- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Who said anything about controlling foreign cities? That's the point that you keep missing.
Lol. Ok whatever.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Who said anything about controlling foreign cities? That's the point that you keep missing.
Why would the military need to train over cities, Kabul, Kandahar, Jalabad.. Yes we all have issues with today's government. With the running lights on and the military admitting to training flights I think it is what it is training in an urban area. At the end of the day if you think you can control a city through the use of air power good luck with that. History shows otherwise.
Another fallacy. No city was ever controlled without boots on the ground. Berlin, fallujah, hue, and so on. Yes so leaving a city alone where an insurgency can fester and grow is a recipe for disaster. Ask the Germans how that worked out for them in eastern Russia.
I really don't get you points. Honestly history tells a very different tale than what your are presenting here.
I am glad you are not in charge of our military operations overseas. You went from no need for urban training for helos overseas to leveling cities with no regards to cultural significance. You want to create am insurgency bomb Mecca or level Mount Fuji in Japan and get back to me. If you think you can bomb a nation into submission you are wrong. History shows time and time again this is not the case. Even Japan which we nuked was occupied. Same with cities.
Really? So I guess they had no standing army when we showed up? Yes because the battleship Missouri was really just a pleasure craft. Seems if like the 7th fleet sails in you are invaded and occupied. Just saying
No you advocated leveling cities irregardless of collateral damage that was your position. Blasting away cultural icons creates an insurgency. I also stated that the Air Force and navy cannot bomb a city into submission. It needs to be occupied to control it. I answered this question several times already.
Read your posts and your history.
Who said anything about controlling foreign cities? That's the point that you keep missing.
My position is simple: train as necessary, but keep .mil out of US cities and towns.
My last post on this is an example from history: why were Roman legions never allowed in Rome? It goes to the fear those in the Republic had that the military would be used to circumvent the political power of the republic. The point holds as well today, only it is the political power of the state and the constitutional rights of US citizens that are at stake.
He's really stuck on this one despite me clearly saying I never want to control a city, merely punish its inhabitants for supporting regimes that attack American soil.
Your clearly stuck on the point if you level a city without regards to collateral damage you will create more problems than you solve. That's my point that I have repeated over and over and over and over and over. Pretty simple. Read your history the answers are right here
Your clearly stuck on the point if you level a city without regards to collateral damage you will create more problems than you solve. That's my point that I have repeated over and over and over and over and over. Pretty simple. Read your history the answers are right here
Your clearly stuck on the point if you level a city without regards to collateral damage you will create more problems than you solve. That's my point that I have repeated over and over and over and over and over. Pretty simple. Read your history the answers are right here
How exactly do you occupy a foreign city without bombing it first? By definition you're going to always have collateral damage, particularly when the targets like to hide behind women and children, whether you're only bombing them or bombing them and then occupying them. What you're advocating is both A) bombing them and then B) spending a decade trying to win hearts and minds while propping up a government that the US powers that be approve of. Seems dumb.
Damn Japanese insurgents! If only we occupied like in the middle east where they love us.[/
That was the exact reason the imperial palace was not leveled as others in here have advocated. The fear if we killed the emperor there would be a rebellion to avenge his death. Kind of hard to rule a country when they think you killed off their ruling deity and personification of their culture.
Yea you don't seem to "get" a lot of military stuff. If you can't figure out how SOAR would possibly benefit from operating in a major metropolitan city versus even the best of MOUT towns you really don't get it. Fortunately, you don't have to.
People also think we didn't land on the moon. People are generally pretty dumb. I'm convinced more of that daily... especially when taking 100 level polisci classes for fun. Our future looks bleak.
SF units have a very high chance of being deployed to a major city oconus... but thats been beat to death in this thread.
Training evolves. I'm confident its happened in the past, its just that alex jones and his nutjob followers weren't as well networked.
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
Tin foil helmet design class will take place at a future date.
$50.00 per student.
This not news.
Where is the best place to train for urban ops? Urban places. Where do we find urban places? all over the planet.
They need to use real cities
Japan surrendered if I recall without an invasion. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.
Who is talking about bombing Mecca? I'm not aware of any terrorists or nations who attack the US hiding in Mecca.
On top of that I'm pretty sure we also firebombed Tokyo. So what is that you were talking about again?
Nowhere did I say we need to specifically target historical monuments. However, if you invade the US and build a tank factory next to one, yes you should expect both to get leveled. Are you saying you wouldn't support bombing of strategic targets just because they were built next to something of significance?
Damn Japanese insurgents! If only we occupied like in the middle east where they love us.
I'm not particularly comfortable with military training taking place off-base with an un-aware / un-knowing civilian backdrop. It's not that I don't see the value of training, I just don't believe for me the benefit of such training is worth the cost to freedoms or the sense of freedoms.
I also think it involves too much trust on behalf of the population towards the govt, generally an untrustworthy entity. I think the activity, while it may make sense to the participants, accomplishes other objectives for leadership. I see it as a continuing extension of intrusion by the govt into civilians lives and at risk are basic human rights and constitutional freedoms. Govt generally acts in its own best interest, not necessarily always in the best interest of its citizens.
If the civilian population were to desire change, I am concerned that change could be prevented by govt through the continuous development of domestic and military practices which intrude in greater and more meaningful ways into the daily lives of the population. I'm beginning to see the diminishing return on a personal level in these ongoing protections and am starting to see them as activities which seek to defend govt against those who might question it.
When does defense and protection of the people become control and management of the people? In many areas we have already tipped over that line. We do not need more.
So back to the question at hand... Is it a legitimate individual reaction to question the need and practices of military operations in public places? Is it reasonable for a citizen to inquire if this sort of event is not only needed but appropriate in the context of the life and liberties we choose to pursue? I say yes. Citizens absolutely should have the right and the voice to decide when and where they believe govt is exceeding its charter.
Militarized police, domesticated military, wiretaps and domestic spy ops to protect us and so on seem to paint a picture that is a bit more about controlling free will than enabling and empowering it.
They aren't messing with peoples lives during the training, so WGAF. I do think they should let people know well in advance so its not a surprise.
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
I'm going to give the .mil its due here...
Under the UCMJ, they've brainwashed enough stupidity, and injected enough drugs into its drones that we can completely discard that the bulk of them are actual patriots. Anyone who argues "ahhh, the insert force branch here are Americans just like you and me and won't disarm us" have plenty of proof in in this thread that they are completely anti freedom... but still technically patriots, as were the redcoats.
**** the .mil - New era Lobsterbacks
EDIT: when SHTF, if you want to live walking down main street usa... invest in some Realtree or something.. because your BDU's aren't going to be viewed as friendly.
You're a ****ing idiot. Seriously. A real ****ing idiot.
*have
That's clear.
See that's the problem with auto correct with big meat hooks for hands makes those little grammitical errors no one really notices. But thanks for caring
For everyone defending military training in the middle of US population centers, where do you draw the line? Do you have a line? MJB doesn't, but do others? Any limit on nature, scale or frequency? Is everything fair game if it means more soldiers getting more training?
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, auto correct changed have to of.
We notice because we have to read all of your post 3x to try to understand you.