Schoeler

If the Koreans actually stand and fight, yes they have the infantry power to do some damage. But their armor and air support would be gone in 2-3 weeks from lack of fuel alone. Plus their morale is absolutely horrid, so I thin they would fold up rather quickly. Your average North Korean wants a blanket an a meal more than a fight. Still, there's no way they could beat the U.S., only demoralize us and make us pay dearly in blood. Remember we were fairly well matched with them in the first war, but now its no contest. Thier military upgraded by a decade and we leaped about five decades ahead. Those guys aren't going to stand up to a U.S. armored division or air assault brigade when their wives and kids are eating treebark to stay alive.

Wow! This hobby has definitely evolved since I first fired a spring action MP5 back in the late 80's (the pellet went about 50 feet). Are their actually grenades for the grenade launchers? Also, does anyone know of clubs in Arizona offhand? How useful are the M249's and M60's, would it be better to have a rifle? This looks like it kicks ass all over paintball which I used to love to play.

North Korea would kick the U.S. ass? Can I have some of whatever drugs you are taking? What color is the sky in your world? Sure, any fight against the North Koreans would be an iron clad and ice cold bitch, but anyone familiar with the precepts of modern warfare can see that the U.S. could lay waste to North Korea. Lets do a comparison: North Korea: Lots of screaming little gung-ho guys with cheap knockoffs of Kalashnikov rifles who: 1. Aren't all that well fed. 2. Whose family members are starving so the government (incidentally controlled by an insane pedophile) can keep them in fighting trim. 3. Have a lot of relatives in the South. 4. Are increasingly fed up with a power mongering maoist elite. 5. Are supported by at best early 1960's technology in air and armor. I.E. Mig 21's , T-62's etc.. 6. Have very little oil to fuel those inferior tanks and planes (estimates range from one to two months worth). 7. Will recieve no assistance from the Chinese this time around. 8. Got their asses handed to them all the way to the Yalu river on the Chinese border by MacArthur in the last war until the Chinese jumped in to help. Then after driving the U.N. forces back to Chosin, got their asses handed to them again until the traditional border at the 38th parallel was reestablished and a cease fire took effect. U.S. 1. All volunteer military considered if not the best then one of the best and most determined on the face of the earth. 2. Extremely motivated, well trained and supplied. 3. Believe in and are committed to what they are doing and have a history of fighting ferociously in every conflict. 4. Are supported by unmatched technology in air support and armor. Can anyone say Nimitz class carriers, JDAM and JTIDS bombs, F-117 Nighthawks, A10's, Night Vision, M1A2's oh and don't forget, we still have the Marine Corps which has a proud history of service on the Korean peninsula. 5. Have a legitimate reason to fight the Koreans as opposed to Iraq. The Koreans have essentially violated a treaty on nuclear development, told the U.S. to fuck off on weapons exports, kidnapped U.S. and Japanese citizens, shoot at patrols along the DMZ from time to time, threaten our strongest ally in Asia (Japan) by shooting ICBMs over their island, and periodically engage in limited combat actions against another ally (South Korea). Plus, the war never officially ended, technically the U.N. icluding the U.S. is still at war with the North Koreans. Wake up dude and read your history books. I'm not saying a war wouldn't be costly, or even that it is the best option in this situation, but it certainly is more justified than a war in Iraq and the U.S. could defintely win it. Plus I doubt the North Korean military has the morale or the logistical support to fight more than a month or so.

Even though I support a war in Iraq if it happens for the right reasons, though I suspect that it isn't happening for those reasons. I hope however since it seems inevitable that war will happen that something good comes out of it. Preferably: 1. Elimination of WMD from a rogue state. 2. The removal from power of a brutal and oppressive dictator. 3. Establishment of a new Iraqi government that the world will recognize as legitimate and worthy of relations with. 4. Increased freedom and economic prosperity for the Iraqi people whatever system they decide to adapt. 5. Continued U.S. economic support to this new, more stabile Iraqi regime to insure its long term survival. 6. Iraqi appreciation for U.S. efforts to start them down the road to a better future. 7. The minimum amount of casualties possible for both sides. 8. A new oild deal for America and its allies to shore up the Iraqi economy and get rid of our beholden condition to the Saudis. And tell me if I'm wrong but hasn't it been confirmed that arab terrorist groups have trained at Iraqi military sites, possibly even Al-Qaeda? I'll look for an article about that. Also, the French have established a link between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence. I doubt the French would go around making something like that up considering the sheer love they have for U.S. foreign policy right now. As for Cuba: 1. Things did improve under Castro as compared to under Batista. 2. U.S. support of Batista was wrong. 3. U.S. policies toward Cuba were likely misguided, but not all of them. 4. Both Castro and Kennedy plotted to kill each other so the animosity is understandable if not logical. 5. Improvement under Castro doesn't mean he was the best thing for Cuba, other routes could have been equally if not more productive. 6. The embargo should end, but likely will not until Castro dies.

