Human rights ( in military)

Asskicker. Would it break three bones, twist an ankle and slaughter six goats to spell "what"?

but back on topic.
China's record is very poor, but worst of all, it's always covered up.
 
well, if u look from 5000 years of history,
it is nothing to kill a few students in Tiananmen

but if u look at the past 200 years of history, i have to say Chinese government is kind of crapy, but there is a reason to cover it up, not because we r just bunch of SOBs, but cuz we dont want any unrest in our own country, a 1.3 billion ppl one,
perhaps in the future, there will be less and less cover up (i can see the improvments now)

but again, every country is not that good, U.S is not that pure either,
 
Well... the last 50 years is what's important I think. More so the last 30 years.
If you go back to pre-World War II, only some things are important but the world's changed so much it's hardly relevent anymore
 
agree,
but 50 years is really a small phase in the whole history right?

china is changing now, for ex, the new leaders first time admit their mistkaees to cover up SARS, very brave to risk the unrest in china,
 
It's a small phase in history from the start but it's VERY important if you consider the world today.
Usually the further back you go, the less it has directly to do with our current situations. And even then, probably those involved aren't even around anymore. Like the Ottomans. lol
 
well..i love ottomans, they greatly influcenced the world in the past and prehaps today

the best ex, is roman empire, their government structure stil influences today
 
Yeah, but if we're dealing with specific incidents in the present, the Roman Empire may have something to do with it, but hardly provides anything close to a solution or the immidiate cause of it.
 
China today is in a time of transition,
there is a sort of cycle in the politic of china
from centralization to decentralization,from war to unifiction stuff

china has just been unified, it needs more time to get stronger and freer
 
exactly, and changes has to be done with ease and cant be too fast: look at russia..... a sad case indeed....

Um.,.. ive heard of american antitank troop using LAW on infantry...
 
id perfer sniper, its quick and painless

the americans need to show sympathy for their enemy, cmon, ive seen worse things: napalm in action aginist infantry, the effects of cluster bombs on columns, the use of uranium shells, tanks vs infantry only

i think napalm should be banned, have u guy sseem the movie: we were soldiers
 
Yes I have seen that movie.

The US has used TONS of snipers in Iraq, you can't always get a bead on a guy when he retracts into a building. Also, I thought napalm was already banned, I didn't know the US still used it....???
 
Precision said:
the americans need to show sympathy for their enemy, cmon, ive seen worse things: napalm in action aginist infantry, the effects of cluster bombs on columns, the use of uranium shells, tanks vs infantry only
Click to expand...


When have you seen any of this?
And about your point, why don't we just not train our troops at all and give them outdated and faulty equipment, just to make sure they don't have an unfair advantage over the enemy?
 
Last night I watch a show about the setting up of the frist Tibet soccer team. It was coached by a Denmark man in next to nothing conditions with no respect from people and cows all ver the non exsitent pitch.

But you had to admire the want of the players. It was arranged that they would play Greenland in also thier frist international soccer match in Denmark. But there was nothing but hassel for the players in trying to get visas to travel for India.

Then when they got to Denmark the whole match was in dought when the Chinese goverment would not let the match go ahead because the claimed that Tibet is still apart of China and could not play under a Tibet flag.

This was awful for two nations that never had a international team before
 
Precision said:
id perfer sniper, its quick and painless

the americans need to show sympathy for their enemy, cmon, ive seen worse things: napalm in action aginist infantry, the effects of cluster bombs on columns, the use of uranium shells, tanks vs infantry only

i think napalm should be banned, have u guy sseem the movie: we were soldiers
Click to expand...


Snipers cannot stem an attack of a massed enemy force, period. Naplam. CBU'S, artillery can. That is why they are used.

LAAW's are used against Infantry in hardened positions bunkers etc. To use a LAAW against infantry in the open would have very little effect. Why because the LAAW contains a shape charge designed to punch thru barriers. It ain't a big grenade.

Depleted Uranium rounds for Tank Main guns and AFV 25MM OR 30MM guns and in aircraft guns. I'm all anything that takes the badguys armor assets out of action and keeps them from rolling up my position.

More Sympathy for the enemy? Will they display sympathy for me?
Doubtful.

I would not give up one thing that might save the life of a United States Service member. Just to make the rest of the world feel warm and fuzzy.

As Gen G.S. Patton said.
"No one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won the war by making the other poor SOB die for his!"
 
Depleted Uranium rounds for Tank Main guns and AFV 25MM OR 30MM guns and in aircraft guns. I'm all anything that takes the badguys armor assets out of action and keeps them from rolling up my position.
Click to expand...

Well certainly.

id perfer sniper, its quick and painless

the americans need to show sympathy for their enemy, cmon, ive seen worse things: napalm in action aginist infantry, the effects of cluster bombs on columns, the use of uranium shells, tanks vs infantry only

i think napalm should be banned, have u guy sseem the movie: we were soldiers
Click to expand...

Snipers are the most terrifying thing yet I can tell you. It's like an instant Snap! and you and other guys look for cover in terror. SNipers are more worst psychologicaly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top