Quote:

---

Originally posted by optimus1998:
ok, all sides of arguments involving the morality of the actions depicted here, blah-bity,blah-bity,blah,
all that aside..
the person progamming the webpage linked here, seems to have discovered a new unit of data storage:

Quote:

---

video: MPEG at 4.6 mebibytes

---

MEBIBYTES??? to paraphrase Marty McFly - WHAT THE HELL IS A MEBIBYTE?
one would think if one knew enough html to program a basic page like that, they would be pretty familiar with the term megabyte, more so if it is a auto generated page, the person who wrote the software that wrote the page would be pretty familiar with the word....

or am i just being to picky???

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
We haven't heard from the original poster since the full video was linked to. I'd be interested to hear what he thinks about this in its proper context and whether he would have still posted this topic (complete with headline) if he had seen that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
MEBIBYTES??? to paraphrase Marty McFly - WHAT THE HELL IS A MEBIBYTE? am i just being to picky???

---

Quote:

---

But you are being reckless, irresponsible, and just plain stupid if you think that all American servicemen commit atrocities, and that therefore all American servicemen ought to be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
In any case, none of these Far Far Left wing hypocrites will ever give in to the fact of what the video really shows. After all, that would mean they agree that the U.S. Military acted correctly.

---

Quote:

---

Then again, to play the other side of the coin, would the American people be happy not wiping out an entire country who we've deemend 'responsible'? If I'm recalling correctly, as soon as the Taliban and Afghanistan were indicated as the most possible culprits, a great deal of Americans wanted the whole country turned into a glass parking lot. So...If we /did/ utilize nuclear arms in response to a limited nuclear terrorist attack ... isn't it more likely that the American people's (See: Mob) own desire for revenge be the one main factor that would push anybody's finger on the button?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

But you are being reckless, irresponsible, and just plain stupid if you think that all American servicemen commit atrocities, and that therefore all American servicemen ought to be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

---

And I never got a response from Inevitable about this either, especially as I was very careful not to imply that "all" American soldiers are guilty. Can I conclude that Inevitable is deliberately misrepresenting my argument in order to further propaganda points?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
We haven't heard from the original poster since the full video was linked to. I'd be interested to hear what he thinks about this in its proper context and whether he would have still posted this topic (complete with headline) if he had seen that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
We haven't heard from the original poster since the full video was linked to. I'd be interested to hear what he thinks about this in its proper context and whether he would have still posted this topic (complete with headline) if he had seen that.

---

Probably not. Either he was duped by a Far Far Left wing bit of false propaganda and posted it, or he was'nt duped, and decided to spread the Far Far Left Wing bit of false propaganda.

Judging from his posts in the past, I think it's more likely the latter.

In any case, none of these Far Far Left wing hypocrites will ever give in to the fact of what the video really shows. After all, that would mean they agree that the U.S. Military acted correctly.




Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
To be honest, I think the US Army has had a reputation for being overly trigger happy for decades (indeed my grandfather stated that the time his platoon felt most nervous was when the US soldiers were behind them, not when the Germans were in front of them.)

Maybe it's a cultural thing. Certainly we've witnessed too many bombings gone astray (villagers, Red Cross headquarters, the Chinese embassy).

However, I'm a stickler for topics in hand and this topic is about that bit of footage. When you see the whole, unedited video, it is absolutely clear (imo) that the troops acted correctly. What I'm trying to ascertain is whether the original poster agrees with me and whether he was aware of the full length video before his original post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey, Inevitable, take a break maybe, but don't dissappear. I don't come to the RWE to change people's minds (well, not mostly), I come here to challenge my existing beliefs, or learn something from a different point of view.
At worst, it can be boring repetitive verbal sparring. But at best it can make us consider something we hadn't before.
My two cents.

Ain't no Herbert Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

I would argue that those examples were, by and large, of a slightly different nature in agenda [but]...Indeed, the words our leader utilized at the time undoubtably had a great deal of sway on the shock and anger the general masses were feeling... But do I really think we'd 'stoop' to nuclear weapons as a response to a terrorist nuclear attack? I personally don't think so.
The moral thing to do for both a global and domestic image and support, would be to refuse the use of nuclear response as a means to say 'Hey! Look! We're not evil, if we were they'd be atoms already!'. No, I think we'll just stick with tomahawks, bombs, etc. It wouldn't do anyone any good to vaporise entire cities of innocents just to get a few 'bad guys'. I don't even think this office would stoop that low... But, the more interesting question is the one that asks: Who /will/ we fight in any instance post-nuclear attack? Will it be the country where the terrorists originate or operate from or will it be Iran, N. Korea, or any of the former Soviet states who's nuclear arms have slipped through their fingers like so much vodka?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
...with the US advantage in military technology, does it make the playing field so uneven it results in " terrorism " types of attacks?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
To be honest, I think the US Army has had a reputation for being overly trigger happy for decades (indeed my grandfather stated that the time his platoon felt most nervous was when the US soldiers were behind them, not when the Germans were in front of them.)

