Guns

A-Train, Do you think there are "just" wars? If so, then the USA has always been on the side of right and not might ...

I don't think the U.S. participation in WWII was at all unjust.  I also believe that the intentions during WWI were honorable and generous, but with disastrous results, (namely, WWII).  ALWAYS on the side of right?  F*@k NO!  The Iraq invasion was a moral and strategic disaster that is still hard for me to believe was perpetrated.  Viet Nam?  See below.

The particular Mai Lai massacre is an example of something that may not be specifically according to policy, but is the inevitable, predictable, and desired result of official policy that creates conditions allowing plausible deniability for those who make the policy...

Why were we in Vietnam again?

We entered under a fear-based, false premise called the "Domino Theory". Ignited by a pure lie called the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".  I was against that war BEFORE my brother served there for a year, came back to burn his uniform and medals and told us of some dishonorable inside realities. 

But, the average American didn't support the war out of monetary gain or conquest. They truly swallowed the fear mongering that our political leaders served up. The truth of the matter took a long time to come out, but eventually, most of us figured out the ugly truths, swallowed our pride and withdrew.

The only place I differ with you a little is what I think is your premise that Americans didn't care about, or actually supported, the collateral damage you mention.  I think the exposing of this is what turned Middle-America against the war. And massacres, rape, random murder has almost ALWAYS been a part of war. And I would argue that it SHOULD be. The old adage that armies don't go to war, but countries do underpins my statement.

But terrorism today is a different thing from the warfare I'm commenting on above.

A-Train, thanks for your response. I think we have a similar viewpoint on the history of war. I have been surprised and disappointed because of my perception that Americans in general support the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, support torture, and are amazingly ignorant of the wars we are conducting in: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and fomenting in Syria. Maybe my perception does not accurately include Americans who object, but whose voices aren't heard. I don't know.

Basically I agree with everything you said about those wars, especially Vietnam. There are always people with good intentions who go to war and somehow it always turns out the premise was a bunch of lies to benefit small minorities.

I got us of the main topic because I think the reason for a national defense is similar for personal defense. Violence is unavoidable; it can't be eliminated from the equation at any level.

Finding fault with U.S. foreign policy is easy. But are you willing to admit that there have been positive results from it as well?  The policy of "Containment" against the USSR was peaceful and successful. The support of West Berlin and Germany was ultimately positive. And where was Europe during the '90's Balkans crisis when thousands were being slaughtered on their back porch? And if you had to choose, would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? Because I think The ROK would look a lot more like the DPRK without that war. Looking forward, where will Australia be during China's ascendance if the U.S. does not continue its pivot to The Pacific?

Churchill said that you can always count on The Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted every other possibility. That about sums it up.

Sorry for the rant. I shouldn't post about US foreign policy during Memorial Day week.

Yes, I can readily admit the positive results of US foreign policy. It gets complicated, though, when you I to understand things from a broader and broader perspective. In that light, a somewhat singular agenda comes into view that doesn't permit momentary good guy status that excludes how things got to the point that the "bad guys" had to be vanquished. It's never that simple, just saying.

As far as I know, LOL, I didn't choose where I was born, so it was lucky for me to be born in the USA for many reasons, unlucky for a few others. No place is perfect. Freedom is crucial to make life meaningful no matter where you're from, so that's the good part and why those with the most political freedom should exercise it, partly by holding themselves to high standards.

Finding fault with U.S. foreign policy is easy. But are you willing to admit that there have been positive results from it as well?  The policy of "Containment" against the USSR was peaceful and successful. The support of West Berlin and Germany was ultimately positive. And where was Europe during the '90's Balkans crisis when thousands were being slaughtered on their back porch? And if you had to choose, would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? Because I think The ROK would look a lot more like the DPRK without that war. Looking forward, where will Australia be during China's ascendance if the U.S. does not continue its pivot to The Pacific?

Churchill said that you can always count on The Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted every other possibility. That about sums it up.

Sorry for the rant. I shouldn't post about US foreign policy during Memorial Day week.

I really don't want to get into a politics argument but I can't just let it pass that 'the cold war policy of containment was peaceful and successful'

Not for the rest of the world it wasn't

Gzwriter: I spent many years in the Air Force stationed as liaison to Army and Marine units.  You should know that the average grunt, squid, jarhead and us flyboys don't run around the base on a daily basis with weapons strapped to our hips or slung across our backs.  I might also add, I am a crack shot and well experienced with firearms.

If we drew our weapons for an exercise we were never issued live ammunition and Gawd help the soldier who managed to sneak a few rounds so he could pop them off for fun.  In all the time I was active duty other than the firing range, the only time I was issued live rounds was for Operation Just Cause, and even then we were forbidden in having live rounds in our weapons, let alone the chamber.

  In all the time I was active duty other than the firing range, the only time I was issued live rounds was for Operation Just Cause, and even then we were forbidden in having live rounds in our weapons, let alone the chamber.

