shooting personell with a .50 cal - Page 2

Rangefinder · December 12, 2009, 03:20 AM

Where the whole thing centers is around the "delicate sensibilities" of those NOT involved---AKA Politics. When you involve politics in war, you get rules---WHY? Because you include outside opinion. You include "moralistic judgment" on issues that really don't include a place for rational explanation---AKA public opinion. And there we have it. Use an M2 on personnel? I say go for it, and move on. In a position where you need to target that Dragon rocket on a hardened infantry position rather than punching a hole in a tank? Freaking DO IT! Use that M-203 against an advancing unit rather than breaking hardened cover. Do what needs to be done, and get on with it. When you apply rules to warfare, you set stages of failure with deliberate intent. Leave the soldier to do his job, and shut the hell up---period..

flcaptainbill · December 12, 2009, 01:01 PM

I say use whatever you have that gives the highest possibility of getting home alive.

drail · December 12, 2009, 01:25 PM

Anyone who tells you that there are rules in a war has never been in one. The objective is to win. Of course the White House threw that into the wastebasket during the Vietnam War.

rburch · December 12, 2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Anyone who tells you that there are rules in a war has never been in one. The objective is to win. Of course the White House threw that into the wastebasket during the Vietnam War.

I will admit to never being in a war (Medically Disqualified from entering army

) I'd have to say there are rules in war.

Rules about how you treat prisoners, civilians, etc.

I don't believe those rules apply while bullets are flying though...

Mk VII · December 13, 2009, 07:46 PM

Considering we use drones with Hellfires on them to kill a single individual ... I'd say $3 is a bargain.
Some of that stuff is leftovers from WW2, so the cost has long been written off the books anyway.

vranasaurus · December 13, 2009, 10:42 PM

There are certainly rules for war and the proof is the fact that we prosecute people for war crimes.

The rules aren't all that hard.

MTT TL · December 14, 2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Anyone who tells you that there are rules in a war has never been in one.

I am not sure where you get this idea from but it is badly mistaken. I am coming up on 22 years now and have been at least two wars, maybe more depending upon where you hold the ruler. There are lots of rules, caveats, regulations, laws, treaties and agreements in every one. Just like anything else in life not everyone follows all the rules. That does not mean you throw away the rule book.

Quote:

The objective is to win.

Sometimes the very act of breaking the rules can contribute significantly to losing. Don't think this does not apply to both sides. Just ask AQI after their display in Al Anbar.

Mcguyver · December 15, 2009, 07:44 AM

Im an iraq veteran, and we had lengthy discussions about this, (cause sometimes there just isnt much to do) and the conclusion we came up with is that we can just cover our bases if we only use big weapons for equipment... you know, belt buckles, hats, watches, canteens, glasses, shirt buttons.. anti material...

vranasaurus · December 16, 2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Im an iraq veteran, and we had lengthy discussions about this, (cause sometimes there just isnt much to do) and the conclusion we came up with is that we can just cover our bases if we only use big weapons for equipment... you know, belt buckles, hats, watches, canteens, glasses, shirt buttons.. anti material...

You should really get the opinion of your oplaw section and not the opinion of your local barracks lawyers.

Mcguyver · December 17, 2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

You should really get the opinion of your oplaw section and not the opinion of your local barracks lawyers

You should really get a sense of humor, from the sound of it your either a remf, or a jag officer, all of which mean you dont know what your talking about in combat. First off i was joking, secondly you can take out a hostile threat with a JDAM if you feel its necessary. Thanks for chiming in though, really giving the forum a good first impression.

Tucker 1371 · December 17, 2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

secondly you can take out a hostile threat with a JDAM if you feel its necessary.

Read the book First In... it's written by and about the first Americans on the ground in Afghanistan after 9/11... they actually did that. If this is a rule the CIA sure as heck doesn't care about it.

vranasaurus · December 17, 2009, 11:31 PM

I apologize for being blunt and to be honest I didn't even read the second line in your post.

Quote:

Last edited by Mcguyver; Today at 09:29 PM. Reason: read some of his posts, activated gaurdsmen? recruiter?

What's wrong with being an activated guardsmen or recruiter? You obviously lack any maturity or class and choose to look down on those not in a combat MOS or those who serve part time.

I've served ten years in the Army reserve the last 6 in the AGR program. The majority of the logistics, engineers, civil affairs, and military police reside in the reserve components. Without the contributions of the reserve compnonents you wouldn't be able to fight a war.

I currently serve as the chief paralegal NCO for a command in the Army Reserve. Call me a REMF or whatever you like.

johnwilliamson062 · December 18, 2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

.50 BMG round is about $3 each, although the price per round is not really that relevant. Even a 100 million rounds would only be 300 million dollars, a drop in the bucket really.

I may not have combat experience, but I do deal with accountants and actuaries. I guarantee you they won't agree with you. I also guarantee you almost any normal person will agree to some stupid rule they are pushing, that everyone knows will be ignored, just to shut them up.

Glenn E. Meyer · December 18, 2009, 12:00 PM

Oh dear - it's personal. The issue is well discussed and insults don't work.

Thus - closed.

December 12, 2009, 03:20 AM	#26
Rangefinder Senior Member Join Date: August 4, 2005 Posts: 2,017	Where the whole thing centers is around the "delicate sensibilities" of those NOT involved---AKA Politics. When you involve politics in war, you get rules---WHY? Because you include outside opinion. You include "moralistic judgment" on issues that really don't include a place for rational explanation---AKA public opinion. And there we have it. Use an M2 on personnel? I say go for it, and move on. In a position where you need to target that Dragon rocket on a hardened infantry position rather than punching a hole in a tank? Freaking DO IT! Use that M-203 against an advancing unit rather than breaking hardened cover. Do what needs to be done, and get on with it. When you apply rules to warfare, you set stages of failure with deliberate intent. Leave the soldier to do his job, and shut the hell up---period.. __________________ "Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

December 18, 2009, 12:00 PM	#39
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Oh dear - it's personal. The issue is well discussed and insults don't work. Thus - closed. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

December 12, 2009, 01:01 PM	#27
flcaptainbill Member Join Date: September 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 26	I say use whatever you have that gives the highest possibility of getting home alive.

December 12, 2009, 01:25 PM	#28
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	Anyone who tells you that there are rules in a war has never been in one. The objective is to win. Of course the White House threw that into the wastebasket during the Vietnam War.

December 13, 2009, 07:46 PM	#30
Mk VII Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2000 Location: England Posts: 455	Considering we use drones with Hellfires on them to kill a single individual ... I'd say $3 is a bargain. Some of that stuff is leftovers from WW2, so the cost has long been written off the books anyway.

December 13, 2009, 10:42 PM	#31
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	There are certainly rules for war and the proof is the fact that we prosecute people for war crimes. The rules aren't all that hard.

December 15, 2009, 07:44 AM	#33
Mcguyver Junior Member Join Date: December 14, 2009 Posts: 2	Im an iraq veteran, and we had lengthy discussions about this, (cause sometimes there just isnt much to do) and the conclusion we came up with is that we can just cover our bases if we only use big weapons for equipment... you know, belt buckles, hats, watches, canteens, glasses, shirt buttons.. anti material...