Now what the ****'s wrong with having a good healthy debate? Never hurt anyone. Feel free to carry on here.
I thought it was ironic that a game would bring out the very worst in people. Sure, some of the points were valid, whereas others were inane flames and personal attacks. Nevertheless, if you want to discuss the Middle East, start a damn thread about the Middle East. That's all I have to say about it.
Quackass was last heard saying:
well I got my facts from the newspaper, but as it said in the second article you posted, most news reports weren't on the money anyways, so you can't blame me. Besided, CNN isn't known to always speak the truth and noting but, so how do you know their news articles were the truth?
I never said anything about incompetance, it would have happened to anyone who went there (especially since they wen't to the exact same place as the incident to drop men off.)
Could you please explain the link between not rescuing someone and that people shouldn't attempt to fire a gun?
I wasn't arguing how the policy failed, I was stating thats why the policy in question isn't a good one to have.
I remember our first discussion on the issue, but it wasn't strictly limited to the topic of leaving injured men in the field, it was a little broader.
anyways, I think the policy isn't a good one if its just one man, however if it were say 3 or 4 men, then they should be rescued. When rescuing them, its also better to carry out your operation at either dawn or dusk when people are least prepared, also don't reuturn to where the person was lost because you're very likely to be ambushed.
As for injured men, leave them with their (uninjured) buddy and carry on, the reason you leave injured men behind is because in war the idea is to mane someone, not kill them. The reason you want to mane the person is because the person becomes more of a burden than if they were dead. This is why balls (known informally as "bullets") are copper plated, if they were left as unplated lead they would do more damage and kill more people.
And I reply:
Besided, CNN isn't known to always speak the truth and noting but, so how do you know their news articles were the truth? Leave CNN out of it. They are not the absolute truth, but their coverage was more accurate and correct than yours. I wanted to get some facts straight.
Could you please explain the link between not rescuing someone and that people shouldn't attempt to fire a gun? I thought I was clear: You're saying that the U.S. military is incompetent at rescuing their troops, and that it is reason not to attempt rescuing troops. Well, the U.S. military is also incompetent at firing guns. I was suggesting that your reasoning is preposterous for its sweeping conclusions based on one instance.
I think the policy isn't a good one if its just one man, however if it were say 3 or 4 men, then they should be rescued. Yes, because three or four men's lives are three or four times more important than one man's life. And we all know it is not worth taking a risk for one man's life, because we might screw up badly and get seven men killed and eleven injured. However, seven dead and eleven injured is acceptable for three or four men. See where I'm going here? It is not the number of people's lives at stake, it is how neatly you execute the operation. Its not a question of "if" you have to rescue your men, it's a question of "how". I don't know what went wrong there, but four choppers and ground crews should be able to take out an enemy field camp without many deaths or injuries.
don't reuturn to where the person was lost because you're very likely to be ambushed They didn't "return", they stayed there. There was a battle going on from the moment they landed. They called reinforcements. They were not ambushed.
War isn't for killing or maiming. When you're doing something for killing or maiming it's a massacre. In battle, a soldier doesn't normally care if he killed or merely "incapacitated" the force that's confronting him, as long as he can reach his objectives - which are usually to drive into enemy territory and destabilize the enemy's political system. Lately in Europe it is done by conquering major cities until a ceasefire is reached; in the Middle East by positioning troops along a geographical border; and in modern U.S. warfare by bombing every major city until the foreign government surrenders.
You can't successfully argue that any western military leaves its troops behind, especially not after you have proof that they rather risk the lives of tens of men. I know that it seems right to you to leave a man in order not to risk the rest, but you're ignoring the consequences of leaving a man in enemy hands, and you're also ignoring the plain fact that armies do not leave their men behind. Get a reality check.
Metallus - can you quote the "inane flames and personal attacks"?
Quote the inanity? Trying for more kill, Isaac?
Hey Metallus, can you get me pictures of penguins? Maybe with the nice relaxing blue tint like the ones you posted before...
I think you guys got your point across :(
I'm actually the one that closed that other thread.
As relaxing as that is, there is something fake about that picture...
"All we are saying is, give pees a chance!"
Hurray for phototshop! It made things blue, then it made the solar flash. Now the penguins are even nicerto look at...
wait...
the penguins...
they are speaking...
whats that?
You want me to burn things?
Originally posted by Metallus
Ok, ok. This thread has spun out of control. I'm closing this thread...
Originally posted by Jake
I'm actually the one that closed that other thread.
Jake = Metallus? Doesn't surprise me one bit.
Yes, Raven. We are the same person. I run two separate sister Sam & Max sites. I'm also on the forums at the same time as myself, with IPs in completely different locations.
Actually I was talking to Jake online about that thread and as he was working on closing it I wrote the last message in it without him knowing. Since we were both basically doing the same job he left it and didnt delete my message and write his own.
Yes, Raven. We are the same person. I run two separate sister Sam & Max sites. I'm also on the forums at the same time as myself, with IPs in completely different locations.
Actually I was talking to Metallus online about that thread and as I was working on closing it he wrote the last message in it without me knowing. Since we were both basically doing the same job I left it and didnt delete his message and write my own.
Ugh. To clarify since Met bungled it and posted exactly what I was saying, or something very similar... then as a joke went and made it completely identical. The best possible way to make our... er my point, of course. *sigh* :)
Metallus lives in the Los Angeles area. He runs the Grim Fandango Network (
http://www.grimfandango2.com) and Snuckeys (
http://snuckeys.samandmax.net). He spends way more time on the forums than I do.
I talk to him and admin these forums with him because I run and own SamAndMax.net which hosts my site The Unofficial (
http://unofficial.samandmax.net). I live in the northern half of California (barely, Santa Cruz), which is practically a different state despite, erm, technically being in the same state.
Metallus, you can cure ethnic hate and world hunger with those images.
Mr. JBlink, I hope you are kidding about photoshop enhancing real life and making it more "suitable" to the human eye...
Speaking of, I do hate fashion magazines.
Not a big seal fan, Isaac, but I do find old men funny.
Wow the whilly-uber Canadian doing his rare and siductive mating dance, it is a wonder to behold, oooooooo aaaaaaaaa...
HOLY HOPING HOWLER MONKEYS IN TINY SHRINER HATS! That has got to be the single ungliest eskimo i have ever seen!!! Give him some fish and maybe he will go away...
"Car me eskimo, but Sam Seed can rearn forgivaness..."
http://www.casualjoy.com/dm/sspicts/sam12.jpg)
...And ruv. Dear God, the ruv.