E6Hotel

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well it seems that now everybody likes using video games to train troops. is it just me or would it really just make them weaker? how does this work exactly?<span id='postcolor'> Game engines might be used to design "sandtable" decision-making exercises, but they'll never replace actual live fire training out in the field. Â I can't speak for the other services (where ya at, USSoldier11B?), but in the USMC we use an indoor weapon simulator called the ISMT (Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer). Â We can simulate various weapons, and run interactive scenarios such as shoot/no shoot. Â Simulators can help sharpen basic skills, but there's no substitute for the real thing. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why would it be any different to use these airsoft guns than paint balls other than what somebody said that airsoft hurts a lot less than what a paintball would? why make some expensive suit that send some electronic single to tell ware you got hit when paint balls can clearly tell ware you are hit perfectly?<span id='postcolor'> With MILES you're using the actual weapons you'd use in combat. Â Limited paintball range is another factor. Â In CQB and MOUT training (where long-range shooting is rare), we use simunition. Â Again, the advantage is that we're training with the weapons we'd actually be using. Â Simunition stings a bit, but that's a form of negative reinforcement -- it'll teach you never to turn your back on or pass a danger area without clearing it. Â Semper Fi

Making marionettes out of body parts found in dumpsters. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why? cuz marines beat the lights out of them?<span id='postcolor'> And zen ve take ze vimmen! Semper Fi

