You can't win a war with small arms...

That's just what a whole lot of people were saying in the good years leading up to and into WWI. In the history books we called it Isolationism. It didn't work out very well, we still got into a fight, and we still had many families hurt.
Click to expand...
Isolationism =/= Non-Interventionism
And that's probably because the history books like to make us look like the good guys that is everyone's older brother that needs to clean Europe's mess up. While I am not very educated on WWI, I must say that our "interventionism" and poor handling of post-WWI politics *directly* caused the rise of Hitler and WWII.

You can't stick your head in the sand, you can't be the bully on the corner or the world's policeman either.
Click to expand...
Why do we have to be the world's police? Hmmm? Why can't it be Sweden, or Australia? Or better yet why don't we practice a level of decency and assume people can handle themselves and keep their own self-interests in order. We can't even fund our own domestic programs and problems, and you want to police the world like we're the Romans?

But you can get your intel people out into the world, keep them watching and looking for real threats and when one shows it's head, cut it off quick, clean, leave nothing but suspicion and no one to point a dirty finger at.
Click to expand...
Idk about you but this sounds a lot like a "Secret Police" that sentences non-US citizens to the death penalty pre-preemptively and without trial. Many people call this FASCISM.
 
Eh, everybody bumbled the post WWI peace process. Some French Marshall correctly summed it up when he decried Versailles as a 20 year cease fire, not a peace treaty.

The rebels seem to be holding there own, and have a few pieces of armor from what I've read. Looked like T-55s and T-62s.

They adoing what every insurgency ever has done, not fighting to win, fighting just to not loose.

Them boys got a lot of heart.
 
I've said over and over again on this very forum, it's not about the weapon. If you take away (insert type of gun here) then something else will be used.

I've even had old veterans here treat lightly the idea that whatever gets banned will simply mean something is used in it's place.
The next time you talk to an anti "assault weapon" hunter or skeet shooter ask them this question.
"How long do you think it will be after a truly effective "assault weapons ban" kicks in that the first mass murderer uses (insert hunting rifle or double barrel shotgun whichever is appropriate here) and then they come after your weapon of choice?"

A shooter armed with what the press would call a "military sniper rifle" could pick off quite a few people in any city before being stopped. Make sure to mention your hunting buddy would call the same thing his favorite deer hunting rifle.

How about asking your skeet buddy how many people could be killed with 00 buck, his weapon, twenty minutes, and a helpless bunch of students in locked classrooms. Then ask him how long after the incident he figured it would be before his over under was put on the banned list by name and model.
Violence is like water, it has to go somewhere, dam the stream here, it will find a way around or over the top.
 
so intervention is always good?

cia create alqeada because it was messing up the soviet system, look at how well that worked out for us.

look at eqypt, instead of a democracy as planned/predicted, its becom run by a fundamental islamic group
 
That armor they are using looks to be good for maybe up too 7.62mm or so, but something like a .50cal would cut right through it.
Click to expand...
At $5 a round, I doubt they are using all that much 50 cal. You have to remember the US military spends more money than all others combined. Even our most industrialized allies shy away from guns that have a cyclic rate of $2500 a minute.

If these guys are truely fighting for their freedom I don't understand why we aren't helping them more. Are they the "other guys" freedom fighters? Or is America too tired to be America right now?
Click to expand...
As a "Rebel" diplomat said today, if a certain super power would spend less time measuring the fighters beards they might be able to get the support they need. As happened with Castro, cutting them off only pushes them towards the people who wil provide funds. Al Quaida is supposedly funneling lots of money, guns, and combat veterans into the area.

"Secret Police" that sentences non-US citizens to the death penalty pre-preemptively and without trial.
Click to expand...
You guys are way out of touch. We already have such a secret police. They don't even worry about whether you are a US citizen or not. They haven' got the "clean" "nothing but suspicions" part down yet, but they are very good at the alternative "What drone, we don't have any drones" bit.

cia create alqeada because it was messing up the soviet system, look at how well that worked out for us.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree they created them, provided training and material support that greatly increased their influence, yes.

I read today we are going to provide them medical and lots of MREs. As anyone with any knowledge of supplying an army knows, this is the big money for an army. We won't give them the weapons, but we will free up some cash so they can buy from the Russians or S. Koreans. There should be enough of an armor difference the CIA can allow them to fall into some anti-tank weapons that aren't extremely effective against Abrams.

The sniping is ugly. Some of those snipers could benefit from an Appleseed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top