[Zeronet]

But all tanks fear this, especially Iraqi tanks.




http://www.army.mod.uk/armyaircorps/apache.htm

[Styxx]

Originally posted by sandwich
Compared to the Merkava, it's ugly.

Pfft. That's what you think...

[Styxx]

Originally posted by sandwich
She even flies.....

SHE?!?

[phreak]

this thing is much better than the apache

[CP5670]

Well in that case what the hell was the US doing there when the Majority of the people wanted communism? what right did they have to invade? Now we can bring up the subject of imperialism because I think that war fitted the criteria for it quite nicely.

They had a "right" to do anything they wanted to do, as did any other nation out there; right and wrong are meaningless. As I said before though, it was indeed a useless expenditure of resources for something that they would have had nothing to gain from, which is really all that matters.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by PhReAk
this thing is much better than the apache

Apaches have far more firepower, and Cobras have that nice little sensor ball

[phreak]

You need to see your target before you can shoot it.

[Zeronet]

glorified Recon Helos, although i wouldnt mind flying one .

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by CP5670


They had a "right" to do anything they wanted to do, as did any other nation out there; right and wrong are meaningless. As I said before though, it was indeed a useless expenditure of resources for something that they would have had nothing to gain from, which is really all that matters.

Fair Enough but what we have to agree on is that Right and Wrong must be assigned a meaning by us in order for us to live healthy and happy lives. Otherwise we wouldn't live for very long (as a race). The Vietnam war Flouted most peoples' perception of the above. It was needless, against the will of the vast majority of the people there, caused countless suffering to millions of people (poth intentional and colateral) and all because America happened to disagree with the Ideals of Communism.

[CP5670]

Fair Enough but what we have to agree on is that Right and Wrong must be assigned a meaning by us in order for us to live healthy and happy lives. Otherwise we wouldn't live for very long (as a race). The Vietnam war Flouted most peoples' perception of the above. It was needless, against the will of the vast majority of the people there, caused countless suffering to millions of people (poth intentional and colateral) and all because America happened to disagree with the Ideals of Communism.

Not exactly. These concepts of "right" and "wrong" developed as merely the first laws of the human civilization. Even in today's world, they work out fine and usually coincide with the objectives of the society, but not always, since the world has been changing ever since while these remained static. Especially, as Codedog said before, when a war begins, all these artificial constructs of morality and whatever else go right out the window. The Vietnamese might not have liked it or whatever, but that really does not matter at all as long as they cannot do anything; this is simply the way nations operate in today's society and any country that abides by some silly rules will end up causing damage to themselves. Most importantly, there were lots of other people in the world who thought that this was indeed the right thing to do, so who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Morality is not an absolute idea.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Zeronet
But all tanks fear this, especially Iraqi tanks.




http://www.army.mod.uk/armyaircorps/apache.htm

Hehehe The Merkava Mk. 4 is able to take out helicopters with it's main turret (given the right circumstances, ie. the turret's elevation has to be able to point at the heli - duh).

[LtNarol]

helicopters move faster than tanks:p it would take some very good aiming or some very lucky circumstances, or both

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by CP5670


Not exactly. These concepts of "right" and "wrong" developed as merely the first laws of the human civilization. Even in today's world, they work out fine and usually coincide with the objectives of the society, but not always, since the world has been changing ever since while these remained static. Especially, as Codedog said before, when a war begins, all these artificial constructs of morality and whatever else go right out the window. The Vietnamese might not have liked it or whatever, but that really does not matter at all as long as they cannot do anything; this is simply the way nations operate in today's society and any country that abides by some silly rules will end up causing damage to themselves. Most importantly, there were lots of other people in the world who thought that this was indeed the right thing to do, so who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Morality is not an absolute idea.

I never said it was but the point I was making was that for America to Condem Iraq's invasion of Kuwait after prticipating in one of the bloodiest wars without just (in my perception of it at least) cause, in the last 50 years is Hypocracy.

For debate to actually exist, common ground must be found and I'd like to hope that everyone in this discussion at least shares the basic rudimentary values that civilisation has, rightly or wrongly, precieved as right and wrong over the course of history (aka. death should be avoided, happiness should be obtained not at the expense of others etc.).

Now we can always argue over the justness of the cause. The only possible just cause for America to attack Vietnam was that it could be precieved as a threat to American/Allied security or was brutally repressive. Was Communism in Vietnam a real threat to American National securityor brutally repressive? Was war declared because Vietnamese Communism was genuinely precieved as a threat or just through hatred of their Ideals?

Now applying that logic we could of course say that Al Quaeda are not morally wrong, just have interests that conflict with that of the United states and most non religious Zealots. These ideas obviously confict more radically than most. But it's clearly in America's interest to defend itself to ensure that noithing like this ever happens again minimizing casualties as much as possible. The question is "Has America done enough now to prevent such an attack?".