Trust me. Â It was an MOS school (probably at Keesler AFB in Biloxi). Â Marines go to either Parris Island, S.C. or San Diego, CA for recruit training. Â The only personnel from any other services at these Recruit Depots are Navy medical and religious support. A former girlfriend of mine went to the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA, another school shared by all the services. Â According to her, part of the "Welcome aboard" brief to the new soldiers, sailors, and airmen was a general warning to stay away from the Marine barracks. Â Heh. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was a bit surprised by his answer. He did a joint Boot Camp with Marines, Navy, and Airforce recruits. Guess the military is trying to save money. But anyway, his responce to the question is that Boot camp was basically a joke.<span id='postcolor'> Your friend is describing an MOS (military occupational specialty) school, not boot camp. Servicemen attend an MOS school after basic and before their first duty station. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just had a huge lump of dark bread with semi-hard boiled eco eggs, mayonaise, salt & pepper. It was great. Yum.<span id='postcolor'> It would have been better with a slice of AMERICAN cheese. Â Heh. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why didnt they stick in it and keep trying to help out in Somalia? When the shit hit the fan everyone pulled out. Politics sent the US to Somalia, not the will to help others. If it was the will to help others, the US wouldn't have pulled out in a hurry. They would have stuck with it and seen it through. <span id='postcolor'> Based on images of dead Rangers being dragged through streets by joyous Somalis, I'd say they didn't particularly want our help. Â Or is this one of the situations when we SHOULD have used our muscle, even at the risk of more civilian casualties and "infrastructure" damage? Â It's so hard to tell! Â Perhaps there's another country out there that would care to step up and show us how it's done? Â <looks for raised hands> Â No? Â Didn't think so. And no, politics is not why we entered. Â I'm not sure how familiar you are with our system, but sending American troops into third-world countries without "self-interest" at stake is NOT a good way to win votes here. Â That's why I was amazed and very, very proud to see the SEALS and Marines landing back in '93 (back when I was still "College Boy" Hotel). Politics were, however, why we left. Â Maybe if the military had been given permission to use the necessary tools, things would have worked out better. Â Â At least we tried. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That war was about preventing communism from spreading, the highest order of the day for the US at the time. Very much so about the national interest.<span id='postcolor'> Obviously I didn't make my point very well. Â By saying that we had no National interest in Vietnam, I meant that the outcome would not measurably affect the U.S. Â <resolves to be more specific in the future> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Vietnam (agent orange, search and destroy missions on villages, relocation of population), Iraq (mass destruction of infrastructure effecting mainly civilians), the Balkans (again, mass destruction hitting hardest on the population)...need more?<span id='postcolor'> Again -- Agent orange was not an "infrastructure" attack. Â Sadly enough, we weren't in a position to help the Vietnamese recover from the war. Â Iraq is a similar situation. Â Who in their right mind would expect us to help Saddam Hussein? As for the Balkans, please don't attempt to blame the U.S. for destruction that occurred long before we were drawn into the conflict. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, if spraying a carcinogenic defoliaging chemical across entire jungles isn't trashing a country, what is?<span id='postcolor'> Okay, you get partial credit. Â Mostly my fault, for using a general term such as "trashing" to refer to willy-nilly destruction of infrastructure. Â As far as defoliation, this is a perfect example of how retarded our policies (political, not military) were in hindsight. Â Attacking forests instead of the root source (i.e. North Vietnam) -- brilliant move! Â However, I suspect that in the long run our troops suffered much more than the Vietnamese jungles. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever heard of Agent Orange?<span id='postcolor'> Yep. ? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">those beautiful green leaves will make those US military guys really happy <span id='postcolor'> Only if we can use 'em to break up our outlines. Â Heh. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The complaint isnt that America does something, the complaint is that America only does something out of self gain. The US has never gotten envolved in a conflict just to help people. Never ever. <span id='postcolor'> This is a load, and Somalia is the antithesis. Â I can hear the bashers now: Â "Hah! Â Foolish yank, clearly the U.S. was after the vast Somali oilfields! Â Or the Tibanna gas mines... or you wanted an African foothold for an offensive against the Congo, to obtain the blue diamonds needed for your ape-killing lasers!" Â <insert your favorite ulterior motive here> Â Now, please allow me to state a few (seemingly unrelated) facts: Â Almost 7,000 Marines and sailors died to take a crummy eight-square mile island in WWII. Â Over 58,000 servicemen died in Vietnam (a war, I might add, in which we did not have a National interest). Â These examples are, of course, the tip of the iceberg. Â "Why post these numbers, Oppressor, which only serve to prove your warlike tendencies?" Â Glad you asked! Â These figures show that we have never been afraid to endure (sometimes catastrophic) casualties when necessary. Â Knowing this, if we had an interest in Somalia, do you REALLY think eighteen dead soldiers would have made us pull out? Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The second gripe is the way the US choses to solve the problem. Go in with bombers, blow up roads, bridges, railways, powerplants, warehouse districts and so on. Where does that leave the civilians when the US walks away? Crawling in the dust most likely... <span id='postcolor'> Exactly when have we trashed a country and walked away? Â Let's consider some examples. WWII: Â This one's so obvious and refutes so much of your statement that it's not worth mentioning. Korea: Â Nope, no mass attacks on infrastructure during this mostly defensive war. Vietnam: Â Again, a defensive war. Â If our military HAD been permitted to take the fight to North Vietnam, it might have ended differently. Â Gulf War: Â Sorry, but as long as the mustache is running the show, I don't think we'll be sending the Army Corps of Engineers into Baghdad. Â Knock off the WMD research, bring a non-lunatic to the table, and we'll talk. Â And please don't give me that garbage about how we're starving Iraqui citizens. Â Try putting the blame where it belongs, on the drone who spends his country's oil revenue on his sixteen (at last count) presidential palaces instead of providing for his people's welfare. Kosovo: Â The region was trashed long before we got involved; of course, in this situation we're damned for not acting sooner. Afghanistan: Â Newsflash -- we're still there; haven't walked away yet. Â The question now is, how do you "repair" an infrastructure that never existed in the first place? Â At least with the Taliban out the people have a chance to improve their situation. But please, enlighten me. Â Who are these other countries fighting selflessly, without any self-interest whatsoever, that we should model ourselves after? Â Examples, please! Semper Fi

I Hubble Telescope Ted Bundy? I spy (satellite) Ted Bundy? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He attacked my liberity by tring to force me to buy an automatic, there can be nothing more unamerican than a automatic transmission on a turbocharged car<span id='postcolor'> Wouldn't be saying that around the Buick GN guys, if I were you! Semper Fi