Maybe it's a cultural thing. Certainly we've witnessed too many bombings gone astray (villagers, Red Cross headquarters, the Chinese embassy).

However, I'm a stickler for topics in hand and this topic is about that bit of footage. When you see the whole, unedited video, it is absolutely clear (imo) that the troops acted correctly. What I'm trying to ascertain is whether the original poster agrees with me and whether he was aware of the full length video before his original post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
To be honest, I think the US Army has had a reputation for being overly trigger happy for decades (indeed my grandfather stated that the time his platoon felt most nervous was when the US soldiers were behind them, not when the Germans were in front of them.)

Maybe it's a cultural thing. Certainly we've witnessed too many bombings gone astray (villagers, Red Cross headquarters, the Chinese embassy).

However, I'm a stickler for topics in hand and this topic is about that bit of footage. When you see the whole, unedited video, it is absolutely clear (imo) that the troops acted correctly. What I'm trying to ascertain is whether the original poster agrees with me and whether he was aware of the full length video before his original post.

---

Well, I have gotten the link to play

I cannot positively identify the object in question as a weapon. I can say it does not appear to be either a RPG-7 or an RPG-16, it could be an RPG-18/22 but can''t be sure.

I froze the video it your link and compared it to a Soviet Equipment Recognition Guide I was issued back in 1992. The object seems too short to be a SA-7, SA-14, or a SA-16. Also it does not appear bulky enough to be an AT-3, AT-4, or AT-7.

While I have the advantage of freezing the image in question and reviewing books, the aircrew did not, they recieved clearance to shoot from higher authority. While I believe the aircrew acted withing the ROE, I still question the order to open fire in this case. Even though, the object cannot be positively identified ( even with the manuals and time to stare at it ) I still feel the correct course of action would have been the approach of dismounted infantry supported by the aircraft in question.

The individuals on the ground were acting it a strange manner ( I can't explain what they were up to ) My personal feelings is that alone was not reason enough to open fire. Investigate, definately. Fire, not enough info.


When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I would argue that those examples were, by and large, of a slightly different nature in agenda [but]...Indeed, the words our leader utilized at the time undoubtably had a great deal of sway on the shock and anger the general masses were feeling... But do I really think we'd 'stoop' to nuclear weapons as a response to a terrorist nuclear attack? I personally don't think so.
The moral thing to do for both a global and domestic image and support, would be to refuse the use of nuclear response as a means to say 'Hey! Look! We're not evil, if we were they'd be atoms already!'. No, I think we'll just stick with tomahawks, bombs, etc. It wouldn't do anyone any good to vaporise entire cities of innocents just to get a few 'bad guys'. I don't even think this office would stoop that low... But, the more interesting question is the one that asks: Who /will/ we fight in any instance post-nuclear attack? Will it be the country where the terrorists originate or operate from or will it be Iran, N. Korea, or any of the former Soviet states who's nuclear arms have slipped through their fingers like so much vodka?

---

I think calculations are made at several levels. There is the "general populace" calculation, where the average person looks at perceived costs and balances it against the perceived benefits. "Right" and "wrong" don't enter into it for most people. So in the case of Grenada the costs and benefits were both almost nil. In the case of Panama the perceived costs were higher (Panama had a regular army) but continued control of the canal was a big draw. But in the case of Iraq, the perceived costs were VERY high, and so the populace had to be stampeded into supporting the invasion by visions of Armageddon.

What would happen if Armageddon really happened, and either a/ several "dirty bomb(s)" or a "real" nuclear bomb(s) were to be set off in USA borders? Absolute and total panic. The populace would be primed for anything- panic buying, hoarding, profiteering, donating blood, burying themselves in basements, letting fly a nuclear response.

