High Tech vs. Low tech

[puglous]

Very same reason of your M.Ps throwing Qu'ran in to toilet infront of muslim prisoners or forcing muslim prisoners to form human pyramids naked infront of female M.Ps or raping them etc. etc.

Except that prisoner abuse wasn't government sanctioned. The man behind it did jail time. Attacking a military presence of hundreds of thousands of Americans because you saw a few being jerks on youtube or the evening news is just bigotry.

When I see the terrorist leaders talking about giving jail time to the members of their militia who video-taped beheadings and took hostages, I'll warm up to the insurgency a bit.

EDIT: Looks like ADaA beat me to it.

[RittWitt]

Originally Posted by Michael_Denmark

So the hidden non-linear Hit & Run tactic using low tech against a more linear high tech force can have a decisive impact on the morale?

And if this morale impact is true when talking about the high tech US coalition force do you think it also has an impact on the opposing low-tech force, the insurgents/bombers. And if yes, is that impact positive on their morale?

I say that yes it can have a decisive impact on morale. However, modern soldiers are trained and indoctrinated to a much higher standard that those of ancient times. I am unaware of an event in modern warfare involving a rout, where one side drives his enemy from the battle-field. I think that this classic tactic has migrated to the "rout," if you will, of the home nation. Things like this have only been a problem in recent years, with the advent of television war coverage in Vietnam, and more-so now with imbedded reporters and the internet. While an enemy can no longer rout an opponent from the battlefield, they can because of the advances in globalization and availabililty of technology, fight a war of information and propaganda on the home nation. The current conflict is, IMO, two-fold: a counter-insurgency/count-terrorism campaign on the ground and an information war on the home front. Vietnam taught opponents of the US that they could lose tactically and win operationally by waging a war of information against US popular opinion.

I think the other way is also true, though we do not participate in it. I think we consider ourselves too civilized to be as brutal as the enemy has been to us. I want to make clear that I am not advocating in any way the crimes commited against civillians. The rape of that woman and subsequent murder of her family; the humiliation that occured at Abu Ghraib - these acts were horrible and brutal - but are crimes. I find it sadly ironic that anyone would consider war, in any form, to be civilized. It is brutal, heart-wrenching, and wreaks wounds no amount of time can ever heal.

I think if we could organize the same insidious type of campaign against an insurgency it would have the same effect on the enemy. That is, however, very difficult to do without resorting to the same brutal tactics. And no matter how uncivilized I may feel all acts of war to be, there is never justification for the use innocents.

[Michael_Denmark]

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

It seems to me that the question of high tech vs low tech has been boiled down and answered.

Well as i see it, the very surface of the question maybe has, but not much more. Its just a process man, please let it take its own time.

Regards

Mike

[Kruder]

Omfg how do u know it is limited,i've watched tens of those type of videos,mind you there might be hundreds of them which recorders were afraid to release or most of the time they simply didnt record,there are only examples and for the last time us recorders recorded these just for fun while insurgency at least had a purpose. .

Rape being one incident err you are wrong as usual.Maybe it is the only one that you were able to learn,here is another one
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...printable=true

Killing a bypassing civilian is murder,not to mention after firing a few clips on his body.

You invade a muslim country ridicolous reasons and when they start to resist you tell them to be tolerate,oh yeah tolerate what an invading christian army????

BULLSHIT this BULLSHIT that ,every thing posted with valid links about US war crimes or US politics are countered with that argument by you coz that is the only way you can object these,even some of your soldiers are having jailtime for them while you are telling me that they were bs.
I am beginning to think that you live in a different world.

Originally Posted by puglous

Except that prisoner abuse wasn't government sanctioned. The man behind it did jail time. Attacking a military presence of hundreds of thousands of Americans because you saw a few being jerks on youtube or the evening news is just bigotry.

When I see the terrorist leaders talking about giving jail time to the members of their militia who video-taped beheadings and took hostages, I'll warm up to the insurgency a bit.


EDIT: Looks like ADaA beat me to it.

Yeah it was goverment sanctioned,this was their systematical interrogation untill someone found it out and told this to public,if he didnt so they'd be conducting that kind of interrogation still.

I forgot the name,listen one of your former women generals youtube it, cant remember her name,she simply said that abu-ghraib incident or guantamalo incidents must have been under the command or at least under observation of superior officers thus they were systematical not personal....
And why do u compare insurgency with USG?
Are they the same league??
One is a resisting force formed of various groups and individuals the other is a goverment,a superpower.
Btw even Nazis hanged their own soldiers for various crimes (rape and POW massacres or civilian massacres),does this justify everything they did???

