EVE Search - America has gone Gallente?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

America has gone Gallente?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
AmarrettoDiAmarr	Posted - 2009.10.14 19:08:00 - [1] Having temporarily exhausted my ability to waste my life reading the EVE forums, I went to Slashdot (famous geek site.) The first article there was http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/1638229/Behind-the-Scenes-With-Americas-Drone-Pilots "As President Obama meets with advisors on an Afghanistan strategy today (who are now leaning more toward Joe Biden's more-drones policy), and even as Al Qaeda claims it's not all that scared of drones, ... Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future" As I was flying around in a Reaper at the time, it was an unexpected and quite surreal switch.
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.14 19:34:00 - [2] Its really the next logical step in next gen warfare. Drones dont need room for a pilot, life support or ejection seat. With time they will be able to go far faster then the human body can endure and the best part is when you lose one you dont lose the pilot that was flying the craft. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.10.14 19:40:00 - [3] Hrmmm. Riskless warfare is a dangerous tool to have in your arsenal as was amply displayed by the bespeckled basement dwelling cia analysts who controlled the first armed drones. These were literally geeks armed with hellfire missiles so not having any military training or discipline plus running under thier own agenda they ended up killing more innocents than terrorists by far. This also brings up the use of actual military force as a leader will be very much tempted to use it if there are no potential grieving familys of dead troopers to deal with. And don't think america will be the only one to go this route as the tech has been around for decades and can be developed by any country with some bright high school graduates and the proper materials. Slippery slope indeed. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2009.10.14 20:17:00 - [4] Believe me you've always been amarr, always will be. Delenda est achura.
Bodrul Caldari Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2009.10.14 21:13:00 - [5] yet drone attacks seem to get alot more civilians then Terrorists, way to go ........ 400+ Games to Play for Free while mining or waiting during down time, Classics from Helicopter to Pong X bound
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.10.14 21:26:00 - [6] Edited by: Zeba on 14/10/2009 21:37:51 Originally by: Bodrul yet drone attacks seem to get alot more civilians then Terrorists, way to go That unpleasentness was when rival factions were using the cia to take each other out and it included the rivals familys too. Basically the cia got played royally on the target list. This is why it was taken out of control of a civilian agency and completely militarized with only military pilots now running the armed drones under a strict chain of command. Saying that there are still some unavoidable casualtys when the terrorists look exactly like the civilians and have no issues hiding and fighting in a civilian area putting the people they are supposedly fighting for at risk. Thats like being in a firefight and grabbing the kid you are trying to save and useing him as a meat shield. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.10.14 21:40:00 - [7] Drones are the next logical step regardless of civilian costs, because the military wants the biggest bang for their buck and it costs alot to replace soldiers.
soldieroffortune 258 Gallente Trinity Council Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.10.14 23:02:00 - [8] Originally by: Wendat Huron Believe me you've always been amarr, always will be. Please re-size your signature to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes.Applebabe
MyFingID	Posted - 2009.10.15 02:14:00 - [9] I clicked this in the hope that I would read how personal liberty had somehow increased. I left sad.
Barakkus Caelestis Iudicium	Posted - 2009.10.15 03:50:00 - [10] Edited by: Barakkus on 15/10/2009 03:52:09 They're trying to make them so they don't have to land anymore (at least more than once every few months), pretty much fly forever without having to refuel... http://www.enviro-news.com/news/solar_powered_uav_technology_for_us_military.html My wife works at a company that's designing the solar cells for those.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.15 04:30:00 - [11] Is it really surprising? UAV Hawk Hobgoblin
Asuka Smith Gallente Noir.	Posted - 2009.10.15 06:29:00 - [12] You know if we had drones that ran forever they might even be able to root out the illegals domestically and solve that messy issue, finally.
Haraldhardrade Amarr Pax Amarr	Posted - 2009.10.15 06:40:00 - [13] Originally by: Wendat Huron Believe me you've always been amarr, always will be. Caldari. Not Amarr. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.10.15 07:16:00 - [14] Originally by: Asuka Smith You know if we had drones that ran forever they might even be able to root out the illegals domestically and solve that messy issue, finally. All problems can be solved with a few hellfire missiles indeed.