[Stryke 9]

Actually (and you'll never hear me credit Moloch for anything again), the way the US handled the Taliban is likely to almost entirely prevent any kind of unified attack against the US from the Middle East, or much of anywhere else. Religion isn't the real issue, it's politics transmuted into religion- we, the "Nation under God", are at odds with all nations ostensibly under Allah, because we both have aggressively expansionist, intolerant doctrines and the world isn't big enough for two jingoistic imperialists any more. When the attack on the WTC happened (never mind the assault on the Pentagon; any attack on that murderous device of destruction is justified), everyone was holding their breath for the US to get redneck on the Taliban, Hussein, and anyone who happened to be standing in the wrong hemisphere. When Bush of all people launched a small, effective attack that wrapped up everything somewhat effectively and installed a  benevolent puppet government rather than our usual kind, everyone was so shocked the US came out looking like the good guy on practically all sides. Everyone expected Vietnam mark II. Instead, we got a quick, clean takeover with hardly any civilian casualties, which took the wind out of much of the anti-US rhetoric for a while.

Of coure, we're still bastardly towards most Middle Eastern and African nations (read: oil tyrranies, like in Nigeria, embargoes, etc.), so it won't be long 'till everything's back to normal.

[Top Gun]

America, however, is a lot more tolerant than the Vast Majority of Middle eastern Nations (with the Possible exceptions of a few states) with a lot less state saponsored brutality even though a considerable amount of repressive regiemes were installed and are supported by america.

[daveb]

we both have aggressively expansionist, intolerant doctrines and the world isn't big enough for two jingoistic imperialists any more.

Back this up with a single shred of evidence. Name _one_ region of any kind the US has "imperialized" in the last 100 years. I'll give you a hint : the answer is zero.  The US is entirely _not_ expansionist, even in the "benevolent" sense.

And intolerance? I'd like to see the explanation of that one too. If we're so "intolerant" why do we have the most diverse mix of cultures of any nation in the world by FAR. Also, name a single instance where we've been "intolerant" of another country doing anything outside of genocide, invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers.

That characterization is pure fantasy. Militarily speaking, the US takes action in two very specific cases. To defend others (you know, like the last 3 wars we were in where we basically in the game to save 3 seperate Muslim peoples), or to prevent unstable or aggressive regimes which are a threat to us from getting a foothold.

And as for our "bastardliness" towards ME and African countries : Aren't you in the crowd that says political and diplomatic solutions are the only way to fix things - as opposed to war? Begging, pleading and reasoning mean nothing to a guy like Saddam or Arafat who are willing to let their own people live in squalor to further their own political agendas. Hence the embargo. So then - what's your proposed solution? Do nothing and watch the genocides/slavery/oppression continue unchecked? I'll give you a hint as to who else has a "hands 100% off policy". His name is Pat Buchanan. You can't have it both ways. If you think the world sucks now, you can't even imagine the horrors you'd see if all the Western powers said "well, all we're willing to do are send the occasional ambassador".

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by daveb


Back this up with a single shred of evidence. Name _one_ region of any kind the US has "imperialized" in the last 100 years. I'll give you a hint : the answer is zero.  The US is entirely _not_ expansionist, even in the "benevolent" sense.

And intolerance? I'd like to see the explanation of that one too. If we're so "intolerant" why do we have the most diverse mix of cultures of any nation in the world by FAR. Also, name a single instance where we've been "intolerant" of another country doing anything outside of genocide, invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers.

I've said this time and time again Vietnam. Is the most blatant example, then there's other examples where "invasion of its neighbors, or imperialist expansion by other powers" has been tolerated, encouraged and supoported by america. Arming Saddam in the First place to fight Iran is one example. You think he made most of his chemical weapons himself  What about the training and indoctorination of Taliban and Al Quaeda Members to fight the soviets?

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by Top Gun


Well in that case what the hell was the US doing there when the Majority of the people wanted communism? what right did they have to invade? Now we can bring up the subject of imperialism because I think that war fitted the criteria for it quite nicely.

Now your from the UK right?  Well, I don't think Britian should talk about imperialism.  Seems they had a nice little empire awhile back.

[daveb]

im·pe·ri·al·ism   Pronunciation Key  (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.


Now, last time I checked there were no voting booths, or Senators from Vietnam. Nor do I see Vietnam sending us part of their GDP. Vietnam/Cambodia was in fact a clear example of us taking proactive steps to secure the area from the expansion of Communism. Ask some Cambodian children about how they felt about the Soviet Union. Oh that's right you can't because the Khmer Rouge kicked most of their heads in when they were infants    :/

As for arming Saddam and the Mujahedin - read my previous post. We do what we think is the best thing for securing things at the time. We can't see 20 years into the future with much accuracy. But again, if you'd rather do _nothing_ except bluster at the UN conference table (which will do nothing to sway the real madmen of the world) feel free.

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

-Jeff Cooper

(Coop is 'da man by the way)

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND


Now your from the UK right?  Well, I don't think Britian should talk about imperialism.  Seems they had a nice little empire awhile back.

Did i ever say that I supported it? No It's nice that you feel the need to judge every British person by the actions comitted by a ruling elite that was certainly not representitive of the majority of British people. Hell Elections weren't even fair in those days.