Would You Do the Same for Someone You Hardly Know?
-
You just looked at the results of the battle, crunched some numbers and plucked some inferences from a Hollywood movie and drew your pea-brained conclusion. If thats not hindsight, I don't know what is.
If that is not insulting, that what is!!!
Who give the right to say such thing abt my conclusion and indirectly imply that I am!!!!
In any arguement especially with different view is common and sometime even agree to disagree, but it does not give anyone even a mod to said such thing to another.
We started pretty ok until you got emotional & insulting from all your later postings, that is why I labelled you as immatured "kid" becos it does not matter how old you are(BTW you are 28 from the ST), it is how you act as one.
Anyway, i have already posted my view on it as well by others in the forum and another thing , I am not interested in debating with someone like you. End of story. -
Simple, because as I've repeatedly stated, you lack objectivity, fail to see the issue from all perspectives and jumped to conclusions without anywhere near all the facts and were not ashamed to judge despite that. And that was why I said what I said about your conclusion (and I stress, not you)Originally posted by gary1910:If that is not insulting, that what is!!!
Who give the right to say such thing abt my conclusion and indirectly imply that I am!!!!
You made the inference, not me. Then you said things to me which did not need me to infer anything from to understand (or misunderstand) your point.
Theres no point in me engaging in a debate on who fired the first shot at who, since I've already stated I did not make any personal attacks or said anything at anyone that wasn't untrue
In any arguement especially with different view is common and sometime even agree to disagree, but it does not give anyone even a mod to said such thing to another.
[/quote]
Yes, I've agreed to agree to disagree, even back down from differences before with others on this and other forums. But at least the other side was objective and willing to consider things from all perspectives then.
Being a mod does not mean I have to treat anyone with kid gloves. I'd happily treat those who disagree with me with respect, but when someone doesn't show others (particularly those who died doing something not everyone can do) any respect, to the point of belittling their achievements and rudely questioning their intelligence, can they expect and demand me to show them the same respect?
We started pretty ok until you got emotional & insulting from all your later postings, that is why I labelled you as immatured "kid" becos it does not matter how old you are(BTW you are 28 from the ST), it is how you act as one.
Hmm, lets see, I urge people to consider different perspectives, not to pre-judge without all the facts, to show empathy, to walk the walk (or at least try to imagine it) before talking the talk. Thats "kiddish" to you?
That just about says it all doesn't it?
[quote]
Anyway, i have already posted my view on it as well by others in the forum and another thing , I am not interested in debating with someone like you. End of story.
Fine by me, as I've said, its your call. -
Being a mod does not mean I have to treat anyone with kid gloves. I'd happily treat those who disagree with me with respect, but when someone doesn't show others (particularly those who died doing something not everyone can do) any respect, to the point of belittling their achievements and rudely questioning their intelligence, can they expect and demand me to show them the same respect?
Someone who is brave does not mean he is intelligent, likewise someone who is intelligent does not mean that he is brave.
I did not said that they are stupid but I did say that they have let emotion rule over their rationality.
When I said that they have awarded for their bravery not intelligence which is the fact becos the MOH is meant for action of bravery.
As for their achievement, they have show great bravery but did they actually achieve something tangible,like rescue a fellow soldier?
No, they did not and die for it in extreme circumtances, which is a sign of bravery, not for any tangible achievement, which is also a fact.
I know you admired the fallen soldiers, till the stage that you are emotional & can't even be objective, you can't even tell the difference between bravery and intelligence.
I just put them in perpectives, the snipers show great bravery in trying to rescue a fellow soldier, this does not mean that they show great intelligience, likewise I did not say they are stupid either just emotional.
As for achievement, did they achieve their goal of rescuing a fellow soldier? Only thing they achieved were showing great bravery. -
Think about it for a second, Shugart and Gordon were from the Delta. These guys are as professional as soldiers are going to get, more than head and shoulders than what many of us can ever aspire to be. They were both combat veterans, do you think that what they did is simple clear cut case of a rush of blood to the head?Originally posted by gary1910:Someone who is brave does not mean he is intelligent, likewise someone who is intelligent does not mean that he is brave.
I did not said that they are stupid but I did say that they have let emotion rule over their rationality.
When I said that they have awarded for their bravery not intelligence which is the fact becos the MOH is meant for action of bravery.