Nefrin Maldoes Minmatar People with Guns Initiative Associates	Posted - 2009.10.15 12:58:00 - [15] Edited by: Nefrin Maldoes on 15/10/2009 12:58:42 Former US Military here, so I feel qualified to throw in my 0.02 isk: Originally by: Zeba Hrmmm. Riskless warfare is a dangerous tool to have in your arsenal as was amply displayed by the bespeckled basement dwelling cia analysts who controlled the first armed drones. True and agreed. However, most drones nowadays are controlled by the "disciplined" 22 year old fresh out of the Academy. Truthfully, having met some of these guys, I am not greatly comforted. Quote: This also brings up the use of actual military force as a leader will be very much tempted to use it if there are no potential grieving familys of dead troopers to deal with. This is potentially a good thing, as the threat of force can be just as effective as force itself. If your enemies know that you are willing to jam a few Hellfire's up their tan track at a moments notice, they are less likely to do things that would invoke that reaction. Any conventional type war of the future will have civilian deaths associated with it, it is an unavoidable thing in today's battlefields. I don't want to see innocents die, but the days of "honor" where civilians were left out of the fights and battles took place away from population centers are over, because people now know that if you hide in the middle of a city either a) no one will attack for fear of killing those innocents, or b) if they do attack, the deaths of civilians can be used as a propaganda tool to great effect. Forget Iraq. Forget Afghanistan. Think about war in general terms. Should your enemy be allowed to continue with his actions unimpeded because you are too afraid to act because some civilians might be killed? --------------- He who stumbles around in the dark with a stick is blind. But he who sticks out in darkness is . . . fluorescent!
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2009.10.15 13:26:00 - [16] Uh ... air strikes of any kind will never be as precise as a sniper with a scope and expecting that level of target identification is simply a waste of time. Not that snipers are fool proof. Hell Fire Missiles are a hell of a lot more accurate than 750lb. bombs - and thus - produce a lot less "innocent" casualties. So - if you're going to use air strikes - the Hell Fires are a lot less likely to kill civilians but because you still don't have the same level of target identification that you would if you were there on the ground yourself. Lastly of course (on the subject of air strikes) ... when the enemy consists of armed civilians who are shooting at you and innocent victims consist of unarmed civilians it is not always easy to tell the difference from an air craft - or through a snipers scope. And of course - EVERYONE - you kill will be a civilian as far as the terrorist propaganda apparatus is concerned. The other thing here - is the idiocy of those who are attacking the US for accidentally killing civilians in a war against terrorists who are intentionally targeting them. The US actually goes to a great deal of trouble to avoid civilian casualties while the terrorists go to a great deal of trouble to attack them. Civilian targets are preferable to a terrorist - since terror - is their purpose. They want to kill people, destroy infrastructure and do whatever they can to destabilize the situation. That makes the stronger power they are attacking look bad and helps them to recruit more terrorists. The terrorists don't have to win - to win. They only have to avoid losing until the stronger power quits in frustration and goes home. That was the North Vietnamese strategy and it worked. Kill enough of the richer powers citizens and those people who think they are to good to die in the dirt like someone from a 3rd World Country will squeal for peace at any price and run away. That was also the Japanese strategy in WWII - but - they picked on the wrong generation ... and ... didn't engage in a guerrilla war against us when we occupied Japan. So they lost. The other thing about WWII - was Pearl Harbor. There was a massive pacifist movement in the US up until Pearl Harbor - that vanished over night. They **ed us off. The problem the Taliban has - is that their little buddies in al-Quaeda ed us off too. The North Vietnamese never actually did anything to the US directly ... so they never **ed us off. Still ... you've got jack asses in the US Senate saying things like "Oh al-Quaeda wouldn't move back in if we lost in Afghanistan ..." which is utterly idiotic but then human stupidity knows no bounds. Most of the people in the western world have very short attention spans. So we'll see how long it takes them to forget 9/11. I hear Obama's reading a book on Vietnam ... ha! ha! ... we'll see which "lessons" he draws from that ... The US lost in Vietnam because LBJ wouldn't listen to his Generals. We'll never know if we could have won ... since we lost ... but if Obama doesn't listen to his Generals - the way George Bush did in Iraq (where we are winning) ... that would be a mistake. Ah well ... no one ever learns anything political from reading a forum post ... they're just places for people to post their preconceptions ... so ... lets go see if the server's back up ... Orbiting vs. Kiting Faction Schools