As an American, I can readily admit that our foreign policy has at times quite plainly sucked, particularly in Latin America. Backing Pinochet was wrong simply to quel communism, and we have a similar history in Nicaragua. But criticizing the Panama invasion hardly seems comparable. Noriega was a drug dealer and a thug and he deserves to rot in jail. We didn't do that for money or power, in fact we gave up the canal shortly thereafter and Panama seems to be doing fine now. As for Afghanistan, the U.S. went in to take out a valid enemy and the invalid oppressive government that backed them. Sure, we screwed up by not doing what we are doing now after the Soviets pulled out, and we paid for that error on 9-11. Obviously we don't intend to make the same mistake twice. The U.S. is going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long, long time and will end up spending billions to stabilize that country simply because it has been unstable for so long. don't confuse that with imperialism. What does the U.S. really stand to gain in Afghanistan besides an assurance that Al-Qaeda won't be able to use it as a base of operations? They have no economic resources to speak of, and as far as forward basing, the Tajiks and Turkey are more than willing to welcome U.S. forward bases in central Asia with open arms, so that can't be it. The only justification for our spending of lives and cash is that we freed the Afghan people and particularly their women from a murderous and oppressive regime of opium dealers and terror backers. It really is that simple. And no, I'm no true believer, my family suffered enough from mistaken U.S. policy in Vietnam, and as a veteran, I saw some of the real motivations behind the Gulf War. My point is, if the U.S. can atone for its mistakes by ridding the world of a dangerous dictator, while at the same time insuring he doesn't supply proven enemies with WMD, then it should be done. Sure we want his oil, but we also want stability and prosperity for Iraq. We have a problem with the Saudis, it makes sense not to have the majority of our oil coming from one possible shaky source. Its sound strategy to stabilize Iraq. I agree with the post that said Iraq could set an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow with a stabile regime in place. Look at the Kurds up north, they are prospering with U.S. assistance. Civilians are going to die in this war which is unfortunate, but civilians die in every war. The U.S. actually kills less civilians because of our tecnological capabilities. Hopefully, we can make the life of the average Iraqi better, and they can realize that and won't resent our little adventure over there. The reasons we are going to fight in Iraq aren't all good, but the results might still justify the actions taken. As for pre-emptive action, I would have been the 1st person to argue against that pre 9-11. Now I'm not so sure. If Iraq has WMD, then I believe Saddam's hatred of the U.S. is great enough that he will supply them to terrorists whom, I'm certain will not hesitate to use them. Personally I want only the best for the Iraqi people. If we can take Saddam out, the sanctions will end and life will surely improve for them. I hope we can do this with minimal collateral damage. As for the War On Terrorism, I don't think it will ever end, but it might slow to a snail's pace if the U.S. is willing to sacrifice now to fix the mess we made in the past. If we can stabilize the middle east, we might just reverse some of the hatred we created. Its worth the risks from my point of view. I don't want to live in fear, or have to send my children off to fight in a land of hatred where WMD may be used against them.

I have to agree with that. I don't think the media will even be allowed to get near this one. As for the Iraqis, I just have a feeling they will welcome the U.S. Time will tell.

No need to get personal now, this is a philosophical discussion. Anyway, it would probably best be described as an aborted civil war attempt. Without the U.S. air support they thought they were going to recieve, the rebellious Iraqis were very quickly put down. Its an established fact.

3940 on my first game!

I would have to suppose one's views on the justificability of such matters rests upon the odds of your hometown disappearing in a nuclear fireball or your family dying horribly from an anthrax or smallpox release because some terrorist thinks you are evil after a lifetime of being schooled in anti-U.S. propaganda. Sitting here at ground zero, I have few qualms about a pre-emptive strike.

Fortune favors the bold.

