budgie
-
Content Count
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by budgie
-
-
wouldn't it be much more economical for your department to purchase local/American made weapons?
Aside from their resonable prices, HK weapons have a long standing reputation for excellence and craftsmanship, not to mention accuracy. Despite being good (and very sexy, I must add) the M16/M4 series still has minor problems. Most international customers prefer the anadian variants of Colt's excellent (and sexy) weapons. Couple that with the fact that US law enforcement has had a long standing love affair with HK, remember that for many years, the MP5 series was everyone's choice for HR teams. Besides, with HK actually manufacturing so many of its weapons in the US now, they probably make G36s locally too. I think HKUSA is axtually a subsidiary of Colt, but I'm not too sure. I know you can get Colt gun bags for MP5s. They practically are local goods.
-
At one time or another I think I've been rejected with all of those lines.
-
Nuclear weapons are in fact obsolete on the modern battlefield. The stealth technology and precision guided munitions that he US has, has actually superseded weapons of mass destruction. There is however a technology gap and to ensure taking out their enemies' most sensitive bases, third world countries (N. Korea, China, India, Pakistan) continue to seek Nuclear technology. Think of it as taking out a mosquito with a sledgehammer. The US has developed flyspray so only the intended target suffers. Other countries don't have that technology yet. The US only keeps its nukes because everyone else does and they would be foolish to give up their most certain deterrent.
And remember that nuclear weapons everywhere are first and foremost a deterrent. They are used to stop any attacks or counter attack by the threat of mass destruction. China threatens to invade Taiwan and waves the nuclear stck at the US to stop intervention. They only need to do this until they have the technology to invade and win conventionally. North Korea, fearful of its own survival, shows its nuclear hand to the world and hints that they are willing to use them and they get aid and political leverage, not a massed invasion such as Iraq is facing. If the US believed Saddam had these weapons, they would be far more reluctant to pick a fight with him.
As for Saddams almost certain arsenal of biochem weapons, the pentagon planners believe these weapons will not make a big enough impact on the battlefield to stop them. The US could still defeat him with conventional weapons because they have better technology and the men are better trained. Even if he had a nuclear warhead or two they could only be used to target bases in the region or troop formations. Once he had used them up, he'd be left with no defenses.
-
Tell that to Daywanderer. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.
-
That can be arranged, but this is a family site isn't it?
-
As with all games to a greater or lesser extent and as I have occasionally noticed with the enemy AI in GR, the computer knows something you don't. When the enemies are close to the friendlies, due to being part of the program I guess, they have a better assessment (did I just say that?) of where the threats might come from. Just as the threat indicator helps you and the baddies always seem to know where you're hiding once the shooting starts, the friendlies take up positions in anticipation of where the action will be at. I think.
-
I agree with Yoda on teh Israel palestine thing - they both have too much blood on their hands to say who is right IMO. As for Saddam - yeah, let's depose the lunatic. Only, let's all do it together. Bush is jumping the gun on this. As I said if he has evidence, let him show everyone. This is not an anti-American plot. This is not some pro-Saddam, Euro-peacenik forum protest. The UN need to be convinced - as they were in 1991 - that Iraq is a big enough threat to wage war on. So far the majority of UN members aren't convinced, and if they are not convinced there's no reason for them to go along with it.
-
Once more the modders beat ubi to the punch. I'll be the first up to that snowy isle to sort the beggars out!
-
I see US army soldiers in teh news these days with a square patch with diagonal stripes on the side of the helmet. What does this mean?
-
Firstly the US was not thinking of Kurds when it invaded Iraq in 1991. It was thinking of Kuwait and the oil that would fall into saddam's greedy mits. It was thought he would make a push for Saudi Arabia next. The good conscience of the world would not allow that, the UN condemned Iraq, a coalition was biult and everybody agreed that he needed to be pushed back because one strongman could not have such a stranglehold on the world's supplies. World consensus in action - the bully was beaten and (almost) everybody cheered.
Fast forward to 2003. The world does not feel a general sense of menace from Iraq (Bush, apparently, is terrified). The UN seems confident that 12 years of sanctions (while unfairly punishing the people of Iraq) have worked in containing this upstart bully. The inspectors are back in and have not found any WMDs yet. If they don't find any that most likely means one of two things; they didn't do their job or - God forbid - there are no more WMDs in Iraq. Chances are they'll find a few leftover chemical warheads but I doubt Iraq has a functioning nuclear program any more. Now if they find he has a lot of chemical/biological WMDs and refuses to give them up, then the UN might still agree to war. If it does not, and the US goes it alone then that, my little padawans, smacks of military adventurism.