Slade Trillgon Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.10.15 13:45:00 - [17] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 15/10/2009 13:45:55 Assuming you can get a few drones into an area that can identify, target, and terminate said subject. Do you all think that the addition of facial recognition technologies to the drone tech may be able to diminish civilian casualties? EDIT: We may finally get our camera drones Slade Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat! =v=
red righthand	Posted - 2009.10.15 16:00:00 - [18] Edited by: red righthand on 15/10/2009 16:01:47 Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Uh ... air strikes of any kind will never be as precise as a sniper with a scope and expecting that level of target identification is simply a waste of time. Not that snipers are fool proof. Hell Fire Missiles are a hell of a lot more accurate than 750lb. bombs - and thus - produce a lot less "innocent" casualties. So - if you're going to use air strikes - the Hell Fires are a lot less likely to kill civilians but because you still don't have the same level of target identification that you would if you were there on the ground yourself. Lastly of course (on the subject of air strikes) ... when the enemy consists of armed civilians who are shooting at you and innocent victims consist of unarmed civilians it is not always easy to tell the difference from an air craft - or through a snipers scope. And of course - EVERYONE - you kill will be a civilian as far as the terrorist propaganda apparatus is concerned. The other thing here - is the idiocy of those who are attacking the US for accidentally killing civilians in a war against terrorists who are intentionally targeting them. The US actually goes to a great deal of trouble to avoid civilian casualties while the terrorists go to a great deal of trouble to attack them. Civilian targets are preferable to a terrorist - since terror - is their purpose. They want to kill people, destroy infrastructure and do whatever they can to destabilize the situation. That makes the stronger power they are attacking look bad and helps them to recruit more terrorists. The terrorists don't have to win - to win. They only have to avoid losing until the stronger power quits in frustration and goes home. That was the North Vietnamese strategy and it worked. Kill enough of the richer powers citizens and those people who think they are to good to die in the dirt like someone from a 3rd World Country will squeal for peace at any price and run away. That was also the Japanese strategy in WWII - but - they picked on the wrong generation ... and ... didn't engage in a guerrilla war against us when we occupied Japan. So they lost. The other thing about WWII - was Pearl Harbor. There was a massive pacifist movement in the US up until Pearl Harbor - that vanished over night. They **ed us off. The problem the Taliban has - is that their little buddies in al-Quaeda ed us off too. The North Vietnamese never actually did anything to the US directly ... so they never **ed us off. Still ... you've got jack asses in the US Senate saying things like "Oh al-Quaeda wouldn't move back in if we lost in Afghanistan ..." which is utterly idiotic but then human stupidity knows no bounds. Most of the people in the western world have very short attention spans. So we'll see how long it takes them to forget 9/11. I hear Obama's reading a book on Vietnam ... ha! ha! ... we'll see which "lessons" he draws from that ... The US lost in Vietnam because LBJ wouldn't listen to his Generals. We'll never know if we could have won ... since we lost ... but if Obama doesn't listen to his Generals - the way George Bush did in Iraq (where we are winning) ... that would be a mistake. you sir, are a perfect example of how seemingly intelligent people can sound stupid due to patriotic/religious preconceptions. america lost in Vietnam, and they will lose in the middle east if they don't drastically change strategies. it's not difficult to understand. the approach of "believe what i believe, or i'll kill you" only creates exponentially increasing enemies via the friends and relatives of those you kill. every enemy you kill, increases the opposition 3 fold. but there are many who believe vietnam was not ment to be won, only prolonged for monetary gain. this might be true. no general in his right mind would think the current wars were "winnable".