Well said, PitViper. Nice to see that someone knows what they're talking about. We have quite a few rights, as spelled out in Article 31 of the UCMJ. However, insubordination is not one of them. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is supposed to mean what exactly?<span id='postcolor'> Heh. Â It's a line from "Meet the Parents." Â DeNiro is the man. Corvettes are big? Â Compared to what, Trabbis? Â 'Vettes are popular with German social directors? Â I'm amazed. Â How do pimps carry 'ho's with only two seats? Â I'd suggest a Caddy, or at least a Lincoln. By "cheap" I assume you mean comparative quality, because they're sure not $$$ cheap. Â Clearly the typical Mercedes or BMW has a higher level of "build quality," but c'mon -- 'Vettes are hardly wastes of fiberglass. Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mustangs are fun though!<span id='postcolor'> Rustangs/Crustangs/MustyWangs? Â Speaking of cars that are not up to standards, heh. Â Actually the '03 Cobra (supercharged w/390 hp) sounds interesting, but with dealer markup they're expected to go for $40,000! Â I don't think I'll be buying one. However, the Pontiac GTO (basically a Holden Monaro converted to LHD) intrigues me. Â WHY DOES AUSTRALIA GET ALL THE COOL CARS, GM? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A good Corvette is much nicer, right? (lol, what a waste of material that car is!<span id='postcolor'> "Are you a pothead, Focker?" Semper Fi

y0 mang, you don't need adjustable boost, just get two big bottles of NAWZZZZ for mAd p0wAh y0! Â Then there ain't no way them pushrod-dinosaur dumbmestics can hang with you in da tWi5tiez, y0! Â And a Neuspeed sticker oughtta give ya at least 100 hp. Â But y0, peep dis -- you gonna be needin' a PHAT wing to keep dat shizznit on the ground, y0! W3RD, and Semper Fi

Ricers, heh. Â I don't know how bad they are in TX but here in SoCal it's ridiculous. Â Ever since "The Fake and the Fictitious" came out every 15-year old kid with a fart-piped Civic thinks he's Vin Diesel. Semper Fi

Young(er) males w/ 4x4s = perceived tendency to drive off cliffs, into rivers, up trees, over Hondas, etc. Semper Fi

La la la la la! Semper Fi

Anyone who knew what they were talking about wouldn't. Semper Fi

As far as shooting goes, that's not TOO bad -- especially for Canadians. Â They were obviously USMC-trained. Â Heh. Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And that Canadian 2km+ shot got a lot of shit from the US. The US denied the legitimacy of the shot in every way they could. Â They even said that the Canadians had no right making that shot because they were supposed to be on a support mission only.<span id='postcolor'> Err, you did read about the Bronze Stars? Â I can honestly say that I haven't seen anything remotely critical of the Canadian snipers. Â Not sure who would've made these statements, but I'll bet they didn't come from the Americans who were actually on the battlefield. Â As I recall, there was an incident a few weeks ago where one of the snipers was returned to Canada pending court-martial for an encounter (?) with an American army chaplain. Â Could this be the negativity you're referring to? Semper Fi

*furiously bites tongue in desperate attempt to avoid re-hashing old posts… willpower fades… succumbs to foolishly naÄve, American-centric, capitalist-oppressor, CNN-brainwashed mentality…* </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess so, but countries should try not to behave like bulls.<span id='postcolor'> Mess with the bull, get the horns.  I know you guys love these little sound bite macho statements.  Heh. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, Sadam never actually attacked the US.  Neither did the Taliban (Al-qada maybe), and don't forget the other conflcts (obvious or not).<span id='postcolor'> “Maybeâ€?  Healthy skepticism is good, but this is denial of reality. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Imagine if after 9/11 Germany refused the US to hand over it's citizens without proof, evidence or a case.  Would it be normal to wipe out Germany and the German govt? (that's if somehow Bin Laden and other people were actually German citizens)<span id='postcolor'> Completely moot.  The German government apprehends terrorists; it does not harbor and train them.  Whether you believe the evidence is sufficient is up to you -- personally, I think the videotapes of bin Ladin gloating over the Cole attack should have been enough. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Palestinians never attacked the US, yet the US funnels weapons and money to the Jews.  So, I blame the US.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, we fund Israel, not “the Jews.† It’s about form of government, not religion.  I find the whole "Jews are running America" argument very, very disturbing. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't clearly remember why the US decided to do everything they could to get rid of communism, and support the Taliban agains the Soviets.<span id='postcolor'> We were trying to contain it, not get rid of it.  And the Taliban formed after the Soviets (and us meddling Americans) left. BTW, the Taliban are indeed among the scum of the earth.  Western society isn't perfect, but I don't recall women having their brains blown out in stadiums by Ak-toting punks for having jobs, walking unaccompanied by men, or accidentally flashing their ankles. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are using condoms as cover for personal dozimeter probe <span id='postcolor'> Condoms? Personal probes? Bleah! Semper Fi

