Which candidate do you think Osama would vote for?

[CSM]

Radar is a weapons system. Even in WWII radar aimed guns, and thus radar is a weapons system.

Well to get somewhat technical, radar in and of itself is not a weapons system; it can be part of a weapon system such as you suggest, but not all radar is used in a weapon system (weather radar or air traffic control for example).

 

[dmp]

Well to get somewhat technical, radar in and of itself is not a weapons system; it can be part of a weapon system such as you suggest, but not all radar is used in a weapon system (weather radar or air traffic control for example).

He may argue "If you blast Radar waves at someone, you could kill them!"





Another thing worth mentioning...the 'gunner' aims...'radar' helps the ordinance find the target.

 

[CSM]

I know it was a weapon; I'm asking was the 'weapon' brought over while the english were losing; the English didn't have the weapon. Then, did the use of that weapon change the tide. My doctrine question was asking 'did the english already HAVE the longbow, however, just changed the way they employed the weapon on the battlefield?'

AH I see what you are asking. The English were neither winning nor losing. The English did have the longbow but did not have it on the continent until then.

I still say that the Stinger was not the sole reason for the Soviet withdrawal; as I said, I have some research to do and will get back to you on that.

 

[wade]

Aw cmon now. The longbow was a weapon; brought over from England to fight the French. Kicked some serious French butt in a war which had gone on for some time and was heading for a draw after many many years. Kind of put and end to the armored knight ruling the battlefield too.

Actually not. Only in a few instances, such as at Agincourt, did the longbow prove effective. Too many factors weighed against such tactics being generally successful. Longbowmen required a lifetime of training, and the enemy had to be foolish to make themselves vulnerable to them (which the French were). And the weather had to be favorable - longbows are useless in wet weather. I think there were 3 battles where the longbow was significantly successful. The middle eastern compound composit bow was actually a superior weapon (better range, accuracy, hitting power, and a shorter man could use it), and it didn't stop the crusaders.

You are right CMS, it was not the Stinger that defeated the Soviets, it was the terrorist tactics employed by the Mujahadim, and the fact that the general populous of Afghanistan continued to support them. US aid was certainly a factor - but no one weapon, especially the stinger, was crutial to the Soviet defeat.

What ended the days of mounted armor was not the longbow, it was the musket. Any fool could be trained to use a musket in a matter of weeks, and no wearable armor was proof against a musket ball.

 

[dmp]

the Stinger was not the sole reason for the Soviet withdrawal;

Indeed, you may be correct, however, it was 'the difference' between the Muhjadeen 'losing' and 'winning'...regardless what actions the soviets took as a response. Before they had the Stinger, they were getting slaughtered. With the Stinger, the Soviet bombers had to fly SOO high, they'd lose accuracy in their bombings...Supply transport movements were restricted...Attack Helicopters, especially the slow, such as the HIND, were proverbial sitting ducks.

 

[CSM]

Actually not. Only in a few instances, such as at Agincourt, did the longbow prove effective. Too many factors weighed against such tactics being generally successful. Longbowmen required a lifetime of training, and the enemy had to be foolish to make themselves vulnerable to them (which the French were). And the weather had to be favorable - longbows are useless in wet weather. I think there were 3 battles where the longbow was significantly successful. The middle eastern compound composit bow was actually a superior weapon (better range, accuracy, hitting power, and a shorter man could use it), and it didn't stop the crusaders.

What ended the days of mounted armor was not the longbow, it was the musket. Any fool could be trained to use a musket in a matter of weeks, and no wearable armor was proof against a musket ball.

No argument from me about any of your statement here. The context of the discussion was about any weapon which turned the tide of war. Granted that the circumstances were rather unique at Argincourt but nevertheless, the flower of French knighthood was pretty much done in by the English archers.

 

[CSM]

He may argue "If you blast Radar waves at someone, you could kill them!"





Another thing worth mentioning...the 'gunner' aims...'radar' helps the ordinance find the target.

Actually, there has been some research done (still being done) on using microwaves and radar technology as a weapon....lot of classified stuff in that arena though

 

[wade]

No argument from me about any of your statement here. The context of the discussion was about any weapon which turned the tide of war. Granted that the circumstances were rather unique at Argincourt but nevertheless, the flower of French knighthood was pretty much done in by the English archers.

It was certainly badly hurt. But really, the lack of unity of the French had more to do with their defeats than the British archers.

BTW: I love weapons systems history - especially WWII and earlier. Any time you wanna start a thread on this topic I'm in!

 

[CSM]

It was certainly badly hurt. But really, the lack of unity of the French had more to do with their defeats than the British archers.

BTW: I love weapons systems history - especially WWII and earlier. Any time you wanna start a thread on this topic I'm in!

Again, no argument from me.

The point I am tryiung to make is that no SINGLE weapon has ever been the sole reason for changing the outcome of a war. There are a lot of contributing factors to any war's outcome.

I am all for a history thread of any type; It is my opinion that understanding history goes a long way in understanding current events.

 

[dmp]

Again, no argument from me.

The point I am tryiung to make is that no SINGLE weapon has ever been the sole reason for changing the outcome of a war...

...except for the STINGER.

 

[CSM]

...except for the STINGER.

Says you! You weren't an officer were ya? Maybe thought about being an officer?

 

[dmp]

Says you! You weren't an officer were ya? Maybe thought about being an officer?