Slade Trillgon Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.10.15 16:08:00 - [19] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 15/10/2009 16:08:43 Originally by: red righthand you sir, are a perfect example of how seemingly intelligent people can sound stupid due to patriotic/religious preconceptions. america lost in Vietnam, and they will lose in the middle east if they don't drastically change strategies. it's not difficult to understand. the approach of "believe what i believe, or i'll kill you" only creates exponentially increasing enemies via the friends and relatives of those you kill. every enemy you kill, increases the opposition 3 fold. but there are many who believe vietnam was not ment to be won, only prolonged for monetary gain. this might be true. no general in his right mind would think the current wars were "winnable". You know, the more and more I think about it I am pretty sure none of the recent leaders of the U.S. has read anything by Machiavelli, especially The Prince. EDIT: If they did then they did not truelly understand what he was trying to get across Slade Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat! =v=
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.15 16:52:00 - [20] If they can perfect drones to the point that they only need to land once every few months for rearming and maintance I wonder what this will mean for aircraft carriers and really the air force as a whole. Obviously pilots will still be needed to fly the drones, but surely the need for carriers, fighters and what not would shrink drasticly. According to the wiki, the Nimitz class carrier can carry 90 aircraft (fixed wing and helicopters), given that drones are signifiantly smaller then a fighter I would imagine that number is at around the 3-400 hundred range if not higher. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Slade Trillgon Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.10.15 17:07:00 - [21] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 15/10/2009 17:09:13 EDIT: Can't spell Gallente HeÆs been playin' in a room on the Ship For ten years in Rens Every night he looks in the mirror And he only ages He's been readin' about Jita and all The ships that everybody's buyin' Says 'I'm a simple guy myself Grew up in Ammake So he packs his bags to try to his hand Says this might be my last chance He's gone Gallente, look at them clones He's gone Gallente, back to his pods He's gone Gallente, a new kind of ship He's gone Gallente, here he comes Well the folk scene is dead But he's holdin' out in the Orca He's been writin' songs speakin' out Against wealth and privilege He says 'I donÆt believe in iskies But a man could make him a killin' 'Cause some of that stuff don't sound Much different than Dylan I hear down there it's changed you see They're not as backward as they used to be He's gone Gallente, look at them clones He's gone Gallente, back to his pods He's gone Gallente, a new kind of ship He's gone Gallente, here he comes Well, he commutes to LA But he's got a POS in the low sec But the bills are pilin' up And the pop scene just ain't on the rally And he says 'Honey I'm a serious drug runner Schooled in agility and evasion But with the crime and the ganks these days This ain't no place for children Lord it sounds so easy it shouldn't take long Be back in the money in no time at all' He's gone Gallente, look at them clones He's gone Gallente, backt to his pods He's gone Gallente, a new kind of ship He's gone Gallente, here he comes Yeah he's gone Gallente, a new kind of salk He's gone Gallente, a new kind of talk He's gone Gallente, look at them clones He's gone Galentte, oh back to his pods He's gone Galentte He's gone Galentte Everybody's gone Galentte Yeah we've gone Galentte The whole of EVE has gone Galentte Slade Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat! =v=
Awesome Possum Imperium Signal Corps	Posted - 2009.10.15 19:41:00 - [22] Originally by: Nefrin Maldoes but the days of "honor" where civilians were left out of the fights and battles took place away from population centers are over, don't confuse the romantic fantasy of historical war with reality. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2009.10.15 23:36:00 - [23] Red - Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! You Sir are clueless! Have a nice day! and OBTW ... apologies to the mod's for my blatantly political post ... Now ... back to drone technology ... and history ... (of course it's really, really hard to talk history without politics but here we have inter service politics so maybe it will be forgiven ("DoughHEAD!" ... "Wings of TIN!") Air strikes are air strikes and they'll just never have the precision of boots on the ground. Ever since Douhet you've had people advocating capabilities for air power that it just doesn't have. Now - in the early days of Douhet and Mitchell the air power guys were fighting against the entrenched attitudes of people still believing in Horse Cavalry and Battleships - who were in charge - and who dismissed air power (rightly so at the time) as ineffective. When things had changed with the rapid advance in