We will have to wait and see how the Iraqi people respond to a U.S. invasion because unfortunately I feel that Saddam has lied about WMD (the CIA is very good after all, and swears he has them) and Bush definitely wants this war, so it seems inevitable. I agree that there are probably plenty of people who would rather not see a U.S. invasion, but there are probably many others whose opinions are currently being suppressed who might welcome U.S. assistance in regime change. Don't forget that many Iraqi intellectuals and military leaders defected and have formed the core of an increasingly more organized and ever growing Iraqi opposition group. That has to say something doesn't it? I don't want a war, I don't want to see Iraqi civilians killed because I believe they are good people. I don't want to see American servicemen killed either, but if war is the only way of removing an evil dictator and improving the lives of a great many Iraqis, then so be it. My hope is that the Iraqi people will see the potential of U.S. assistance in forming a new government and turn on Saddam so that the war ends quickly and with minimal casualties. Lets hope this happens. Sure Bush has underlying motivations for an Iraqi war. In a way, I can see why. Iraq is sitting atop the world's 2nd largest undeveloped oil field and after 9-11, if the U.S. gets a cooperative government installed in Iraq, they can broker a sweet deal for themselves that makes us less beholden to the radical Saudis from whom the majority of the 9-11 terrorists and their murderous ideology sprang forth. It may not be right, but it makes good sense. Who here can claim that EVERY nation does not look out for its own interests first? Its a basic fact of political science and is only now being trumped by new theories and schools of thought. Most nations protect their own interests first and then worry about those of other people, its human nature. As for the U.S. going against the U.N. on this, where are you getting this information? Despite the fact that Bush wants this war, he has worked with the U.N. in negotiating a new plan for inspections, and actually made a few concessions to get the deal done. Now he's taking a wait and see approach to the inspections. Lets face it, the odds are that Iraq has WMD, Saddam is obsessed with them and has been caught with his pants around his ankles with respect to them before. He's had years to get even more proficient at hiding his programs, so its likely his declaration of zero weapons is a lie. That means the U.S. will go to war, but it doesn't mean we will do it before the U.N. agrees its necessary. That is just mere speculation until it actually happens. I think Bush isn't the brightest guy in the world, but he's got to realize the political and economic consequences of acting unilaterally. I don't think he will do that. What I'm afraid of is that the U.N. will decide to invade Iraq and all the anti-U.S. people out there will interpret the decision as one of the U.N. being manipulated by the U.S. I can't wait to see the reactions of people who refuse to believe that the U.N. could possibly decidethat it might be best to invade Iraq to get rid of its WMD. Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy has led to a lot of hatred in the Middle East and its going to be a long time before that subsides. So, sitting here from gound zero, it makes a lot of sense security-wise to insure Iraq has no WMD so that they can't be used against us or given to terrorists. Remember that France presented significant evidence that Mohammad Atta was an Iraqi intelligence officer, and many of the hijackers recieved training in Iraq. Its simply sound strategic policy. Since the arabs hate us any way, why not go in and fix a few problems, and who knows, maybe they might appreciate our help in the long run? Once Iraq is stabilized and we can broker a good oil deal for us and our allies, we can force the Saudis to toe the line. And France and Russia objecting to a war, who are you kidding? Everyone knows they have deals in place with Saddam to develop the oil fields, multi-billion dollar deals which they stand to lose with a regime change in Iraq, so of course they oppose a war! Again, an example of nations simply looking out for their own best interests. I've read that Russia is cutting back-room deals as we speak to get in on the oil boom after Iraq is defeated, so expect to see their "oposition" fade away really soon. As far as afghanis not supporting the new government, that is a rather simplistic viewpoint is it not? Consider that Afghanistan has basically been lawless for most of the last century. It stands to reason that there are many factions and elements within that society vying for power who are going to oppose any government that poses a threat to them and their power base. A lot of tribes want to get their opium operations back on line and it seems unlikely that a U.S. backed government is going to allow that to happen, so of course they oppose that regime. As for letting them decide for themselves, the U.S. tried that for the last 20 or so years and we got Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban out of it for our efforts. You can't just let things go, once you intercede you have to stay involved until stability returns, its just the right thing to do. Notice how the U.S. is getting NATO and the U.N. to play a broader role in shoring up the Karzai regime? Its obvious we don't want to generate resentment by making it seem the new government is a U.S. puppet. As for North Korea, all things come in due time. Notice how they just got zapped shipping Scud missiles to the mid-east. Don't think the CIA isn't working on building a case for going there next. I wouldn't be surprised to see a second U.N. action in Korea in the next few years, but hopefully not until we get the Mid-East settled down. It would help if the U.S. could get a Peace settlement worked out between Israel and the Palestinians. I think that would go a long way towards demonstrating to the world that our intentions are good and sincere.