As for their achievement, they have show great bravery but did they actually achieve something tangible,like rescue a fellow soldier?
No, they did not and die for it in extreme circumtances, which is a sign of bravery, not for any tangible achievement, which is also a fact.
I know you admired the fallen soldiers, till the stage that you are emotional & can't even be objective, you can't even tell the difference between bravery and intelligence.
I just put them in perpectives, the snipers show great bravery in trying to rescue a fellow soldier, this does not mean that they show great intelligience, likewise I did not say they are stupid either just emotional.
As for achievement, did they achieve their goal of rescuing a fellow soldier? Only thing they achieved were showing great bravery.
The way I see it, they looked at the situation down below, saw 2, maybe four injured friendlies a few minutes away from a terrible death, and decided they would try to do something about it. They would have known that their chances were slim, but they decided to give it a go anyway. The way I see it, they took a calculated risk, and failed in this instance. Yet I would not go as far as to say that their mission was doomed to fail, nor that they were hasty, emotional or irrational about it.
I do admire their courage, but I've never gone as far as to say that they were right or wrong. This is due to the fact that I have considered the odds at hand, their psyche, the situation down below, their indoctrination, their confidence in their training, their judgement of the opposition. So your analysis of me being emotional is off the mark. I've already said that if one were to look purely at a military standpoint, going in was not the right thing to do. But when all other factors are considered, then the picture becomes a lot muddier and a less hasty judgement about the rights and wrongs is required.
As for their "tangible achievements" or lack thereof, as I've said before, its not an excuse for any military man to shirk his fellow soldiers in a time of need. They did not achieve their aim, but things could have quite easily turned out differently.
As for the MOH awarded to them, the US military does not hand them out for fun. The criteria for them to be handed out is very strict, and if there's any reasonable controversy about the decision, it would be downgraded to a lesser honour at the drop of a hat. To simply say that MOH is handed out for bravery not intelligence is simply not true, because if the brass regards what someone has done is brave but not too smart, they will give you something else, simple as that. The US military has no lack of lesser medals (as opposed to the MoH, not that these medals are easy to win themselves) to hand out if they feel that you have not displayed intelligence AND bravery (among others) to deserve a MOH.
Nice try at making it look like I'm the one who's notbeing objective before making a judgement, but you can't do that to me when I haven't made a judgement on their actions. All I've been doing throughout this thread is presenting alternate trains of thought to show why your judgement is wrong and premature.
As for whether you've called them stupid or hinted at that, heres the passage from you,
No panel will award them a medal for intelligence? Seems pretty clear cut what you meant with that remark.
And thingy abt the MOH, they are awarded for their bravery not their intelligence. I dun think any panel in the world will award them for that!!! -
im not sure wat you are toking abt Gary..Originally posted by gary1910:Someone who is brave does not mean he is intelligent, likewise someone who is intelligent does not mean that he is brave.
I did not said that they are stupid but I did say that they have let emotion rule over their rationality.
When I said that they have awarded for their bravery not intelligence which is the fact becos the MOH is meant for action of bravery.
As for their achievement, they have show great bravery but did they actually achieve something tangible,like rescue a fellow soldier?
No, they did not and die for it in extreme circumtances, which is a sign of bravery, not for any tangible achievement, which is also a fact.
I know you admired the fallen soldiers, till the stage that you are emotional & can't even be objective, you can't even tell the difference between bravery and intelligence.
I just put them in perpectives, the snipers show great bravery in trying to rescue a fellow soldier, this does not mean that they show great intelligience, likewise I did not say they are stupid either just emotional.
As for achievement, did they achieve their goal of rescuing a fellow soldier? Only thing they achieved were showing great bravery.
it is obviously in your older post..u meant what the 2 Delta have done is stupid..deeply insulting their honour..
pls go read the book for actual facts..
the fact that there is a slim chance of rescuing Durant..maybe 1%?
who knows..miracle might happen?
when the 2 Delta Snipers show up at Durant crash site..they were calm..as descibe by Durant..
the snipers knows wat they were doing..they believe in that chance..if not they wont be that calm..
if u think their death worth nothing..then thats your view..
for me i think their death show the greatest example of giving hope..
at least i know if im in a situation like Durant..there are people like Shughart n Gordan that wont leave me behind to die...will give me courage to survive...
its not abt intelligence...iQ can only get u that far...EQ get u further in life..
my ang moh not gd..dunno u understand anot.. -
No, I did not said that they are stupid.Originally posted by Viper52:No panel will award them something for intelligence? Seems pretty clear cut what you meant with that remark.