technology the air power enthusiasts still weren't listened to as much as they might have been - and they were still wrong about a lot of what they advocated. In order to justify their fledgling service they made claims for it, based on theory, that were wildly out of line with reality. Of course - no one had ever tried to actually put any of these theories into practice so they can be some what understood for not realizing just how wrong they were. So, air power has always had all these claims made for it that were simply untrue. It wasn't that air power didn't play a crucial role it was just that it couldn't do EVERYTHING. In the end, right up through today, you can bomb a lot of stuff and really do a lot of damage but ultimately you have to put infantry on site to hold ground and insure victory. Infantry, Armor and Artillery can't fly - and Aircraft can't hold ground. Each has it's role to play but none of them can do EVERYTHING. Thus, in your future war scenarios - what you would be talking about - is combat droids, moving in on the ground to finalize an engagement - rather than RPV's. Now ... another problem with RPV's is - they can be jammed. In theory - they could have someone take control of them and use them against you. The first is a lot easier to do than the second. As early as WWII the US and the Germans had radio controlled air craft and cruise missiles. Joe Kennedy Jr. was killed in an attempt to use a remotely controlled aircraft and the Germans used one to sink an Italian Battleship when Italy changed sides. The problem was - these things could be jammed. That was what the American's did to the German radio controlled bombs at Anzio and it may have been a stray radio signal that set off Joe Jr.'s aircraft. Today's aircraft have much better signal protection but I do not believe it is jam proof. So ... drones and such have a real role to play but - they can't do EVERYTHING and people who try to use them beyond their capabilities are going to be doomed to disappointment ... Orbiting vs. Kiting Faction Schools
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.16 04:50:00 - [24] I wonder how long, if it hasnt already come to pass before they mount sniper rifle like canons on the helicopter UAV's. Have the thing fly around at a high attitude until you locate the target, have it land a mile or so away, aim, shoot and take off again. In regards to jamming and hacking, for jamming I would imagine that already if in the event of something like that happening the drone would revert to preset programing (IE an AI) to keep it from doing something stupid like continuing to fly towards the ground, at least I would hope so. For hacking though I imagine there are numerous safe guards though I wouldnt rule it out. I would imagine though that if drones were developed to the point that they were, if not the main force, a massive contributing force to the military, that some sort of self destruct mechinism would be in place as a sort of asset denial system if the enemy force managed to successfully hack through military grade encryption. Of course that is all stuff I would insist upon if I were in such a position.... id also insist upon presidental canadates engaging in a survivor like reality tv show instead of campaining.... On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Benny Hill Caldari General Thrusters	Posted - 2009.10.16 19:12:00 - [25] Originally by: red righthand you sir, are a perfect example of how seemingly intelligent people can sound stupid due to patriotic/religious preconceptions. america lost in Vietnam, and they will lose in the middle east if they don't drastically change strategies. it's not difficult to understand. the approach of "believe what i believe, or i'll kill you" only creates exponentially increasing enemies via the friends and relatives of those you kill. every enemy you kill, increases the opposition 3 fold. but there are many who believe vietnam was not ment to be won, only prolonged for monetary gain. this might be true. no general in his right mind would think the current wars were "winnable". Did you read his post, or were you pretending to be stupid? It is funny every time someone posts about "Vietnam" thinking they have an inkling as to what happened during that war. But idiots, like you, have no idea what the military strategies were, the political monetary funding, much less never even heard about the "vietamization" of the war because they are too lazy to learn about simple things that took place during dramatic times. Besides, the poster whome you tried to mock, specifically mentioned that LBJ would not listen to his generals, instead, he issued orders that bombing raids were to ignore SAM sites being built because a russian might be in the construction crew. What upsets you is that a general knows how to fight a war? The US "lost" the Vietnam was because the political leaders didn't care to fight it anymore, as as the poster said, did not listen to their generals.