This is where (hopefully) the policy-makers are not as panicked as everyone else, and other calculations take place. And they have an entire population at their disposal, looking to them for direction and reassurance. They could either defuse the situation (as previously described by Rue) and turn the panic towards rebuilding, OR they could focus on the next available target in queue (IRAN) and respond with either tactical nuclear devices- already alluded to by Bush as an option he would like to keep open- or bunker-buster-bomb an active nuclear facility. At that point, neither China nor Russia would be happy campers. This is as far as my thinking takes me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
To be honest, I think the US Army has had a reputation for being overly trigger happy for decades (indeed my grandfather stated that the time his platoon felt most nervous was when the US soldiers were behind them, not when the Germans were in front of them.)

Maybe it's a cultural thing. Certainly we've witnessed too many bombings gone astray (villagers, Red Cross headquarters, the Chinese embassy).

However, I'm a stickler for topics in hand and this topic is about that bit of footage. When you see the whole, unedited video, it is absolutely clear (imo) that the troops acted correctly. What I'm trying to ascertain is whether the original poster agrees with me and whether he was aware of the full length video before his original post.

---

Well, I have gotten the link to play

I cannot positively identify the object in question as a weapon. I can say it does not appear to be either a RPG-7 or an RPG-16, it could be an RPG-18/22 but can''t be sure.

I froze the video it your link and compared it to a Soviet Equipment Recognition Guide I was issued back in 1992. The object seems too short to be a SA-7, SA-14, or a SA-16. Also it does not appear bulky enough to be an AT-3, AT-4, or AT-7.

While I have the advantage of freezing the image in question and reviewing books, the aircrew did not, they recieved clearance to shoot from higher authority. While I believe the aircrew acted withing the ROE, I still question the order to open fire in this case. Even though, the object cannot be positively identified ( even with the manuals and time to stare at it ) I still feel the correct course of action would have been the approach of dismounted infantry supported by the aircraft in question.

The individuals on the ground were acting it a strange manner ( I can't explain what they were up to ) My personal feelings is that alone was not reason enough to open fire. Investigate, definately. Fire, not enough info.


When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml]


Well Stated Gino,

Now it comes down to what the "Man in the hot seat" has seen and knows prior to this video, what the men at the checkpoint saw and know ect, versus what we think we would do without the benefit of all that extra information.

All we see is a farmer running around trying to plow his fields with an RPG.

So, you got sucked in by someone elses misleading propoganda. My apologies for my previous remark.



Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:

You Betcha

I am the United States of America.....

Mine is an evil laugh!!!!!!!!

Make no mistake, All that is bad in the world is of my doing.

Tremble in fear Peons

Oh, and by the way, I'll be sending out the International aid checks at the end of the Month.

Have a good weekend folks.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:

You Betcha

I am the United States of America.....

Mine is an evil laugh!!!!!!!!

Make no mistake, All that is bad in the world is of my doing.

Tremble in fear Peons

Oh, and by the way, I'll be sending out the International aid checks at the end of the Month.

Have a good weekend folks.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

---

Quit trolling.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:

What?????

Grab the guys, said guys armed with at least RPG's, advancing over an open field, with no apparent cover except the cars and truck that the "suspected Fedayeen Saddam" came with????????

What the F*ck Army taught you that kind of tactic? Did they not like you?



Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

---

Quote:

---

And that leads me to ask again, Don't they like you?????

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Heck, I thought it was funny. Did'nt you think it was funny?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

And that leads me to ask again, Don't they like you?????

---

Aside from personal sniping, was there any reason to include and repeat this question?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
My training tells me that in this situation, you advance to contact, secure the area. Then determine the facts. Mind you the US has a completely different doctrine on the use of supporting arms than the British/Canadian one,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Gino,

You will find that Finn is not serious about any topic. This is a game.

He takes a contrary opinion (AIDS, global warming, colonial rule, ROE), finds or more generally makes up a very small set of facts (sometimes just one) to support his opinion, then attacks people personally to try to keep them engaged in his game.

He needs it to feel superior.



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I was about to argue with you, but that would really be pointless wouldn't it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Really it is no wonder people around the world want to shoot / bomb Americans.

---

Quote:

---

You will find that Finn is not serious about any topic. This is a game.

He takes a contrary opinion (AIDS, global warming, colonial rule, ROE), finds or more generally makes up a very small set of facts (sometimes just one) to support his opinion, then attacks people personally to try to keep them engaged in his game.

---