This argument is ridiculous. Â We all know we can take as the complete truth everything we read on the internet right? Â The truth is as it always has been, there is propaganda being put out by both sides, and the media is typically antimilitary so you can pretty much take that as a form of propaganda as well. As a veteran of that era, I can tell you that the Gulf War did not officially end until 1993! Â At the time of the bombing of the highway, the Iraqi army was in a tactical retreat. The operative word here is tactical. Â This means they were still armed and combat capable. Â In fact, don't be fooled by the fact that many of the destroyed vehicles are civilian vehicles. Â The Iraqi Army stole, looted and killed for those vehicles. Â I doubt very much that many of the victims of this event were Kuwaitis as any American military member who has been to Kuwait post-Gulf War has seen how appreciative the Kuwaiti people are of Americans and particularly the American military. Think about the strategic situation from a U.S. commander's point of view. Â The plan was to enter Iraq until Bush called it off. Â Despite the fact that the Iraqi Army was fleeing in disarray from Kuwait, there was no guarantee, especially since they were still armed, that they would not regroup and turn and fight just inside the Iraqi border. Â The smart strategy is to destroy your enemy and deny him the ability to regroup or continue fighting. Â It may seem harsh, but it is a part of war and always will be. Â The Iraqis would have done the same thing were the situation reversed. It seems to me that many of you have never served in the military, so from your eyes this might seem like overkill. Â It is not. Â When you are facing an enemy whose sole purpose and motivation is to see to it that you do not make it home to your family alive or intact, you kill him. Â You kill him without mercy, and you continue to kill until your survival and safety are ASSURED. Â There was no such assurance at the time of the bombing. Â Don't confuse a tactical retreat with a general retreat, they are very much not the same thing. The U.S. prior to the war engaged in an extensive psyops campaign. Â the Iraqis were informed that they would recieve decent treatment and food if they surrendered to the American military. Â However, their own dictator told them the Americans were butchers who would kill and eat them if they were captured, and then their own officers shot them if they tried to surrender. Â Who seems inhumane now? Â War is horrible because of man's inhumanity to man, its an inescapable fact which is why I am loath to see another war. The objective of the Gulf War was to remove the Iraqi Army from Kuwait, but it was also to prevent Iraq from being able to invade either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia in the future. Â Don't forget that Saddam had one of the world's largest armies prior to the war and he was obviously not hesistant to use it. Â Would it have been wise for the American military to leave that force combat capable or intact? Â If you think so, you are lying to yourself. Â American servicemen despite whatever propaganda you have been subjected to are not butchers. Â They are family men who believe in what they are doing and just want to get home alive. Â While America's foreign policy has a checkered history, it is also a the only one in the world where invasions have most often been in the name of liberating a people from oppression. Â No other nation in the world can make that claim. Â History is filled with invasions in the name of expanding empires or conquering and subjugating peoples, but it is only until recently that it contained any examples of wars of liberation. Â The U.S. could have avoided both World Wars altogether. Â It could have maintained its isolationist stance and focused instead on getting its economy recovered from the Great Depression. Â Hitler wasn't going to invade America. Â Instead it got invloved in both wars and TWICE played a major role in the liberation of Europe from brutal goverments. Â As I said, American intentions are usually good, and the methods used often leave something to be desired. Â We do not have the gift of foresight. Â However we care enough to shed the blood of our own young men in the attempt to help someone else enjoy the freedoms we enjoy. Â Look at the casualty rates America suffered in both world wars. Â They are substantial, and what did we get from that but a free Europe and years of spending our own money to bail out the European economy. Â Don't believe me? Â Read about the Marshall Plan and for God's sake get the info from a book and not the internet will you? Â Chances are, your very own nations benefitted from billions of dollars of U.S. economic assistance which in large part has still not been repaid. We helped put Saddam in power, we armed him and we shared intelligence with him because we feared the Iranians more and he was their own enemy. Â Any person with a hint of knowledge in the field of political science knows that in an unstable world, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Â Now, whatever our underlying motivations, America has the opportunity to right that wrong. Â We have the opportunity to free a people from a murderous dictator bent upon power at any cost. Â We have the opportunity to help establish a new Middle Eastern democracy and perhaps eventually restore a region to the flower of knowledge, thought and culture that it once was by stabilizing it. Â Sure, there are probably a lot of back-room deals being cut for oil, but who really cares if the Iraqi people will benefit in the long term by a little short term destabilization? Â American military planners are not stupid. Â Just look how rapidly they achieved victory in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan. Â I'm sure the Iraqi people are not going to resist for very long to support the regime of a brutal dictator. Â I doubt many civilians will be killed (by this I mean more than ordinarily are killed in any war). Â I hope it will all be over quickly and done the right way finally, so peace can be restored to a region that has known only chaos and warfare for decades. America has established a goverment that is the most promising available in Afghanistan and they have committed troops to insure its survival. Â Just like in Europe and Japan after the Second World War. Â Is America still in either of those places? Â Are there puppet goverments established there, that bow to our every whim? Â Just look at the facts and read your history before you go off half-cocked and believe the first thing you hear. Â A scholar looks at issues from both sides and appreciates the arguments of the opposition because they make his own that much stronger.