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.10.16 20:26:00 - [26] Originally by: Zeba That unpleasentness was when rival factions were using the cia to take each other out and it included the rivals familys too. Basically the cia got played royally on the target list. Yeah, poor little CIA getting used like that. Don't believe the hype. They have a long history of destabalizing countries by making people in them fight amongst themselves as much as possible. Divide and conquer, and all that. My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Pace Tuo UnderDog Industries	Posted - 2009.10.16 22:13:00 - [27] >Besides, the poster whome you tried to mock, specifically >mentioned that LBJ would not listen to his generals >What upsets you is that a general knows how to fight a war? In WWI, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every modern industrial state possesses sufficient resources to fight a war of attrition essentially indefinitely. And that's when it ISN'T being bankrolled by two other huge industrial states like Russia and China. >The US "lost" the Vietnam was because the political leaders >not listen to their generals. LeMay and Powers took as the chief lesson of WWII that total war, in the long run, saves many more lives than gradualist or limited conflict. The leadership at SAC believed that: 1)Military confrontation with dictatorial communist regimes was inevitable 2)The US had greatly superior nuclear and air defense capability to the USSR, and that the US could therefore "win" a nuclear war. 3)The US would not enjoy superior nuclear capability in the future. Follow this chain to its logical conclusion and you will see that if SAC had been running the country in 1962, you would not be here today. The fact is, the geniuses at SAC who said they would bring N.Vietnam to its knees without provoking a general war against Russia and China were the same folks who had commissioned the studies that proved strategic bombing didn't work in WWII or Korea, and indeed could never over any reasonable period diminish the fighting capacity of a well-armed industrial state to an extent that would be sufficient to justify the costs of the bombing. Over the course of the war, the US dropped more explosives on N.Vietnam than we had in WWII and Korea combined, and even more explosives than that on S.Vietnam. If you believe that, had we only dropped a few more bombs, without some sort of fundamental shift in strategy that didn't involve direct conflict with another nuclear power, we would have won the war in another couple of years, you are provably living in a fantasy world. Probably the same fantasy world as the generals who stood before Congress and the American people (with the exception of one brave soul) who swore up and down, LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they had full confidence in Rummy's Iraq attack plan, despite thee fact that troop concentrations, security arrangements, and the lack of any plan for post-invasion governance whatsoever, had already been proven totally inadequate by the experience of every single peace-keeping mission conducted by this country in the last half-century. You see a lot of "Expert Ex-Generals" getting in on the revolving door congressional lobby act or making their way as professional shills for one party or another on CNN these days. It's an easy way to make a spectacular amount of money; wouldn't want to endanger that, now would we?
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2009.10.16 22:27:00 - [28] Originally by: red righthand you sir, are a perfect example of how seemingly intelligent people can sound stupid due to patriotic/religious preconceptions. america lost in Vietnam, and they will lose in the middle east if they don't drastically change strategies. it's not difficult to understand. the approach of "believe what i believe, or i'll kill you" only creates exponentially increasing enemies via the friends and relatives of those you kill. every enemy you kill, increases the opposition 3 fold. but there are many who believe vietnam was not ment to be won, only prolonged for monetary gain. this might be true. no general in his right mind would think the current wars were "winnable". I hate to shoot your incorrect theory of enemy mitosis in the foot but if you were right everyone on Earth would hate each other. The US alone would be hated by the Canadians, Germans, Italians, British, French, Spanish, Mexicans, North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Moroccans, and a few others such as the Belgian's who we didn't fight but we certainly killed a few innocents in the process of kicking the Germans out of their countries. This is of course ignoring the impossibility of the US being able to stand itself due to a civil war. Your reasoning is flawed. A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.10.17 05:14:00 - [29] Originally by: Professor Tarantula Originally by: Zeba That unpleasentness was when rival factions were using the cia to take each other out and it included the rivals familys too. Basically the cia got played royally on the target list. Yeah, poor little CIA getting used like that. Don't believe the hype. They have a long history of destabalizing countries by making people in them fight amongst themselves as much as possible. Divide