A Call for Reason

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66
My comment doesn't only apply on the battlefield. The same approach should be taken in the boxing ring or the Oval Office.

---

Or indeed by SWAT teams in a city street. It always annoys me when some poor cop, who has simply done his job, gets all the flak for killing the poor innocent civilian who pointed a replica or toy firearm at him. It sucks, but you can't expect the guy to take any chances with is or other people's lives.

Now that's not to say there aren't those who do make mistakes, and are at fault. That goes without saying. But society at large often doesn't seem to differentiate between the two.

Calguard: Your professional status may not allow you to state an opinion on the matter, but I have more faith overall in the Services, and their individual members, than I do the civilians giving the orders.

You're right, it doesn't.

However, I would point out that many people share your view.

As long as citizens sit on their @ss and fail to even show up at the polls, that situation will continue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ComaBoy
Calguard: Your professional status may not allow you to state an opinion on the matter, but I have more faith overall in the Services, and their individual members, than I do the civilians giving the orders.

---

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

I always rattle back and forth between ridiculous hope and bleak despair regarding humanity in general.

By preparing for conflict, we invoke conflict. By preparing for war, we engender war.

The problem is how to get beyond war?

There are some nice philosophical positions for how to achieve this, but none of them work in the "real world" (tm) because no one wants to let go of their toys first -- its always someone else who has to do it.

I have never seen soldiering as a noble profession. At times it is a necessary one, but ultimately it comes down to human beings killing other human beings. War happens because governments and individuals screw up, get greedy, or turn bully. Most of us, I believe, would say that war is something we all wish to avoid in the best of all possible worlds, but breaking the cycle is hard.

It's hard, if not impossible, to put the genie back inside the bottle or close Pandora's box.

And so, it seems, we are stuck with war because of greed. We just identify different kinds of greed to justify each given situation.

Will there be more wars in this world? Hell yes. Will many people die in them, including non-combatants? Ditto?

Is this morally correct? No.

But we have to live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Don't lump all of us Americans in the same group as those that say silly things like "nuke (insert name here)."

Most of us (Americans) are of a pretty even keel.

---

Agrred, which is why I make sure to point out that I am talking about those who do these things and never say "All Americans". :) Heck I like lots of Yankees, even love a few ;)

In fact during a rant about America the LGT poked me and reminded me that she was from New Mexico.

I stopped thought about it and said... "You know how the sterotypical view of Texans by other Americans tends to be that they are a bunch of rednecked, racists, violent yahoos who like to shoot first and ask questions later and see themselves as above everyone else?" She couldn't helpd but say yes since I have heard many a tirade out of her about Texas. "That's how many other countries see America." I think she sort of got the point then.

Americans and America are not bad. Not evil and not the great Satan.

But there are far too many elements within your power base that are.

Hell I am Canadian, I don't for one second forget that we have what we have here because of your powerful neighbour who keeps us safe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak
Btw: a question for you if you have ever been in an maneuver with Germans. My impression was: German planes; crap compared to yours. US tanks;crap compared to ours. German ships; crap compared to yours. US Rifle ( M16 meant); crap compared to German rifle (H&K G 36).

---

Having done a little crosstraining: the H&K 36 is far superior to the M16, but I actually like the Steyr AUG a little better for urban stuff. The H&K USP is far superior to the Beretta -- which is a piece of dung. The SAW we use -- gimme a 7.62mm if I need an MG, not some half-assed almost machinegun. Don't know much about the tanks or ships, personally.

On another note: "Or indeed by SWAT teams in a city street...." Sorry, SWAT teams should be an absolute last result; I don't like the idea of police with military weapons & tactics...unless I have access to them as well. Having been in law enforcement, my experience with SWAT are they're wanna-be special forces. Not a good thing on the city streets...

Ideally, I'd like to live to see the day we are no longer dependant on oil. I know it's a tall order.

Regarding Iraq, Saddam has got to go, despite the pleading of other nations (who I think it serve their interests in keeping Iraq status quo). Our interest is at stake here, and the possible threat of more trained terrorists originating from that place (we have evidence) to infiltrate and agitate us from our security is growing.

That and the fact that the fool have the audacity to publicly decree that he will pay surviving next of kins for their so-called "martyr" act!?!!! :mad:

Of course, the question is, can we Americans who should be the living examples of our own values and principles of the Constitution, afford to allow Iraq to take a step toward democracy and have the people elect their own leaders, even if there is a possibility of having an elected leader with an anti-US disposition? This hypothetical question assumes that we have already removed Saddam (which is not a matter of "if" but "when").

