An interview with an ex special forces sergeant
I don't know what is sadder; Your plethora of shitty one liners or the fact that you honestly think that they are witty comebacks. Kudos on trying to be original for a change rather than copying from others (ie:genetic garbage).Cartalas wrote:How is daycare?Truant wrote: There's a problem with using the stfu feature....sure it'd save me the trouble of having to read your posts. But since you post to nearly every thread, every day...with nonsensical bullshit that ends up degenerating the thread into idiots posting what they think to be witty remarks that make no sense to the rest of the board.
If my putting you on stfu would stop you from fucking up every thread on this god damned board I would...until then I'll just have to hope that you'll get my point and say something relevant and/or intelligent, or not say anything at all.
Kelgar wrote:I don't know what is sadder; Your plethora of shitty one liners or the fact that you honestly think that they are witty comebacks. Kudos on trying to be original for a change rather than copying from others (ie:genetic garbage).Cartalas wrote:How is daycare?Truant wrote: There's a problem with using the stfu feature....sure it'd save me the trouble of having to read your posts. But since you post to nearly every thread, every day...with nonsensical bullshit that ends up degenerating the thread into idiots posting what they think to be witty remarks that make no sense to the rest of the board.
If my putting you on stfu would stop you from fucking up every thread on this god damned board I would...until then I'll just have to hope that you'll get my point and say something relevant and/or intelligent, or not say anything at all.
Why thank you
Considering "he" in my sentence points toward you, and you couldn't come up with an even halfway intelligent or humorous reply, I guess you proved my point for me.He is debating with you?
Thanks for making things so easy, although please stop because it gets boring fast.
Last edited by Kelshara on August 3, 2003, 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
No shit Dumb ass God you are a idiot. no go get fitted for your new hockey helmet.Kelshara wrote:He is debating with you?
Considering "he" in my sentence points toward you, and you couldn't come up with an even halfway intelligent or humorous reply, I guess you proved my point for me.
Thanks for making things so easy, although please stop because it gets boring fast.
Do you sit up at night wondering how to be dumber then the next day? I am going to by you the book dummies for dummies.Kelshara wrote:You know, if I didn't pity your parents so much for your existence I might get baited into a flame war, but you are really not worth it. Please return when you have managed to steal more lame one-liners, because your old ones are getting stale.
Umm vn_Dolt, lets see.vn_Tanc wrote:How many lives will you save if you lose the battle because your machinery fails cos it's full of sand or rendered useless through bad weather?
DO try and keep up. . .
Machines fail cause of sand = no dead enemies and no dead Americans.
Seems to me OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of lives are saved.
Try again
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
not in asymmetric warfare Einstein. It isn't 1945 anymore, and no battles will be waged with anybody having armor to match the USA's.Atokal wrote:Umm vn_Dolt, lets see.vn_Tanc wrote:How many lives will you save if you lose the battle because your machinery fails cos it's full of sand or rendered useless through bad weather?
DO try and keep up. . .
Machines fail cause of sand = no dead enemies and no dead Americans.
Seems to me OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of lives are saved.
Try again
So if a tank does fail due to sand, it is a stationary target for guys on foot with an RPG.
Voronwë wrote:not in asymmetric warfare Einstein. It isn't 1945 anymore, and no battles will be waged with anybody having armor to match the USA's.Atokal wrote:Umm vn_Dolt, lets see.vn_Tanc wrote:How many lives will you save if you lose the battle because your machinery fails cos it's full of sand or rendered useless through bad weather?
DO try and keep up. . .
Machines fail cause of sand = no dead enemies and no dead Americans.
Seems to me OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of lives are saved.
Try again
So if a tank does fail due to sand, it is a stationary target for guys on foot with an RPG.
A Pole playing game is a threat?
