[Arseface]

Originally Posted by Walker

Well, no. Guerilla warfare is the favorite warfare of people too weak to fight the other kind of war, just like it always has been. It's not pretty. It's not pleasant. And it usually ****s over innocent bystanders, one way or another, almost or at least as bad as whoever's being fought against.

But it has one advantage: it can allow a group with worse equipment, fewer people, and/or less support to be a serious pain in the ass to whoever they currently consider their enemies. Sometimes even to the point of getting rid of said enemies, sometimes just to the point of being a royal pain in the ass.

That's why it's everyone's favourite. Gone are the day's of soldier on soldier fighting, on a more or less civillian free battle ground. Vietnam and Afghanistan proved to the US, and the rest of the world, just how effective it is.

[Pirate X]

Originally Posted by The White Knight

Special Forces Weapons Sergeant FTW

Fix'd. An added bonus to being in an SF team is that you get cooler weapons (such as the M4A1 SOPMOD)

[Firis]

Stop fixing first off, second off SOPMOD isn't limited to SpecOp teams. Thirdly, Guerilla warfare is something that will ALWAYS destroy armies trianed for open combat. IED and pop-shots are the new, more effective warfare, only downside? Civilian damage, of course though, we nuked a coupel of nearly innocent islands and have killed civilians (On purpose and on accident) anyway.

[Pirate X]

Originally Posted by Firis

Stop fixing first off, second off SOPMOD isn't limited to SpecOp teams. Thirdly, Guerilla warfare is something that will ALWAYS destroy armies trianed for open combat. IED and pop-shots are the new, more effective warfare, only downside? Civilian damage, of course though, we nuked a coupel of nearly innocent islands and have killed civilians (On purpose and on accident) anyway.

But in America's Army only people with 15 honor that have completed the SF training can wield them.

[Firis]

That is a video game and an American army, not an Austrailan one.

[Pirate X]

Originally Posted by Firis

That is a video game and an American army, not an Austrailan one.

Wait so he joined the Australian army?

[Firis]

He lives in Australia... Is it even possible to join a foreign nations army without bieng a citizen? I think not but it would be awesome to join the Canadian Forces.

[Walker]

Originally Posted by Arseface

That's why it's everyone's favourite. Gone are the day's of soldier on soldier fighting, on a more or less civillian free battle ground. Vietnam and Afghanistan proved to the US, and the rest of the world, just how effective it is.

Um... no. Just, no. The idea/name has been around, and been used effectively, since the Peninsular War. Really, it was around before then, but didn't gain its fame until later, when the technology really caught up. My opinion? It's most effective, early use was the Russian partisans. And which Afghanistan, out of curiosity?

But no, my point was that the people getting the irritating little bee stings and/or getting blown up by their neighbors don't like it.

Originally Posted by Firis

Stop fixing first off, second off SOPMOD isn't limited to SpecOp teams. Thirdly, Guerilla warfare is something that will ALWAYS destroy armies trianed for open combat. IED and pop-shots are the new, more effective warfare, only downside? Civilian damage, of course though, we nuked a coupel of nearly innocent islands and have killed civilians (On purpose and on accident) anyway.

No. Just, no. In the past: ever wonder why the US had to face the Brits on the open field to win our independence? That's because, unless they broke or retreated instead of fighting, troops with muskets in formations could break any skirmishers or irregulars-- AKA guerillas.

What do you mean, "open combat?" I'm not sure you know what you're saying.

Innocent islands? What, do you mean when we did atomic testing? If you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were cities, not islands, and "innocent" is debatable. Lotsa dead civilians, but not exactly a country innocent of wrongdoing.

Originally Posted by Firis

He lives in Australia... Is it even possible to join a foreign nations army without bieng a citizen? I think not but it would be awesome to join the Canadian Forces.

Yes, it is. That's why 61 Canadians have won the Congressional Medal of Honor. That's why France has that thing called a Foreign Legion. It's sometimes a pretty decent way to win citizenship, too.

(And is it just me or is this my 2,000th post? What a lackluster milestone.)

EDIT: No, 2,001st.

