U.N. Armament

[CorPse]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I must admit to finding that hard to believe.

It is hard to stage a military coup without the support of the military. Anyone who has real experience in US forces knows the US military are not about to support a military coup. Robert Heinlein (who was a professional Naval Officer in the early 30's, before he got sick and was medically retired) also ageed with that, so it was apparently true in the time period under discussion by Butler.

Plus, in the 1930's I believe the National Guard far outnumbered the regular military. And America is an armed society. So I find it highly unlikely that a coup could have worked.

Of course, the "backers" may not have realized that.

 

Well, it's kind of scary that a handful of very rich folks that it was even a possibility. Contrary to popular belief, people usually get rich because they are clever and damn persistent. What does it mean that a group like this thought it could happen?

[cutsleeve]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Originally Posted by Mestopheles

I'm a veteran, I've seen the things MG (ret.) Smedley refers to, and I've also seen people I care about die in combat, as I'm certain he has. I’m not going to say I’m more qualified to comment that him, but I feel it’s presumptuous for you to say he’s more qualified than me. Barring lack of experience, any person has a right to give their opinion and has equal likelihood to strike an issue in a meaningful manner. Maybe you made the “someone more qualified to speak on the subject…” comment defensively, since you seemed to take my criticism as being directed at your comments, not Smedley’s, but nevertheless I don’t presume to know your background and qualifications.

 

Originally Posted by telemachus

No, it is not presumptuous of me, sir. Smedley Butler was a decorated war hero with more than 30 years experience in at least five US military excursions, wrote a book seventy years ago that is still in print, had a Marine base named in his honor, and topical discussions about the man taking place 67 years after his death.

 

And you are...?

 

Hes a veteran the same as Butler, both have fought the battles we asked of them. War is a soldiers natural enemy, it takes the best of every generation indiscriminately. However there is an equality in war that you don't find in civilian life, every man who fights is equal in their determination to survive and also equal in their desire to be good men. Every enemy you face is also trying his best to live and be a good man. A soldier doesn't have to fight, theres nothing that can make them, and no superior authority that can compell them except their own desire to do so. The reason that they choose to do it is often because somewhere inside they want to be good people. They defend those who for whatever reason can't defend themselves. In this act of defense there is no one man who is greater then another only those who fight and those who don't.

 

Any predisposition you have for saying that Major General Butler is more qualified to speak for his fellow soldiers, or about the greed of men, ignores the fact that they are both veterans. Its bad when someone says "the blood you spilled on the battlefield is not equal to the blood I spilled." That is presumption at its worst.

[Toadmaster]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Well modern ammo makes a little less residue, you should still clean your weapon because some firearms becoming finnicky if they aren't cleaned after so many rounds.

 

The ak-47 gets around this by having such loose tolerances that you could probably chamber a sea cucumber in it and still get it to fire. This tends to make it a very inaccurate weapon over long ranges and this compounded with the 7.62x39's horrendous drop rate means its feasible shooting distance is less.

 

The m16 reverses all of these qualities but sacrifices some reliability especially in dirty environments due to its close tolerances. The design of the 5.56 round makes it a very accurate bullet but it again sacrifices power for accuracy.

 

Amazingly alot of nations keep older weapons for emergancy distribution. They still occasionally hand them out to normal soldiers. We do the same in the US, believe it or not we still have m14's, m1 garands, thompson submachine guns, springfields, and 191a1's still in arsenals. I remember hearing that some of the artillery men in desert storm got grease guns issued to them. A good sight to go to is http://world.gus.ru If it will load. this site has listings for guns used in various countries.

 

 

The Colt Government Model (M1911A1) is a perfect example of what you are saying, the uber accurate "race guns" used in competition have very tight tolerances which makes them accurate but much more sensative to dirt, on the other extreme you have the M1911A1, tolerances so loose some guns rattle when shaken, but they will keep firing after being submerged in mud, dumped in the sand etc. Same gun but one extreme is super accurate the other has legendary reliability.

 

 

Regarding old guns my understanding is the WW2 era M3 "Greasegun" was used to arm US armor crews well into the 80's. It wouldn't surprise me to find out National Guard crews still had them in the 90's.

 

The Navy still had M14's in ship armories long after the Army switched to M16's, who knows they may still have them (any Navy people here?).

[cutsleeve]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

the best way to know what weapons armies around the world are using is to do a google search for images and video from the most current conflicts involving your target country. Also ask someone in the army. Just dont say "I'm doing research for an rpg" it just sounds pathetic.