Why I say the above is simple, look at the entire thread so far , number of us did said that they should not be sent in, which I believe will also happen in any panel for intelligence based on this incident alone.
Becos if anyone from panel think that they let emotion to rule over rationality that I dun think they will be awarded right?
Another thing, this incident alone did not show whether they are intelligent or otherwise. -
Well said Nathan, an army has the reliability of it's soldiers as one of the most important factors to bank on to win a war. If soldiers feel that their commanders and comrades will sell them down the river because "theres not much chance of getting the soldier back alive", how does that army expect their soldiers to risk their lives to win the war?Originally posted by NathanG5:if u think their death worth nothing..then thats your view..
for me i think their death show the greatest example of giving hope..
at least i know if im in a situation like Durant..there are people like Shughart n Gordan that wont leave me behind to die...will give me courage to survive... -
Double post. System slow.
-
Again, a very narrow definition for judging what constitutes intelligence and what's not.Originally posted by gary1910:No, I did not said that they are stupid.
Why I say the above is simple, look at the entire thread so far , number of us did said that they should not be sent in, which I believe will also happen in any panel for intelligence based on this incident alone.
Becos if anyone from panel think that they let emotion to rule over rationality that I dun think they will be awarded right?
Another thing, this incident alone did not show whether they are intelligent or otherwise.
Of course not, real army generals who've in all likelihood seen combat did not think its was a case of emotion over rationality while considering other factors, while holdouts like you continue to insist it is while looking at that point of view alone.
Yes, the incident doesn't show it, so why did you bring in their intelligence in the first place?
Fact is, you're running out of points to support your view, and are now digressing and arguing semantics with me. -
I bring it up becos that the MOH is for bravery, as for intelligence , it was meant to be sarcastic toward you after your insulting posts!!!Originally posted by Viper52:Again, a very narrow definition for judging what constitutes intelligence and what's not.
Of course not, real army generals who've in all likelihood seen combat did not think its was a case of emotion over rationality while considering other factors, while holdouts like you continue to insist it is while looking at that point of view alone.
Yes, the incident doesn't show it, so why did you bring in their intelligence in the first place?
Fact is, you're running out of points to support your view, and are now digressing and arguing semantics with me.
I reiterate my point again, the snipers were emotional, not stupid but also not rational. -
To simply say that MOH is handed out for bravery not intelligence is simply not true, because if the brass regards what someone has done is brave but not too smart, they will give you something else, simple as that. The US military has no lack of lesser medals (as opposed to the MoH, not that these medals are easy to win themselves) to hand out if they feel that you have not displayed intelligence AND bravery (among others) to deserve a MOH.
Yes, the incident doesn't show it, so why did you bring in their intelligence in the first place?
Two contradictory posts from you in slightly more than half an hour, as I said abt you on this thread, emotional and certainly not objective.
Anyway, the actual criteria for MOH is as follow which both snipers truelly deserved and it has nothing to do with intelligent :"...service must have been performed in action as such conspicuous character to clearly distinguish the man for gallantry and intrepidity above his comrades--service that involved extreme jeopardy of life or the performance of extraordinary hazardous duty."
http://ngeorgia.com/history/mohm.html -
Hi Viper52,
Good to see that you did some reading up, your points on M14, M16 and their bullets are partly correct.
You are getting too workup, too emotional and unable to control your mouth. That is too unhealthly, so I will stop any further discussion on this topic.
Thank you. Have a nice day. -
Really? Lets look at your post in the full context then...Originally posted by gary1910:I bring it up becos that the MOH is for bravery, as for intelligence , it was meant to be sarcastic toward you after your insulting posts!!!
Originally posted by gary1910
Yes we know gary, you're clinging on stubbornly to your biased, judgemental views based on part facts part assertions, despite evidence and facts to the contrary and despite having all the assertions you've made having been debunked by others.
And thingy abt the MOH, they are awarded for their bravery not their intelligence. I dun think any panel in the world will award them for that!!! Maybe we should have the "Intelligence"; awarded to you?!?