Of course it's a Bush Family vendetta: Aitch put Saddam Hussein (and Manuel Noriega) in power back when he was Nixon's CIA Director. The "War on Drugs" president was also responsible for Air America, a Vietnam-era opium-smuggling program which was used finance covert operations in Southeast Asia.

It's no wonder to me why Dubya is pursuing questionable agendas, especially with Cheney whispering in his ear...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak

Hmm perhaps we meet sometime in an maneuver. I`d love to discuss politics with you :)

---

Perhaps, I will be returning to active duty at the end of September, and should be in Germany by January.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak

Btw: a question for you if you have ever been in an maneuver with Germans. My impression was: German planes; crap compared to yours. US tanks;crap compared to ours. German ships; crap compared to yours. US Rifle ( M16 meant); crap compared to German rifle (H&K G 36).

---

Well, I've fired both the US weapons you mention and the German equivelents (qualified for the Silver Shutsensneir (spelling?) last time I was stationed in Germany. I'm also a tanker (panzertruppen?), so I can speak to that as well:

German MG3 is far better than the M60 or M240, but the M240 is acceptable. M249 SAW is ok, but in every case where you would use one a real MG would be better.

German G36 is better than the M16A2, but the M16 is acceptable.

German P3 pistol is crap... M9 Barretta isn't much better. Give me an M1911... or better yet a .357 revolver.

Leopard II, M1A1 and Challenger are all roughly equal... only better tank is the Merkava. Challenger loses a few points because of the rifled gun, but I understand they are fixing that in the next version. It gains points due to it's crew comforts. Leo II is better mechanically, M1A1 has better electronics/ fire control.
M1A2 is slightly better than the 3 main tanks above, but still less than the Merkava. The independant commander's sight saves A LOT of time engaging targets. Electronic gizmos inside are nice, but also provide something else to break.

Well, you have to give this for the SAW: it takes 5.56 ammunition. Hell, you can even plug in an M16 clip.

I, for one, actually like the nine-mil. It's easy to assemble and Alot of other NATO troops use these IIRC. Then again, if I find myself using one, the mission is officially FUBAR.

By the way if you look over the posts on this board over time, have you noticed that alot of the centrist posters (ie: Calguard & Capt Hunter) are moving closer and closer to parity? I hope to God I haven't opened Pandora's Box...:o

Quote:

---

Originally posted by qerlin


On another note: "Or indeed by SWAT teams in a city street...." Sorry, SWAT teams should be an absolute last result; I don't like the idea of police with military weapons & tactics...unless I have access to them as well. Having been in law enforcement, my experience with SWAT are they're wanna-be special forces. Not a good thing on the city streets...

---

Actually, I was referring to armed police in the British sense, not the US. I just used SWAT as a generic (nand obviously misleading) term. My bad.

I must say, calguard66, that your comments are some of the most insightful and thoughtful I've read (here and elsewhere).

I, too, must admit that I am pleased to know that there are men like you working for the defense of me and my country.

mactavish out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66

Well, I've fired both the US weapons you mention and the German equivelents (qualified for the Silver Shutsensneir (spelling?) last time I was stationed in Germany. I'm also a tanker (panzertruppen?), so I can speak to that as well:

---

Hmm would be spelled correctly "Schützenschnur", or translated "Marksman band". And yes Panzertruppen is correct.

Speaking of pistols. I really hate the P3. More than 25m and you won`t hit anything.
Speaking of rifles. I really love the G36. Such a decent Rifle.
But i remember my first month. We always used the old G3 rifle.
But then one day were intruduced to the G36. I noticed very quickly that it, strangely enough lacks the punch of the 7.62 ammo the G3 uses. We were shooting on metal targets shaped as a man who falls down if you hit it. At least with the G3. With the G36 you had to hit it on the highest spot e.g. the head, to fall down.

If Dave was referring to me and not Capt.Daniel Hunter when he said there was parity emerging with Calguard's views, I should point out that, while I agree with a lot of the points Cal makes about the nature of war and the job of a soldier, I still disagree on the fundamental point about use of force. Until there's a lot more evidence about the things Bush is slamming Saddam over, I really don't think a preemptive strike is warranted.