Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (146745)	11/12/2005 10:20:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

Very good SITREP on Weapons, Tactics,etc: VERY GOOD! Maybe I think that because I expected every analysis I read. The M16/AK47 comparison makes me shake my head. We knew in the 60s that the 47 would stand up against jams better than the 16, and why. And here we are, 40 years later, with the same situation. You can toss a 47 in the sand and still fire it. Not so the 16. The Russians always build "loose." The T-34 tank was clunky but much more rugged than the Tiger. We have a very bad situation developing in the relationship between our military and the media. It is much worse than during the Vietnam war, because the military is now all volunteer, and has immediate access to what is being disseminated by the press here. I don't like the possible long term consequences. The bit on the "surefire G2" flashlight was interesting. I was not familar with the item.

To: unclewest who wrote (146745)	11/13/2005 12:43:48 AM
From: Hoa Hao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

"The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round." And you told me it was obsolete, uw!! <:-)

To: unclewest who wrote (146745)	11/13/2005 4:32:56 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 793917

Very interesting read, especially since weapons mentioned were those most familiar to me (M-14, M-60 (used to be a favorite of mine)and AK 47. When I first started out in the military I had an M-1, that was a great weapon but we all were enamored with the 20 round magazine of the M-14, however found that it rusted easily (whereas the M-1 never did), used to tape two magazines together for 40 round banana clip and thought we were on top of the world (gg). Finally, had the M-16 but ours were early model and a piece of shit, often jamming etc etc and to a Marine anything so tiny just felt like a toy. But, at least it was LIGHT. haha. Finally, like our boys in Iraq are finding AINT NUTTIN BETTER THEN A 12 GAUGE SHOTGUN!! Knocks down anything in your way. Anyhow, thanks for the post brings back memories. jdn

To: unclewest who wrote (146745)	11/13/2005 6:16:36 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

UW, being an internationally renown military expert and geopolitical analyst I should help clear this up: <They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cant stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there). > Firstly, the "body count" of 20:1. I remember thinking it absurd during the Vietnam war how the "body count" was so enormously in the USA's favour. My Lai explained some of that counting process. Most people will exaggerate their achievements to look good. One would rather count children as being Vietcong or Islamic Jihad. Taking the 20:1 with a grain of salt but assuming the 2,000 USA fatalities is more or less accurate, that would mean something like 40,000 military enemies killed. But maybe it's much higher because the USA has body armour and stuff leading to a higher injury to death ratio. Say there are 100,000 military opposition killed. From what I've seen in news, something like 10% of the populations in Palestine, Iraq, Iran etc are virulently Islamic Jihadish. Say there are a billion Moslems and 200 million in the vicinity of Iraq, from Pakistan to Morocco and Somalia to London, who could reasonably get to the battle zones with a bit of effort. 10% of 200 million is 20 million. Leave out the women, who for the most part don't get involved, that's still 10 million. Say it's only 1 million, that's still a lot of potential recruits who are likely to keep coming. Not to mention the breeding rate which means the supply won't run dry unless the ideological situation changes. I think that before the USA has had 10,000 killed, the political pressure to bail out will become so substantial that politicians will have to go along with it. At 20:1 or even 100:1, that would be only 200,000 or 1 million of the enemy. The potential Islamic Jihad young recruits wondering what to do with their lives that might be useful is a LOT of people. A complicating factor is that each time there is "collateral damage", the recruiting base goes up for the opposition. Not to mention the arrogance of conquerors [some of them if not all] which understandably generates resistance. The official seal of approval on torture for example is not a way to win an ideological battle. "Sure, we water-board and generally terrify and demean the opposition, but they deserve it for opposing us. Okay, okay, there's a spot of rendition too". If it's true that the borders can't be controlled, then that's problematic as the external supply of Islamic Jihad is large, as is the internal supply. The USA and COW are not a conquering force in the traditional genocidal sense, so there are a lot of COW supporters in the region. With the carnage wrought by Islamic Jihad attacks on civilians and Moslems in general, including police recruits and so on, they aren't winning a lot of friends outside their own fanaticism. The battle for hearts and minds is far from a foregone conclusion. Far from won. The "final stake" is not in sight, but maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel, which hopefully is not a freight train coming the other way. I get the impression Islamic Jihad is in it for the long haul; being measured in hundreds of years. I'm not sure the infamously short USA attention span will go the distance. Jews seem to think like that too, battling away for the "Promised Land". What a mess. Mqurice