And military adventurism is just what the UN was formed to avoid - the kind of unilateral decision to invade that drove Hitler against Europe and Japan against Asia. While even Bush has loftier goals that simple bloody conquest - to restore democracy in Iraq, reintegrate it to the world community - he still has plans to choose the fate of another nation that at present has not waged war against the US or attacked any other since 1991, and may be too weak to ever do so in the future. The possibility that Iraq is indeed relatively harmless today deepens international suspicion that the US is only greedy for Iraqi oil.
There is talk of France or even China using their veto on the UN to stop such action. While the White House will almost certainly go ahead without UN endorsement, their point will be made; "We do not endorse this kind of warmongering." Before any of you get all red-eyed at the veto power - remember the US has that power too, has used it in the past and that is what it is there for - checks and balances. Perhaps the deciding voice will be the US public, who it seems are losing stomach day by day for what seems to be a hasty proposition. If the Bushies are worried about reelection they might take heed. Hope springs eternal.
If Bush has better evidence than the inspectors can find of Iraq's hidden arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, then that evidence needs to be presented to the world community. Then at last there might be some consensus on whether or not to attack Iraq. I won't cry to see Saddam toppled, but it will sadden me to see the US stepping away from its traditional role of global mediator and protector toward something considerably less benign.
-
Slow down there big guy. I'm pro-American and I'm all for action against Iraq, but I believe that everybody should pitch in together. Unilateral action may solve the Saddam problem now and permanently, but will create far bigger ones in the long term in other places.
The US cannot set a precedent for 'going it alone'. The US does this with good intentions but other countries will in the future choose to follow this example for ill purposes. There's a reason the UN was created, and all members must respect the wishes of the world community, whether those members are right (as in the US case against Saddam now) or wrong. Some other country may unilaterally invade its neighbors for the purpose of conquest in the future and say, "Well it was okay when America did it.".
-
The dude with the M4 in the chopper looks like he stuck the scope on with chewing gum. Anybody working on a weapon model like that?
-
The Seals had their heyday so to speak in Vietnam where their work was highly prized. He could have been referring to that. Certainly they have been low profile of late, but that's the point isn't it? It's probably just a case of inter-service rivalry. Anyway as far as I know the Seals and Force recon cross-train regularly, don't they?
-
Any crocodiles?
-
It seems odd that the very plane designed not to be shot down was the first (and only I think) lost in that operation. But here's how they did it.
The Serbs had lost most of their targeting capability so they were blind firing barrages of SAMs like rockets into the air, hoping to get a lucky shot. Because the F117 was moving low and slow enough, it got hit - as planned - by pure luck.
As far as know the pilot evaded capture and was picked up by special forces some distance from the crash. the plane was not recovered. There were actually news pics of the local farmers picking up pieces of it.
-
I don't agree with them if they think that respecting others is bad, Pyro. I think they were just making fun of those people/countries that constantly blame the US for every ill and accuse them of having no respect. I think these guys believe they do have respect. As far as right wing rhetoric goes, they were pretty moderate IMO. Peace.
And I find The White House.org kinda funny although they are much more blunt than the right wing one. I'm a lefty, but unabashedly pro-American (not pro-Bush, sorry). For good, subtle left-wing humor you should all try www.theonion.com
-
Remember when only the bad guys hated the USA? Thanks to Bush snubbing his nose at the UN and reasonable international policies, America's standing at the UN will be weakened if the UN finds no WMDs and the US still goes to war. It will strengthen the anti-US vote in the UN and prove to nasty countries like China that they don't need international approval for foreign military action. Believe me, countries like that are not going to change any regimes for the better. They will use America's well-intended attack on Iraq as a precedent for their own brutal ambitions of conquest.
The only way I can see the UN itself losing credibility is if they identify a threat and fail to take decisve action. For example if inspectors find evidence that Saddam has WMDs and the UN still doesn't agree to action and the US decides not to attack and Saddam comes back bigger and meaner and twice as ugly in a few years, the UN will be remembered for missing its chance to end his regime.