[Firis]

Originally Posted by Walker

No. Just, no. In the past: ever wonder why the US had to face the Brits on the open field to win our independence? That's because, unless they broke or retreated instead of fighting, troops with muskets in formations could break any skirmishers or irregulars-- AKA guerillas.

What do you mean, "open combat?" I'm not sure you know what you're saying.

Innocent islands? What, do you mean when we did atomic testing? If you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were cities, not islands, and "innocent" is debatable. Lotsa dead civilians, but not exactly a country innocent of wrongdoing.



Yes, it is. That's why 61 Canadians have won the Congressional Medal of Honor. That's why France has that thing called a Foreign Legion. It's sometimes a pretty decent way to win citizenship, too.

(And is it just me or is this my 2,000th post? What a lackluster milestone.)

EDIT: No, 2,001st.

Paragraph 1: I am talking current tech, where it is more common.
P2: Army vs Army full out.
P3: Yeah, I meant cities, buuuut, still innoccent people killed just cause they had some infantry there.
P4: Soooooo, as a U.S citizen, I could join the Canadian army? :3

[Walker]

What do you mean, "army vs army?" Because, while there haven't been MANY organized state-on-state conflicts, there have been a few-- and they weren't exactly like WWI slugging matches, or anything else. Our army on army has a lot in common with "guerilla" warfare, for a given value of guerilla, just with more armor and aircraft.

Um... if you're talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then no, we didn't kill them because there was some infantry there. We wiped them off the face of the map intending the Japanese to be so ****ing terrified that we'd hit them with a few more that they'd surrender instead of forcing us to invade the home islands. It was a terror attack in the most literal sense of the phrase.

[Firis]

Originally Posted by Walker

Um... if you're talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then no, we didn't kill them because there was some infantry there. We wiped them off the face of the map intending the Japanese to be so ****ing terrified that we'd hit them with a few more that they'd surrender instead of forcing us to invade the home islands. It was a terror attack in the most literal sense of the phrase.

That's exactly what I meant, just you put it in a harsher, truer way

[Arseface]

Originally Posted by Pirate X

Fix'd. An added bonus to being in an SF team is that you get cooler weapons (such as the M4A1 SOPMOD)

Stop fixing posts. It's not funny or clever. It's just annoying

Originally Posted by Pirate X

Wait so he joined the Australian army?

Not everyone is American.

Originally Posted by Walker

Um... no. Just, no. The idea/name has been around, and been used effectively, since the Peninsular War. Really, it was around before then, but didn't gain its fame until later, when the technology really caught up. My opinion? It's most effective, early use was the Russian partisans. And which Afghanistan, out of curiosity?

The first one. The one that sparked the end of the USSR. It was their Vietnam. It's also one of the reasons why the Middle East pretty much hates the west.

[Walker]

Originally Posted by Arseface

The first one. The one that sparked the end of the USSR. It was their Vietnam. It's also one of the reasons why the Middle East pretty much hates the west.

Wow. That's pretty impressive. A war between an Asian nation and a nation that usually considers itself "not the west" and is in fact, y'know, pretty far to the east and was, y'know, communist at the time made the Middle East hate all the capitalist "west?"

I mean, damn, even more entertaining when you consider how much money and materiel the "west" was funneling the Asian country.

I mean, THAT is what I call impressive. (Sarcastic? Who? Me? No! How could you say something like that?)

[Arseface]

Originally Posted by Walker

Wow. That's pretty impressive. A war between an Asian nation and a nation that usually considers itself "not the west" and is in fact, y'know, pretty far to the east and was, y'know, communist at the time made the Middle East hate all the capitalist "west?"

I mean, damn, even more entertaining when you consider how much money and materiel the "west" was funneling the Asian country.

I mean, THAT is what I call impressive. (Sarcastic? Who? Me? No! How could you say something like that?)

I was meaning how the US funded the Taliban, and they ****ed things up pretty bad for Afghanistan. It was a much less conservative nation before the USSR invaded, but it became the melting pot of hate and extremism it is today because of the Taliban.

That may not be quite right, but that's my understanding of it.

[Walker]

I don't disagree with anything you said there, except blaming one war in one corner of Central Asia for a tendency to dislike the West in the Middle East.

Seems like you're lumping together everyone who's Muslim, but they are different.