 

Oh and just to note the link i provided was misspelled its fixed now and the site is back up.

[Mestopheles]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Well' date=' lucky for the rest of us there are people in the world, whether civilian or soldier, who have the guts to speak their mind.[/quote']

I'm a person in the world (soldier) that had the "guts to speak my mind" and you take offense. Is it only "lucky for us" if those people submit views that support your beliefs?

Believe it or not' date=' there are soldiers out there who think their sense of responsibility goes to more than just that of the military. [/quote']

Unless I'm misreading your tone here what you're saying here is that I have a misguided sense of responsibility. If I'm right, I'd like to offer you a chance to outline what you've sacrificed for the people, ideals, and perspectives you are implying that I neglect. I know what I've done, where I've been, and what I've lost. I know what my responsibilities are to my fellow man and I have absolutely zero doubt that I'm "caught up" on social responsibility.

You have completely missed the point. Butler wasn't speaking out against soldiers (since' date=' y'know, he [i']was one[/i]), he was speaking out against the people who run the military (like, oh I don't know, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney) who thrust those soldiers into a conflict solely for the benefit of turning a profit.

I didn't say he was "speaking out against soldiers"... what I meant here was the things you choose to address say things about what you view as "second best". If you are in a car wreck and your wife dies and you constantly talk about the cost of replacing the car, people will assume you don't miss your wife (or don't miss her much). Similarly, complaining about profiteering while soldiers are dying fails to highlight their noble sacrifice by spotlighting the financial aspect of the problem. I didn't accuse him of attacking soldiers, only of exhibiting what was (in my opinion) bad taste by choosing what to complain about.

 

No' date=' it is not presumptuous of me, sir. Smedley Butler was a decorated war hero with more than 30 years experience in at least five US military excursions, wrote a book seventy years ago that is still in print, had a [i']Marine base[/i] named in his honor, and topical discussions about the man taking place 67 years after his death.

 

And you are...?

If you don't know who I am, then you don't know my qualifications. If you don't know my qualifications, then you presume (that's the root of the word presumptious, FYI) to know my qualifications but can't base your statements on facts (since they're unavailable). Basing statements on presumptions not supported by fact is the practice that created the need for the word presumptuous in the first place.

 

Here- let me explain it another way...

pre•sume

–verb (used with object)

1. to take for granted, assume, or suppose: "I presume you're tired after your drive."

 

pre•sump•tu•ous

–adjective

1. full of, characterized by, or showing presumption or readiness to presume in conduct or thought.

In other words, if you draw a conclusion based on your opinions or previous experience rather than empirical data it can be said you presume. The most common adjective to describe one who presumes is presumptuous.

Ergo, if you:

A) Don't know,

Admit you don't know,

C) Form an opinion anyway:

you have made a presumption. It's a word whose purpose it is to describe those actions.

If you

D) share this opinion with others,

some of them may describe this as presumptuous. Most actions (verbs) have a modified form to describe a tendancy toward that action or an instance of committing that action (adjective).

So- in English, using the Rules As Written, this is going to have to fall under "presumptuous". Sorry.

Don't worry though, there is hope! If you aren't comfortable being described as presumptuous, do a quick check before you post and verify you haven't followed these steps. That way, if someone calls you presumptuous, you can show them the dictionary and prove that they chose an inappropriate word.

Nice try. No' date=' I wasn't "offended" and, no, I didn't "lash out" at you. I made a simple statement of fact, nothing more nor less.[/quote']

I'm not sure what I was "trying" other than to appologize in my last post. Also, when discussing politics, anything you (or anyone) view as a "simple statement of fact" is subject to interpretation. If you bring up complex issues like this, some people will disagree with you and you're going to have to learn to live with that. If you usually have no problem dealing with this and it's just my statements that bother you, I suggest you ignore me; it's likely the sun will come up in the morning whether we agree or not.

This time' date=' however, you were completely offensive on a number of levels. You can consider my utter disgust [u']this[/u] time as "lashing out", if you like.

I'll try to sleep tonight knowing I've disgusted you.

Oh' date=' and apology accepted. [/quote']

Childish.

[st barbara]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I wouldn't be quite so sure, my fellow American. For a look behind the curtain, you should really consider reading this-

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

 

and for more on the guy who wrote it-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

I actually own a copy of that book (more like a pamphlet, it's only about 70 pages !) Fascinating character, just perfect as an NPC in a "Pulp Hero" game !