P.S:I didnt mean to participate in hijacking of this thread sorry but had to respond ,maybe we should just focus on subject instead of current situation in Iraq.

[Michael_Denmark]

Kruder please stay on topic man.

[puglous]

Oh FFS, Kruder. Don't tell us we should focus on the subject and that you had to respond when your post accomplished nothing other than adding one more rape case to a war fought by hundreds of thousands of troops over a several year period. You just don't want a response now because you know your argument is losing ground.

An invading christian army!? You KNOW that's not true! The coalition's goal is to pull out of Iraq so the (islamic) government the Iraqis themselves elected can take over. The only reason the "invading Christian army" is still in Iraq is because those fighters "resisting" (providing the only reason for) US occupation are threatening Iraq's government. Do things get so boring in Istanbul that you have to spread hate to make things more exciting?

And one of our former woman generals? Does the US even have any female generals? It's pretty amazing you spend so much time on youtube (which we know is a just a breeding ground for deep discussion and intellectual thought ) yet can't locate ANY of these videos you're mentioning.

I don't even know what the hell else you're saying about Abu Griahb. Could you be a little more vague, please? Knowledge is power, and power corrupts, after all.

Are you saying because someone higher than the rank of a Private was there to see it, that means its US army policy? Whatever the highest ranking member of the US military says is US policy is US policy! Eitherway, its over now, and the US government put a stop to it, and no amount of willful blindness is going to change that. The US HIRES people to make sure prisoners aren't abused. Does the insurgency do that? No, they glorify it (or as you call it, give it a purpose). And why shouldn't they, right? They're an insurgency, and we're a super-power. We should be holding double standards and tolerating hypocrisy .

And when the hell did I say the things the US soldiers went to prison for was justified!? If I thought it was justified, I would be PROTESTING their imprisonment, not bringing it up as a reason to support the coalition's efforts.

P.S.: Sorry, but I had to respond. We really should just get back on topic now, because now I've had the last word.

[Kruder]

alright abu gharib u lasy bastards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghr...prisoner_abuse

one sample video sorry i dont have time to provide more
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?ne...%3DxnyjH5wusqs

your non existant female general here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janis_Karpinski

sorry i forgot she was the commanding officer in abu gharib.

P.S:Not commenting on what you say...I hope you learn to search about subjects you argue about instead of blaming people...

[puglous]

Yeah, I'm a lazy bastard for not finding sources for YOUR points...

God help us if you ever write an essay: I don't think anyone will take kindly to it when you force your readers to write your "works cited" section for you.

Anyway, someone has already PMed you about these three links.

EDIT: And BTW if there actually are 10s of videos of US troops having fun shooting at civillians, someone better be reporting that to the authorities if they truly care.

Now, I believe the last on-topic post was:

It seems to me that the question of high tech vs low tech has been boiled down and answered.

Colorado and UAV pilots, I don't know for sure but there are many bases in my town that could be doing this. Schriever AFB, Falcon AFB, Peterson AFB, NORAD, NorthCOM ect.

[Ringo876]

[QUOTE=Kruder

You invade a muslim country ridicolous reasons and when they start to resist you tell them to be tolerate,oh yeah tolerate what an invading christian army????

[/QUOTE]

Please, lets not bring religion into this, that just makes things like 302083 times worse and gets this beautiful thread deleted. You're being rediculous, the U.S military isn't a, "Christian" military, as we seperate religion from that stuff.

[-=ToD=-KNIFE]

There is No True Answer to the high tech, Low Tech Question. In Some Situations High Tech Can help but in Others High tech is there but The same Can Easily be done with Something Cheaper, Now yes for what im about to Say peaple will Say "Oh but are to Save Live's". Say lets get a generalised Example:

Lets go Back to the First Gulf, Lets Change its Situation with it having the latest Century Tech, Lets then get onto Desert Storm but Replace British Troops with Fully Mobalised Russian Forces, The Russian Forces could do the Same as the US Forces with thier Tanks, helicopters, Troops, Aircraft. On The Ground the Russian Tanks are almost the Same as US Tanks. The russian Helicopters are Low Tech But can do the Same as a Cobra or Apache. The Russian Troops are as armed as the US Troops but are still Low Tech with the good ol AK's. In the Air Russian Ground Attack and Air Supriority (Su-27's, Su-25's, Mig-29's) Can do the Same as the US (F-15's, A-10's, F-18's).

That was Some Probably Crappy Example which Probably Sounded Better in my Head.