*** insert accidental discharge joke here *** J/K. Â Placing them over the muzzle of your weapon helps keep debris out. Â Just remember, always use camouflage condoms -- that way, they won't see you coming. Semper Fi

Peckem had total faith in Cargil’s incompetence but realized help would be needed for such a dangerous mission.  On the advice of his colleague General Scheisskoph, Peckem also obtained the services of two covert operatives.  The first was a shadowy assassin; a master of disguise and edged weapons known only by the code name “Nately’s whore.† The other was a forger skilled at creating documents and impersonating officials.  No one had ever seen his real face.  His aliases included “Washington Irving†and sometimes “Irving Washington†when he was bored.

Oligo:  I agree that we’ve just about exhausted this thread tangent.  I’ll be away for a week +/-, so I just wanted to add a couple of thoughts: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You obviously see yourselves as knights in shining armor, riding off again, as so many times before, to fight the evil dragons. <span id='postcolor'> Chicks dig the armor. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I, however, see you as Don Quixotes, riding off to fight the windmills again, when the peasants would need the windmills for grinding grain.<span id='postcolor'> When was the last time a windmill killed 3,000 innocent civilians?  “Dragons†are real, and somebody has to slay them. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you're concerned that you'll loose your hold of europe, fine, just say it. Oh and the NATO members wouldn't necessarily want to disband it, they just don't have the chance of saying it, because your opposition drowns the voices of everybody else.<span id='postcolor'> We’re afraid Germany would get bored again and start eyeballing France.  J/K.  I think you might be overstating our “control†over Europe. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just pointed out that you seem to be the only western nation immature enough to fight wars all the time. That's what I meant. Anyway, nothing in history has proven that you are particularly skilled in warfare, it's just that you pour the most money into it. Your soldiers seem to be nothing special (good, but not spectacular), as judged from historical facts.<span id='postcolor'> We continue to be the western nation that routinely gets called out.  If immaturity = not backing down and responding with force when provoked, then we’re guilty as hell.  And at the risk of sounding arrogant, history shows that we’re as good as anyone, ever.  Notice I did not say better.  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was trying to say that there are all these people trapped under the unelected rule of Saddam the crazy. They're victims, really. Many of these people are forced to serve in the Iraqi army (draft). Now, when you went to punish mister nutcase Hussein last time, you killed all these victims of him, but not the man himself.<span id='postcolor'> As I said earlier, we do our best to avoid civilian casualties.  If he had the same concerns, he’d keep his raging teenage hormones under control.  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you go after him the second time, you'll kill more victims of his and hopefully the man himself. Poor bastards.<span id='postcolor'> Please, at least wait until we’ve massacred the innocents before condemning us.  And yes or no:  Is Hussein’s possession of WMD’s (not just mustard gas, I’m talking about the mushroom cloud inducers) acceptable to you?  Unless something changes, it’s a matter of time before he has them.  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know, the data is unbiased (all these things actually happened), but the interpretation is not. So ignore the interpretation and do your own. <span id='postcolor'> I’ve already stated my interpretation -- I don’t think many of these incidents qualify as “imminent nuclear showdowns.† And I can’t help but point out that many of these encounter sessions resulted from Communist aggression. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, if you're so peace-loving, why didn't you react to any conflicts by saying: 'Look, there seems to be a crisis developing. We should sort it out, because we really cannot afford a conflict.'<span id='postcolor'> Nice theory, but it didn’t work very well for Neville Chamberlain.  Aggressors interpret conciliatory gestures as displays of weakness.  Peace-loving does not mean docile. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think this kind of commentary is striding for something in the middle? <span id='postcolor'> I was referring to the statement in the link claiming that U.S. policy had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War.  The two schools of thought are (a) The U.S., led by the Ronster, forced the U.S.S.R. into a spending battle that it couldn’t win, and (b) The U.S.S.R., on the verge of collapse, chose to end the arms race.  I submit that the Soviet Union would have collapsed sooner or later, but we helped it along. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tanks and such things are not part of cultural conquest. However, the goals of military and cultural conquest ARE the same.<span id='postcolor'> People do not choose and/or pay to be conquered.  American companies don’t give a rat’s @$$ about cultural domination; it’s all about the $$$. Talk to you later / Peace. Semper Fi