Nice to hear that the lessons about putting soldiers into a combat zone without having loaded weapons that should have been made abundantly obvious after what happened in Beirut in 1983 were still being ignored in 1989.  Whoever made that decision in Panama should have been court marshaled or declared to be mentally incompetent.

Nice to hear that the lessons about putting soldiers into a combat zone without having loaded weapons that should have been made abundantly obvious after what happened in Beirut in 1983 were still being ignored in 1989.  Whoever made that decision in Panama should have been court marshaled or declared to be mentally incompetent.

Sorry EL, but you should ask many of your allies about this. Look up "Friendly Fire" I think more Canadians were killed in Iraq from the Americans than the enemy. The Brits and Canucks had to walk backwards when in unison with the US soldiers
 

Friendly fire sucks.  Sounds like some people forgot the first rule of gun safety - DUCK!

On the other hand, getting shot or blown to pieces because you don't have ammo in your weapon to even try to defend yourself strikes me as ruining the whole point of deploying soldiers into a combat zone.  If they can't have bullets, we should just have just sent meter maids, school crossing guards, and maybe some of those WalMart greeters to protect the Beirut airport or to grab Manuel Noriega.

Quote from: CaseyOrourke on May 31, 2013, 06:54:34 PM

 In all the time I was active duty other than the firing range, the only time I was issued live rounds was for Operation Just Cause, and even then we were forbidden in having live rounds in our weapons, let alone the chamber.

Nice to hear that the lessons about putting soldiers into a combat zone without having loaded weapons that should have been made abundantly obvious after what happened in Beirut in 1983 were still being ignored in 1989.  Whoever made that decision in Panama should have been court marshaled or declared to be mentally incompetent.

I should have specified that those rules were for the support and staff weenies who were in the followup waves and went into areas removed from the fighting.  Us combat types went in first, loaded for bear and ready to kick booty.  

I was in the Air Wing of the USMC and after boot camp we rarely touched any weapons. Supposed to re-qualify with the M-16 once a year, but if you weren't on a big base it wasn't a very common thing, and even then two or three days on the range with some basic target shooting ain't going to do much. My whole time in, I kept waiting for the "real" training to begin, but I finally figured out the real training was just getting conditioned not to question anything, no matter how completely, unbelievably stupid it was.

I was in the Air Wing of the USMC and after boot camp we rarely touched any weapons. Supposed to re-qualify with the M-16 once a year, but if you weren't on a big base it wasn't a very common thing, and even then two or three days on the range with some basic target shooting ain't going to do much. My whole time in, I kept waiting for the "real" training to begin, but I finally figured out the real training was just getting conditioned not to question anything, no matter how completely, unbelievably stupid it was.

Most of the marines I worked with were in ANGLICO teams. I noticed the Marines needed an officer and seven enlisted troops to do what I did on my own as an AF Staff Sergeant who was J-TAC certified. 

A few years ago I was getting in some practice controlling airstrikes. A ANGLICO team had just proceeded me and they stuck around, because they wanted to see how us Air Force types did it.  They were surprised to see I was all alone,  so the marine officer told me, if I needed help, just ask. I chuckled as told him to watch and see how we do things here in the Big Leagues.  Once I finished my runs, A marine private asked me, "Sarge, just what is it you do, and how can I join up?"

As far as weapons, I qualified monthly with my weapons   

Well, I'm not surprised to hear such a story. What I saw in my time enlisted was not favorable. I kept wondering, "Why don't they have us on a long-term training timetable for being more well-rounded soldiers, etc?" Answer: that's not what they want from Marines, that's for sure. I was the dummy who watched too many John Wayne movies or something.

Not sure if this belongs here or on the "What In The Water In The US" thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q7V0xEPge0

Now, no matter how terrible you are at shooting, you can kill with precision from one kilometer away...for just $22,000.  Saw this on The Colbert Report. Just wait 'til this gets in the hands of every Jasper with a line of credit.

Holy snot!

OK, if anyone hasn't noticed, I'm all for the 2nd amendment as well as the right to hunt.  Yes, there are drawbacks, but I believe that attempting to outlaw personal firearms in the USA would create massive problems that would make the consequences of prohibition look small by comparison.

However, this technology crosses the line for both hunting and personal defense.  Hunting is supposed to be a skill and should be more difficult than walking up and shooting an immobilized animal.  The animal is supposed to at least have a chance to avoid being shot.  This removes all the challenge from the sport.  Home and personal defense does NOT include the ability to blow away a person standing a kilometer away.  "When I looked at him in my sniper scope, he looked kind of threatening" isn't going to be a valid argument for self defense.

Personally, I'm not happy that anyone has this level of technology in a man-portable firearm.  Give it time and every police car will have an "insta-sniper" kit in the trunk.  Snipers should be well trained and deployed only when and where appropriate.

My only hope is that it's a lot less effective than claimed.