Fields of Fire by James Webb. Chickenhawk by Robert Mason. Pleiku by J.D. Coleman. If You Survive by George Wilson. Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose. Currahee by Donald R. Burgett. The Short Timers by Gustav Hasford. Goodbye Darkness by William Manchester. Marine Sniper, 93 Confirmed Kills by Charles Henderson. Devil's Voyage by Jack L. Chalker About Face by David Hackworth. We Were Soldiers Once, and Young by Harold G. Moore and Joseph Galloway. Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. Low Level Hell and Firebirds by Chuck Carlock. Black Thursday by Martin Caidin. Point Man by Chief James Watson. Battlecry by Leon Uris. Not really a war novel, but a good story about the SS and the Holocaust (its a novel not a documentary) is The Odessa File by Frederick Forsyth.

Some of those are pretty good, but it was: "They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards!" by an unknown paratrooper in Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. My first day of Navy bootcamp. Question from my new company commander who first addressed me as "Fuckstick": "Recruit, do you know what NAVY stands for?" Me: "Sir no sir!" Company Commander: "Its an acronym for Never Again Volunteer Yourself." Another one some of you might remember: "Who wants to go to Alaska?" Just before we were sent on a six mile run to warm up because "Its cold in Alaska." Some dumbass always volunteers. Theres the right way, the wrong way and the Marine Corps way. We the underpaid, overworked and underappreciated are doing the impossible for you the ungrateful. Haze gray and underway. Pay attention to detail you dumb sonofabitch! heard this all the time. From an unknown mess worker to me during training: "How do you like your steak?" as he shovels a big pile of nasty chilimac onto my plate. I laughed out loud. A really salty old Gunnery Seargent to a bunch of us Sailors and Marines screwing around when the CO was coming. "For godsakes assholes if you are going to mill about, mill about smartly!" If it ain't broke don't try to fix it, if it is paint it! Did your mother have any children that lived? You move like old people fuck! When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. A few favorite expressions: Shitbird: A lazy person or liar. Skate: to slack off. Goldbrick: a person who fakes illness. Head: A urinal or toilet. The day the eagle shits: Pay day. Sky Pilot: A chaplain. Zoomie: Any one in the Airforce. "Don't salute me asshole, I work for a living!" Pretty much any noncom who has a salute rendered to them by an overzealous recruit. Your not half the man your mother was! Suck it up! I can walk on water, eat bullets and shit ice cream! Veni, Vidi, Vici. I came, I saw, I conquered. Your mother doesn't work here. I don't think you could find your own ass with both hands and a flashlight! Pushups forever! Begin! Reveille reveille, all hands prepare to heave to and trice up your racks. Sweepers sweepers man your brooms! And last but not least. The situtation: Housecrew duty in the barracks during A-school. We weren't allowed to leave the base, especially in our working uniforms. Ten feet outside the gates and only 100 yards from our barracks a McDonalds. The dilemma: You haven't had fast food in months and you can smell fries. The solution: Take the Navy issue vehicle and drive through Mcdonalds for lunch. The reason: We are still technically within Navy property, we are not out in public in working uniforms and we were insane with cravings for McDonalds. The problem: Master Chief Petty Officer McCage and Gunnery Seargent Evans return early to check up on us and we are in front of the barracks eating McDonalds out of bags. And now the Quote: Master Chief McCage stares at me like I'm a dead man and says, "Airman, there had better be something inside that bag for me." The result: Hey what do you know, there was!

If, then, else is going to make a nice difference. Oh, and I'll take the bicycle, it will come in handy for the Vietnam mission makers. I too would like to see improved helicopter AI to reduce the suicidal pilots in the game. Also a walking animation where the rifle is held at the ready instead of slung on the back. But overall, nice changes and thanks BIS. Your support of the community and continuing improvements to the game are a testament to the quality of your organization.