and conquer, and all that. Heh, well in this case the tribes in question have had blood feuds going back generations or even centuries. They were already killing each other and destabalizing the country long before we came on the scene. I'm sure that the agents with the ability to make the target call knew that up to a point but it ended up getting innocent familys killed as revenge for crap that happened ages ago when they were given misleading or even outright incorrect information about exactly who was in that building or car the missiles were targeted on. Whats is ironic is that the moar primal residents of these countries have absolutely no issues killing anyone at all regardless of age or gender if they are not of the tribe or even if they are of the tribe if they have broken any of the fundamental islamic laws. So yeah the cia got used big time and with its track record it won't be the last. Hell the russians played the cia like a cat toys with a mouse all through the cold war so its a tradition for them of sorts. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2009.10.17 06:21:00 - [30] Originally by: Pace Tuo >Paces statement. Uh ... Pace ... you've got no idea what you're talking about. Everything you said was wrong ... I think ... Let me see ... WWI - The Central Powers lost because they could not sustain their war effort while under blockade and opposed by a numerically superior force. I would not consider 1914 to 1918 an indefinite period of time. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bombing of Vietnam have little or nothing to do with each other. One was an entirely political contest where little actual force was used - the other was both a political and military contest in which a great deal of force was used. As to the statement of LeMay's beliefs, that does sound like LeMay - and he was right - from his point of view. We could - by his definition - have won a nuclear war, which is one of the reasons the Russians backed down. This is not some time later when both nations would have been wiped off the face of the earth and nuclear winter would have possibly doomed man kind. This was in 1962 when we did have an over whelming nuclear advantage. We just didn't know it. Still - it was better that we didn't fight a nuclear war - and the political policy of containment adopted by the US after WWII against the Soviets was successful resulting in our wining the cold war. Yes - we dropped a lot of bombs in SE Asia but we dropped them in the jungle - not up north where they would have done more good. It wasn't how much we did it's how we did it. LBJ was afraid of the Chinese coming in and - that more than anything else - is what crippled our efforts. If you use Korea as a comparison - it wasn't until UN troops approached China's borders that they came in. So here, LBJ was probably being over cautious. We probably could have put troops into southern N. Vietnam without a problem. We certainly could have mined Haiphong, destroyed the air craft and missile defenses in the north and done to the North's rail net what we did to the rail net the Germans were using in WWII. There was also a plan to put a defensive line across northern S. Vietnam through Laos connecting to Thailand but it needed more troops than we had in country. Johnson wouldn't give them to the Generals and that was the end of that. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a stunning military victory for the US and S. Vietnam. The Viet Cong were destroyed as a major combat force. From Tet on - all major operations were conducted by the NVA. Yet - Walter Cronkte - beloved Uncle Walter - reported Tet as a US defeat, doing more in 10 seconds to lose that war than Nixon and LBJ did in 10 years. If he had reported Tet as being the victory it was - as he did in the Battle of the Bulge in WWII - things could have been vastly different. It was the perception by the American Public at home that the war was being lost - when in fact it was being won - that caused us to give up. In 1972 and 1975, the N. Vietnamese hit the south with entirely conventional forces. They were at last fighting the kind of war we could slaughter them at - but - by then Congress and Nixon had given up on the war and pulled most of our troops out. Still, US Air Power saved the South in 1972 and could have done it again in 1975 if it had been present - but it wasn't as congress - having given up on the war had cut the funding. Nixon's absortion in Watergate not helping matters. The Linebacker Operations in 1972 showed what the US could have been doing all along but they were to late to save the attitudes of the US home front and press. If LBJ had done in 1965 what Nixon did in 1972 - and kept it up - we would have won that war. Instead ... we squandered our efforts running around the jungle and mountains trying to catch an enemy that could hide from us and only engaged us when they wanted to. Had our Air Force Generals been allowed to bomb the North the way they wanted the North Could not have maintained it's troops in the South. Orbiting vs. Kiting Faction Schools

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.