[/quote]
Sure looks to me like you took a cheap shot at the snipers first, then took one at me while you're at it. Certainly not the other way round like you claimed.[quote]
I reiterate my point again, the snipers were emotional, not stupid but also not rational.
The posts in the past 4 pages bear it out, you've made your assertions, they have been chewed over, debunked, rebutted over and over again while you've ignored our points while continually making the same assertions. -
Nice try gary, but I'll stick to the topic and not digress into the nuances of the English language, thank you.Originally posted by gary1910:Two contradictory posts from you in slightly more than half an hour, as I said abt you on this thread, emotional and certainly not objective.
As for being "emotional and certainly not objective.", what do you call your rushing to judge without all the facts, refusing to consider them when others gave you those facts, lashing out and making personal attacks when others attacked your points, ignoring others points and then claiming they did it to you when they've already addressed your points? -
Say whatever you want, the point is , I am not the only to hold that view in this forum , many more. Nothing you have say so far has change that.Originally posted by Viper52:Yes we know gary, you're clinging on stubbornly to your biased, judgemental views based on part facts part assertions, despite evidence and facts to the contrary and despite having all the assertions you've made having been debunked by others.
The posts in the past 4 pages bear it out, you've made your assertions, they have been chewed over, debunked, rebutted over and over again while you've ignored our points while continually making the same assertions.
As for the "smearing" the good name of the two snipers,
, I am just been objective and putting the incident into perpective.
You instead when bonkers and take it out of context and became emotional, which is very obvious in your postings here.
I think I will take the advice of storywolf and stop debating with someone who are emotional and even irrational. This will be the last post from me on this and have a good day.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:Hi Viper52,
Good to see that you did some reading up, your points on M14, M16 and their bullets are partly correct.
Oh my, thats just so funny storywolf! I almost fell out of my chair, laughing so hard.
Lets see now, you first said
"They are totally unequip for gun fight with mobs ! Their main weapon is mount with a 10x or at least 8x scope, which is tune to shoot at 600m to 700m, at the crash site with mob so near, that rifle is almost useless."
to which I replied
"Shugart was known to be armed with an M14 semi-automatic rifle. Reading through the book, it is doubtful if M16 variants would be more useful in their situation, as there were much dissatisfaction with the ammo used in the battle, since it was designed to defeat body armour and the mobs didn't use any, there were several occasions when the Rangers and Deltas found that their 5.56s went right through without doing much damage and each target required several rounds before being stopped for good. Hardly something you'd want to in the snipers' position."
effectively rebutting your initial claim about how useful their rifles were in their situation AND at the same time rebutting your claim that they should have used M-16 variants.
Then you come up with the post above, making it as if I've made the mistake and you corrected me and telling me to do my research! That is just so rich!
I've done my reading up on the M14 vs M16, 7.62 NATO vs 5.56 NATO since I was in primary school, thank you.
Nice try at salvaging your pride by rewriting events after you've been caught making mistakes in your post, but I'm not buying
Now now, lets take another trip down memory lane shall we?
You are getting too workup, too emotional and unable to control your mouth.
You said "Calling other people "armchair critics" or names is not going to change that, it will only serve to reflect on their own character. "
Oh...don't worry, I'm pretty cool, at least I'm not lashing out randomly after being backed into a corner with regards to my standpoint.
Maybe you should take your own advice regarding calling others names, eh?
You have a nice day too! With your post, you sure made mine a nice one! -
Originally posted by gary1910:Say whatever you want, the point is , I am not the only to hold that view in this forum , many more. Nothing you have say so far has change that.
As for the "smearing" the good name of the two snipers, , I am just been objective and putting the incident into perpective.
You instead when bonkers and take it out of context and became emotional, which is very obvious in your postings here.
I think I will take the advice of storywolf and stop debating with someone who are emotional and even irrational. This will be the last post from me on this and have a good day. Suit yourself gary, as I've said, I'll quit when you do, and I'm game to go on if you do.
But then, its not like its "Me against everyone else" here is it? And other than storywolf, who among your "supporters" stubbornly dug and clung on to their views in like you did when presented with points to the contrary?
Anyway, you have a good day too!
-
Of course, Gary is saying all this because he has 20/20 hindsight right now. I wonder what he would think if he was right there, right then in that Blackhawk with them as they mulled the issue.