I was an 'officer'...just not 'commissioned'

 

[CSM]

I figured that. I am just yanking your chain. I did a hitch or two...loved being an NCO.

 

[dmp]

I figured that. I am just yanking your chain. I did a hitch or two...loved being an NCO.

I know...hehe.

I loved being an NCO - but I wouldn't trade it now, for my current job.

 

[wade]

LOL! that's hillarious... "So what IF Bush killed him, he was going to die eventually anyway!!"

wow...

But Bush didn't kill him. If he's dead, it seems very unlikely it was at Bush's hands. My point is that 911 was the act of a dying madman seeking martyrdom, with delusions that Islam could win in a direct conflict with the USA, and nothing to loose for trying.

 

[Comrade]

Foiled because they were caught well before they could place the explosives.

What???

Why is it that when intel and counter-terrorist units succeed in a Democrats term it's incompetance of the terrorists, but when the terrorists succeed in the term of a Republican you then blame the previous administration?

Why do you ask such silly questions?

9-11 was the fault and responsibility of the Bush Admininstration.

There goes any semblence of you having an iota of rational thought to 99% of this board.

You'll take 30 hit points to your reputation on that statement alone.

If it had happened in the first two, or even three months of the Bush Administration, it might be legit to point at the Clinton Admininstration.

What you'd want to say here is that if it happened X+1 days after Bush took over in the White House, X would be the number of days before it was his fault.

But it happened more than 6 months into Bush's term - and during that 6 months Bush had spent something like 43% of his time on vacation!

I bet you saw a movie by Michael Moore!

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Bush Vacations

Deceits 6-7

Fahrenheit 9/11 states, "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."

Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.

Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for ‘Working Vacation’," Washington Post, August 7, 2001 Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders. Since the Eisenhower administration, Presidents have usually spent many weekends at Camp David, which is fully equipped for Presidential work. Once the Camp David time is excluded, Bush's "vacation" time drops to 13 percent.

I didn't say he was. However, Bush has done the things that OBL was hoping he would, and this is key to OBL's desires.

Like kill him!

It's a hypothetical question, so his possibly being dead is not an issue.

If he's dead, then obviously he wanted Bush to kill him.

As for Bush having killed him, I believe he was already dying before Bush ever took office. Look at a photo history of OBL and it is clear to see he looks sick in the later photos and it came on pretty fast. I suspect he suffered from some kind of liver ailment.

Kidney.

As for having "scattered his (OBL's) organization", well that is what we are being told. But the evidence is that Al-Queda is still well organized, and now many times larger than it was prior to this war on terrorism.

Evidence? What evidence?

Where it used to number in the hundreds,

That's bunk.

it now numbers in the thousands, perhaps even more than 10 thousand.

More bunk.

I know why exactly why you say this, it was the argument a week after 9-11 against using force in Afganistan. I was always a claim that the more we fought the terrorists directly in their own bases, the more they'd multiply.

It's the same old bullshit tar baby I've heard from the far left since October, 2001.

As for funding - again we really don't know what their funding levels are, but they appear to have enough to conduct operations.

Apparently a few can afford a bus ticket to Iraq and perhaps enough to buy a camcorder so they can videotape their latest beheading.

And after three years I guess their still pooling their money for a plane ticket to America.

Or maybe they've been putting the donations into mutual funds, saving up a few million to buy some Russian nukes?

If you ask me, it's obvious the whole organization has been living on a shoestring budget since America reacted over 9-11, and especially since the Saudi got a taste of their own blood money and cracked down in the homeland of Islam.

 

[dmp]

It was always a claim that the more we fought the terrorists directly in their own bases, the more they'd multiply.

It's the same old bullshit tar baby I've heard from the far left since October, 2001.

That's cuz the Terrorists are Gremlins...If you fight them, or get them wet they mulitply.

 

[5stringJeff]

Says you! You weren't an officer were ya? Maybe thought about being an officer?

I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I was a Ring Knocker to boot!

But I always had the utmost respect for CSM's. Always looking out for soldiers, and they always had the most common sense of anyone in the unit!

 

[-Cp]

I guess my hunch was right... They want Kerry in office...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041018/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_election_1

Putin: Terror Attacks Aimed at Bush

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan - Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Monday that terrorists are aiming to derail U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s chances at re-election through their attacks in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush (news - web sites)," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

"International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."

Still, Putin didn't say which candidate he favored in the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election.

"We unconditionally respect any choice of the American people," he said. "I don't want to spoil relations with either candidate."

Putin also noted his continuing disagreement with Bush on Washington's invasion of Iraq, which Russia strongly opposed as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

"Russia was always against the military operations in Iraq," he said.

Despite their differences, Bush and Putin have cooperated closely in the international war on terror, with Russia assenting to the deployment of U.S. forces in former Soviet Central Asia for operations in neighboring Afghanistan (news - web sites). In exchange, Washington has mostly looked the other way on Moscow's continuing war in breakaway Chechnya (news - web sites), which Russia alleges is being fueled by international terror groups.

On his last visit to Central Asia in June, Putin appeared to be backing Bush's assertion that Iraq was a threat, saying at a summit in Kazakhstan that Russia had notified Washington about intelligence that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad.

No further details were given, and Putin also said then that the warning didn't change Moscow's opposition to the Iraq war.

 

[NightTrain]

That's cuz the Terrorists are Gremlins...If you fight them, or get them wet they mulitply.

And there ya have it!

I'd still love to see The Almighty Wade explain exactly how the first WTC bombing was foiled...