Five dead, including gunman, in Tennessee military facilities shootings - Page 5

Oberon · 07-20-15, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

It is beyond me how, apparently, so many people don't give a flying jack about this. I'm probably too much of a liberal... or was it communist... marxist maybe?
Wait, I'm German, must be a Nazi then. Or just a tree-hugger afterall for caring about people? All of it maybe? Sissy, softy, ...Mangina?

East German Communist work for you? We can get you your Honnecker poster in the mail soon?

The thing that hit me the hardest in regards to drone warfare was the realisation that children in those areas fear sunny days, that they hope for cloud and for rain because that's when the drones can't fly.

These are the children who grow up to hate America and then join organisations like Daesh. It's...honestly, I don't know, because I believe that drone warfare is the future, but equally I believe that all countries should focus on removing civilians from the line of fire as much as possible, obviously the likes of Daesh disagree with this and will exploit such a morality as much as they can, but that doesn't mean that we should stoop to their level and stop trying.
I can only hope that ARSS helps reduce the amount of Hellfire and GBU usage in crowded civilian areas, but I doubt it will eliminate civilian casualties. I don't think anything will do that.

07-20-15, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

East German Communist work for you? We can get you your Honnecker poster in the mail soon?

But... I'm a Northerner!

Regarding drones... yeah I've seen that and other videos like it.
Probably just left-wing propaganda...

Oberon · 07-20-15, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

But... I'm a Northerner!

You're....you're a Bielefelder aren't you?!

07-20-15, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

You're....you're a Bielefelder aren't you?!

Don't be silly, Bielefeld doesn't even exist, everyone knows that, ja!

Oberon · 07-20-15, 11:16 PM

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand. It is a very tough thing, because we are facing an enemy who knows our strategy, who knows to hide by schools and public places. It's a difficult thing to fight against, especially when you've spent fifty years teaching your military to fight the Soviet Union. If only Daesh would just convert to Operational Maneuver Groups and try a mechanised assault with T-72s and BMPs then it would make things a lot easier.

Still, at least we are making the effort to avoid civilian casualties, I mean if we weren't then the B-52s would be doing Arc Lights on any town that Daesh captured. Our enemy, on the other hand....

Torplexed · 07-21-15, 03:15 AM

One of the more perverse aspects of war is that trying to keep the moral high ground and fight conventionally "soldier-to-soldier" has it's own price too. Maybe not as expensive as descending into utter depravity, but certainly not cheap. Restraining from using a possibly effective weapon, but with a really bad reputation can be a thankless, forgotten proposition.

For example early in the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt officially announced that the U.S. would only use poison gas in retaliation for first use by the Axis powers.

However, due to the increasing cost of causalities in the amphibious assault landings, and cave-to-cave fighting in the Pacific from the fall of 1943 to the end of 1944, as well as the relatively small size, isolated location and lack of civilian population on the island of Iwo Jima, senior officers up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a proposal for the preemptive use of poison gas against the Japanese garrison. This proposal reached President Roosevelt as the Commander in Chief.

He promptly vetoed it.

So, instead of being cleanly exterminated by gas, the Japanese were messily exterminated out of their caves and pillboxes in Iwo Jima by flamethrowers, gasoline hoses and demo charges. The Marine casualties were severe. More than 75,000 Americans fought at Iwo Jima. Almost 7,000 were killed and more than 24,000 wounded. The Japanese garrison was virtually wiped out as it probably would have been if gas was used. But at least they got the honor of facing their foe.

So, at that cost in combatant lives I suppose the US got to hold on to the moral high ground and avoid the moniker of being that bad boy nation that took the easy way out and was the first to resort to the use of chemical weapons in WW2. The same moniker we have for being the first to use atomic weapons. The chemical genie was kept in the bottle. Something tells me though that there wouldn't be many platitudes for Roosevelt from any relatives of those who fell, if they knew an alternative had been considered.

vienna · 07-21-15, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

One of the more perverse aspects of war is that trying to keep the moral high ground and fight conventionally "soldier-to-soldier" has it's own price too. Maybe not as expensive as descending into utter depravity, but certainly not cheap. Restraining from using a possibly effective weapon, but with a really bad reputation can be a thankless, forgotten proposition.