I seriously doubt they were highly emotional soldiers who would throw themselves over a grenade to save a comrade, there were plenty of factors why their action failed. If you did read the book, the ground convoy almost reached the second downed bird (Gordon's), but due to the fog of war and the situtation, they made the error of turning away for the first crash, which was much further away. Who knows what might have happened if they decided to reach the second bird?
There was plenty of stuff that was happening right there and right then, and their choice can hardly be distilled down to sucidal and unintelligent emotionism. I propose that they were more unfortunate then unintelligent, for if any of a number of hinge factors did tip their way, they would have easily survived the encounter, but they didn't quite happen that way. A large part of war is about luck and chaos theory as well.
Emotion? I doubt it. But I would certainly feel good fighting with an army with a motto of "Leave No Man Behind" instead of "Make The Intelligent Choice". -
Say gary, if you don't want to debate with me, why not try it with the other posts contrary to your judgement? God knows theres no lack of them from other posters on this thread, or have you conveniently ignored them as well, like you have when it comes to considering other perspectives?
-
Viper52, even a M14 7.62 bullet cannot penerate your super thick skin, think SAF can consider using your skin to build our next main battle tank.
Understand what is "partly correct" ?. You only got the fact of the stopping power of the 7.62 round correct. You missed too many things and facts that will tell you that M14 in that situation is not as suitable as a M16 varients. That is why I say you did "some reading up" that is not a praise but in opposite telling you to read more !
Add a dictionary to your reading list, it will help you understand the meaning of "partly correct" or "some". -
Sigh...still not taking your own advice about name-calling eh storywolf? As I've said, sticks and stones my friend...Originally posted by storywolf:Viper52, even a M14 7.62 bullet cannot penerate your super thick skin, think SAF can consider using your skin to build our next main battle tank.
Understand what is "partly correct" ?. You only got the fact of the stopping power of the 7.62 round correct. You missed too many things and facts that will tell you that M14 in that situation is not as suitable as a M16 varients. That is why I say you did "some reading up" that is not a praise but in opposite telling you to read more !
Add a dictionary to your reading list, it will help you understand the meaning of "partly correct" or "some".
Remember, the owner of this forum, CenturionMBT has already told us to play nice. Listen to him, if not yourself will ya?
Ok then, lets hear it straight from you. In that particular situation when the snipers and wounded aircrew were facing the mob, what about the M-16 and it's ammo that is so much more important than the M14/7.62x51's better ability to take down your target permanently with minimal fuss, first time round? -
Viper52,
Your argument of the 5.56mm round is not valid, your arguement of 7.62 for normal combat distance is better, is not correct by the fact that china and russia have both gone to lighter rounds too.
M14 problem is basically very simple - weight and length. The situation is no longer 1 shoot 1 kill. Quick action and fast shooting is the ground situation. The shooter is no longer shooting in prone position, he is constantly moving and firing on move, M14 is heavy with heavy rounds and heavy scope, slower to bring it to position, aim, fire, maintain aim is hard and stronger recoil does not help. The scope is useless, at that distance, and is out of focus all the time. You may have the best round in the world, but not able to shoot it out in time, slow down your movement work against you. If heavy round to ensure totally kill is more important than that, may as well everyone use RPG !
If you are the shooter, you want something lighter and shorter, so easier to move, and less obstacles. What you want is a rifle that is a M4 that can bring in position faster, easiler to aim,shoot and more accurate. More rounds can be carried. Auto or 3 burst mode may come in handly if the mob charges. The 5.56mm in a M4 in a capable hand is more then enough do the job. -
i think u make a mistake here..Originally posted by storywolf:Viper52,
Your argument of the 5.56mm round is not valid, your arguement of 7.62 for normal combat distance is better, is not correct by the fact that china and russia have both gone to lighter rounds too.
M14 problem is basically very simple - weight and length. The situation is no longer 1 shoot 1 kill. Quick action and fast shooting is the ground situation. The shooter is no longer shooting in prone position, he is constantly moving and firing on move, M14 is heavy with heavy rounds and heavy scope, slower to bring it to position, aim, fire, maintain aim is hard and stronger recoil does not help. The scope is useless, at that distance, and is out of focus all the time. You may have the best round in the world, but not able to shoot it out in time, slow down your movement work against you. If heavy round to ensure totally kill is more important than that, may as well everyone use RPG !
