culture's TV and movies, especially the TV and movies of past generations, including mine. I'd say today's youngsters playing AA are probably a little better informed than past generations. Gotta give the Army a little credit for that.