For example early in the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt officially announced that the U.S. would only use poison gas in retaliation for first use by the Axis powers.

However, due to the increasing cost of causalities in the amphibious assault landings, and cave-to-cave fighting in the Pacific from the fall of 1943 to the end of 1944, as well as the relatively small size, isolated location and lack of civilian population on the island of Iwo Jima, senior officers up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a proposal for the preemptive use of poison gas against the Japanese garrison. This proposal reached President Roosevelt as the Commander in Chief.

He promptly vetoed it.

So, instead of being cleanly exterminated by gas, the Japanese were messily exterminated out of their caves and pillboxes in Iwo Jima by flamethrowers, gasoline hoses and demo charges. The Marine casualties were severe. More than 75,000 Americans fought at Iwo Jima. Almost 7,000 were killed and more than 24,000 wounded. The Japanese garrison was virtually wiped out as it probably would have been if gas was used. But at least they got the honor of facing their foe.

So, at that cost in combatant lives I suppose the US got to hold on to the moral high ground and avoid the moniker of being that bad boy nation that took the easy way out and was the first to resort to the use of chemical weapons in WW2. The same moniker we have for being the first to use atomic weapons. The chemical genie was kept in the bottle. Something tells me though that there wouldn't be many platitudes for Roosevelt from any relatives of those who fell, if they knew an alternative had been considered.

Well put...

<O>

August · 07-21-15, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I doubt it will eliminate civilian casualties. I don't think anything will do that.

Agree. Unfortunately with 7 billion souls now on this planet and growing it's going to become more and more difficult.

07-21-15, 03:15 AM	#66
Torplexed Let's Sink Sumptin' ! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,823 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	One of the more perverse aspects of war is that trying to keep the moral high ground and fight conventionally "soldier-to-soldier" has it's own price too. Maybe not as expensive as descending into utter depravity, but certainly not cheap. Restraining from using a possibly effective weapon, but with a really bad reputation can be a thankless, forgotten proposition. For example early in the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt officially announced that the U.S. would only use poison gas in retaliation for first use by the Axis powers. However, due to the increasing cost of causalities in the amphibious assault landings, and cave-to-cave fighting in the Pacific from the fall of 1943 to the end of 1944, as well as the relatively small size, isolated location and lack of civilian population on the island of Iwo Jima, senior officers up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a proposal for the preemptive use of poison gas against the Japanese garrison. This proposal reached President Roosevelt as the Commander in Chief. He promptly vetoed it. So, instead of being cleanly exterminated by gas, the Japanese were messily exterminated out of their caves and pillboxes in Iwo Jima by flamethrowers, gasoline hoses and demo charges. The Marine casualties were severe. More than 75,000 Americans fought at Iwo Jima. Almost 7,000 were killed and more than 24,000 wounded. The Japanese garrison was virtually wiped out as it probably would have been if gas was used. But at least they got the honor of facing their foe. So, at that cost in combatant lives I suppose the US got to hold on to the moral high ground and avoid the moniker of being that bad boy nation that took the easy way out and was the first to resort to the use of chemical weapons in WW2. The same moniker we have for being the first to use atomic weapons. The chemical genie was kept in the bottle. Something tells me though that there wouldn't be many platitudes for Roosevelt from any relatives of those who fell, if they knew an alternative had been considered. __________________ --Mobilis in Mobili--

07-20-15, 11:16 PM	#65
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand. It is a very tough thing, because we are facing an enemy who knows our strategy, who knows to hide by schools and public places. It's a difficult thing to fight against, especially when you've spent fifty years teaching your military to fight the Soviet Union. If only Daesh would just convert to Operational Maneuver Groups and try a mechanised assault with T-72s and BMPs then it would make things a lot easier. Still, at least we are making the effort to avoid civilian casualties, I mean if we weren't then the B-52s would be doing Arc Lights on any town that Daesh captured. Our enemy, on the other hand....