If you are the shooter, you want something lighter and shorter, so easier to move, and less obstacles. What you want is a rifle that is a M4 that can bring in position faster, easiler to aim,shoot and more accurate. More rounds can be carried. Auto or 3 burst mode may come in handly if the mob charges. The 5.56mm in a M4 in a capable hand is more then enough do the job.
if u have read the book..not watch the movie..the 5.56 round use by the Ranger have difficulties taking down the skinnies...the round simple went thru the body not making much damage..it didnt even have the distinct small hole in big hole out wound..
it took a few shot to take down the enemies..
the 7.62 rounds use by the Delta Sniper are much effective..not matter which way or how it went thru the enemies it pack a punch..the damage done..n it still maintain the big hole in bigger hole out..
i guess u have not read the book yet? -
storywolf, my argument is not based on the 5.56mm round as a whole, but the armour-piercing rounds issued to Task Force Ranger in Somalia. Read my initial statement again carefully:Originally posted by storywolf:Viper52,
Your argument of the 5.56mm round is not valid, your arguement of 7.62 for normal combat distance is better, is not correct by the fact that china and russia have both gone to lighter rounds too.
M14 problem is basically very simple - weight and length. The situation is no longer 1 shoot 1 kill. Quick action and fast shooting is the ground situation. The shooter is no longer shooting in prone position, he is constantly moving and firing on move, M14 is heavy with heavy rounds and heavy scope, slower to bring it to position, aim, fire, maintain aim is hard and stronger recoil does not help. The scope is useless, at that distance, and is out of focus all the time. You may have the best round in the world, but not able to shoot it out in time, slow down your movement work against you. If heavy round to ensure totally kill is more important than that, may as well everyone use RPG !
If you are the shooter, you want something lighter and shorter, so easier to move, and less obstacles. What you want is a rifle that is a M4 that can bring in position faster, easiler to aim,shoot and more accurate. More rounds can be carried. Auto or 3 burst mode may come in handly if the mob charges. The 5.56mm in a M4 in a capable hand is more then enough do the job.
As Nathan has said, the book Black Hawk down had several references to how several rounds were needed to stop each Somali. And also several references to how targets hit by a round continued running or picked themselves up under their own steam. More tellingly, at least one veteran of Mogadishu interviewed by Mark Bowden recalled how he felt stupid for mocking Randy Shugart for carrying the antique rifle before the mission, and wishing he had the M-14 and its 7.62mm stopping power after seeing the Somalis he had hit with the 5.56mm pick themselves up or simply continue running.
Reading through the book, it is doubtful if M16 variants would be more useful in their situation, as there were much dissatisfaction with the ammo used in the battle, since it was designed to defeat body armour and the mobs didn't use any, there were several occasions when the Rangers and Deltas found that their 5.56s went right through without doing much damage and each target required several rounds before being stopped for good.
Theres no need for the scope, the M-14 is not a dedicated sniper's rifle, it has effective, built in iron sights.
If I was a shooter in a real battle, especially when the numbers are stacked against me, I would want a rifle/ammo which is the most effective at stopping the enemy when I hit him, instead of having to worry about him picking himself up and continue shooting even after being shot by me. Anything else, weight/auto fire etc etc are honestly, secondary concerns in such a situation. Especially if I'm a Causasian Delta trained SpecOps operator.
Go read the book, as well as In the Company of Heroes by Michael Durant. It'll change a lot of the perspectives on the battle that dervied from just purely watching the Hollywood movie. Really.
As someone has mentioned on the recent SAR21 thread, the 5.56mm is on it's way out too, and is being replaced by the 6.8mm rounds, albeit slowly. -
Viper52,
you left out the important point "armour-piercing" rounds from the start of your posting. If you put "not suitable bullets" to a M16, you cannot use that case to say my point that M16 is more suitable in that situation.
If normal 5.56 round are put in, the for distances below 300m, the 5.56's velocity make up for its short coming of the 7.62. So in a way it is still as capable a round to take down anyone. The only problem is for further distance, then, the 5.56 is disadvantage.
By the way, I don't memorized or put too much faith in facts on rifles and bullets from novels from pilot and journalist.