Did you read the article Einstein?Voronwë wrote:not in asymmetric warfare Einstein. It isn't 1945 anymore, and no battles will be waged with anybody having armor to match the USA's.Atokal wrote:Umm vn_Dolt, lets see.vn_Tanc wrote:How many lives will you save if you lose the battle because your machinery fails cos it's full of sand or rendered useless through bad weather?
DO try and keep up. . .
Machines fail cause of sand = no dead enemies and no dead Americans.
Seems to me OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of lives are saved.
Try again
So if a tank does fail due to sand, it is a stationary target for guys on foot with an RPG.
Here is a quote.
Unfortunately, other people will pay with treasure and blood, and the whole fnord will retire in comfort to write their bullshit memoirs and give lectures. The military itself, if you look at the humans who populate it, is undergoing the same kind of attacks on its living standards as the whole rest of the American working class, in order to pay for Rumsfeld? killer drones and super-subs.
See where it says KILLER DRONES? These are unmanned machines.
So your argument carries no weight. Editted after checking out the term asymmetric warfare.
In 1945 I would submit that the French, Poles, Austrians etc found the warfare asymmetric vs the Germans
Cheers
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
I normally don't bust balls for this sort of thing, but when you are flaming someone else's dumbness and can't spell all the words in your flame correctly, I must then smite you with the Irony Board. *THWACK*Do you sit up at night wondering how to be dumber then the next day? I am going to by you the book dummies for dummies.
Metanis wrote:I took the time to study up on this Stan Goff fellow. He appears to be real. He is a self-avowed leftist. He has an opinion. He is allowed to have an opionion. He is even allowed to be a moron. I'm not surprised Kelgar found this idiot's opinion worth sharing. This is merely further proof that Kelgar is an idiot.
Please do go read the entire interview on the link provided. Also pay attention to the nature of the questions themselves. Tripe.
Carry on Kelgar. Someday you are going to stumble across some wisdom and probably scare yourself to death.
dude...you post fucking Ann Coulter on here, and your complaining about one sharing a person with an "extreme" opinion!!!!
-
Acies
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: July 30, 2002, 10:55 pm
- Location: The Holy city of Antioch
Sup all.
I think the point Cartalas is attempting to make is that new technology paves the way for a more dynamic and "humane" war... yes I am aware of the irony of the statement.
Also though, I would have to side with Vn_Tanc on this one. Technology or no, human beings are by far the most efficient killers on the planet. While technology makes a great supplement to a soldier, it can not replace the capacity for creative death and advantage a human being would find in virtually any given scenario.
I am also stating this under the assumption that the Special Forces Sergeant was referring to independent AI on the battle field as opposed to a human being.
I think the point Cartalas is attempting to make is that new technology paves the way for a more dynamic and "humane" war... yes I am aware of the irony of the statement.
Also though, I would have to side with Vn_Tanc on this one. Technology or no, human beings are by far the most efficient killers on the planet. While technology makes a great supplement to a soldier, it can not replace the capacity for creative death and advantage a human being would find in virtually any given scenario.
I am also stating this under the assumption that the Special Forces Sergeant was referring to independent AI on the battle field as opposed to a human being.
Bujinkan is teh win!
Tanc's point...if i may be so bold...is that technology can easily be rendered useless.
Unmanned killing robots can easily be cut off from their remote controller. Or rendered completely useless by EMP's...etc, there is an infinite list of similar situations.
That is why a human cannot be COMPLETELY replaced on the battlefield. A robot has particular weaknesses that make it vulnerable on the battlefield. Not so much that it can be easily destroyed, but it can be easily rendered useless. In order to render a human useless on the battlefield, you will have to destroy it.
Unmanned killing robots can easily be cut off from their remote controller. Or rendered completely useless by EMP's...etc, there is an infinite list of similar situations.
That is why a human cannot be COMPLETELY replaced on the battlefield. A robot has particular weaknesses that make it vulnerable on the battlefield. Not so much that it can be easily destroyed, but it can be easily rendered useless. In order to render a human useless on the battlefield, you will have to destroy it.