If America goes it alone, they lose face despite ridding the world of a tyrant. If the UN forces pressure to be eased on Saddam, he gets to carry on as before and the UN looks stupid later on when he gets nasty again. Saddam is delaying and buying time IMO to cause just this kind of a rift.
The only way everyone wins is if we all stick together: Inspectors identify weapons, UN approves action, a proper coalition is formed, Saddam is ousted - and, whether the Bushies like it or not, a serious effort at nation building must be made in post-Saddam Iraq. That will ensure everyone's credibility.
-
Not the worst ever. In fact the AI in GR are some of the smartest in any shooter, but I still hope for more in GR2. Friendlies seem weaker than the bad guys and they require a lot of babysitting. I've identified the basic problems.
Friendlies;
Have poor eyesight/draw distance
Respond too slowly to threats
Respond too slowly to orders (10 second pauses before moving when told to are unacceptable)
Don't do mission specific tasks on their own often enough
Enemies;
Always know where you are
Have excellent eyesight and marksmanship
have predictable routines
Are uncannily quick at spotting thrown grenades earlier than is fair
Never retreat (would be more realsitic and fun to chase them sometimes)
That said, in many 'realistic' shooters we can't even give orders, the friendlies are mere cannon fodder or window dressing, the baddies are either terminally stupid or inhumanly sharp. In GR at least the friendlies attempt to carry out orders and when an enemy is close enough, are pretty good shots. The enemies for their part are good at tactics and flanking and laying down cover fire etc... which is pretty realistic. Not many games can give you the feel of a firefight that goes on for some time - GR can and frequently does.
I would like to see the friendlies respond better to orders, have a wider range of orders they can be given and to be a little more observant of their surroundings. I felt they were pretty good in Rogue Spear but again the enemies were too quick. As for the enemies, I'd like them to be less accurate with their weapons (Lord knows in a frantic firefight I rarely drop them with any of the first three shots), less uncannily aware of their surroundings and yet less predictable and not so suicidally brave. They sometimes seem stupid when a lone man charges up a hill to your nest of six vipers. I wouldn't do it if I were them.
As things stand now, rather than fighting the enemy, successful missions rely on playing on their predictability, learning their routines and shooting them before they get the first shot off which may reflect real life training, but from what I have read, is rarely the case in combat. Rather than using the friendlies as an effective force, I tend not to let them do much on their own if I want them all to come back in one piece. I don't trust them and that has to change. The AI is still better than in most tacSims, but could have been better still. We can only cross our fingers and wait.
-
Doesn't slow me down.
-
It's Hagi. He's trying to contact us. He wants to come back.
"I see gerbels. Dead gerbels. They talk to me. They don't know they're gerbels."
-
-
Better AI, but I dont really see the point in saying this since we all know its going to be better anyway.
And this is a wild stretch but, prehaps 8 guys? I just want another MG with me, I ussaly have just 1 in the group.
Of course AI will be better, how much better?
On the second point I agree totally. Gimmie 8 guys. And if there is a less cumbersome command system, the possibility to split them into 4 teams?
-
They must go to a country in dire need of their help. A place where the ruling junta has siezed power in an rigged election, lowered taxes for the rich and threatens far away countries. A place where the man who should be leader has been shunted from the public limelight - a place where some are ineligible to vote because they may vote for the other side. A place where the media has been quietly encouraged to forget the leader stole the election and a place where soaring crime and a worsening economy are deepening public unrest.
They should go to Iraq, dummies. Where did you think I was talking about?
-
Although a trigger was pulled, the crime this most resembles is a traffic accident - just like a car hitting a pedestrian. These men made a mistake. For their negligence and the negligence of other parties involved (I don't know the full story behind the command/lack of info scenario) then there needs to be some form of legal penalty. However treating the pilots like murderers is pushing it too far. Some Kind of 'involuntary manslaughter' road should be taken and any punishment should be similar to that of negligent drivers who strike other vehicles or pedestrians.
Special Forces Movies
in Real World Military
Posted · Edited by budgie
Navy Seals was great as a specops movie because it was action, not war. A reviewer once called it "Top Gun with flippers," and it really was almost as good. I loved it because of the high production values and reasonably low body count. The subject is terrorism too, which is all the more relevant today. If you haven't seen it yet and don't want the weight of a real War movie, give it a go.