Apache Heli unloads on insurgents - night vision
- Thread starter Jimmy_Pop
- Start date
Jimmy_Pop said:
Is this an oldie..???
i have no idea.N8 said:
It is. I remember seeing it around the start of the war.N8 said:
I'd like to have one of those on my Subaru. Drive slow in the left lane will ya!golgiaparatus said:
Watching that made me sick to my stomach...literally. 
i already have one. you gotta have a Yakima Rack, here i'll pm you the specs...Westy said:
I prefer the handlebar mount.
hmmm for them dusty rides, it'd be a great way to get to the front of the pack.johnbryanpeters said:
sheez, those guys didn't know what hit them!!!!
Don't mess with the apache!!!!
Don't mess with the apache!!!!
Same here, it might be different if they had weapons and were using them. Wouldn;t it be great if they did that in the US if someone has a gun they get shot because they may use it in the futur. This world makes me sickMcGRP01 said:Watching that made me sick to my stomach...literally.
gotta love air superiority 
That was an Apache from the 101st airborne outside of An Najaf. A reaction force was went out to investigate after it was over and an RPG 7 was found along with 3 AK47s.
WOW yeah geeezzz thats some huge weaponry. I;m really glad they killed those guys. They could have done soooooo much with 3 ak47 and an rpg. Really wow I have to hand it to the 101st airborne, they really are doing a great job at protecting the world from those Iraqis.genpowell71 said:
what morons I honestly wouldn;t be to sad if some iraqis shot down the apache. :nuts:
JMAC said:WOW yeah geeezzz thats some huge weaponry. I;m really glad they killed those guys. They could have done soooooo much with 3 ak47 and an rpg. Really wow I have to hand it to the 101st airborne, they really are doing a great job at protecting the world from those Iraqis.
You're a moron. An rpg-7 is an anti-tank weapon very capable of downing a helicopter or blowing up a humvee. What do you think they were going to do it with it? Maybe hunt some water buffalo?
3 AKs and a RPG vs. Apache (aka Whispering Death - I think that was what they called it on the Discovery channel), kinda lob-sided? Why do I get the visual of killing a fly w/ a bazooka? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for an eye for an eye. Those chicken$hit beheading bastards, I'd say cut off their little head and make them eat it, then strap them w/ a grenade in their a-holes and send them to their own HQ. Have any of you seen those beheading footage; how in the blue blazes do you do that to another human being who's done nothing to hurt anyone, or worst yet, who's helped your nation's sick and poor?
Edit: Ok, maybe the fly had a HUGE stinger. But a handheld vs. a chassis built specifically for death...hummm. I'm not on the page of excessive and extreme superior fire power even tho there's less chance of US casualties. Hell, if that's the logic, let's pull everyone from the US out and just nuke the place. It's clean, very excessive, and very final for the next 10K years.
Edit: Ok, maybe the fly had a HUGE stinger. But a handheld vs. a chassis built specifically for death...hummm. I'm not on the page of excessive and extreme superior fire power even tho there's less chance of US casualties. Hell, if that's the logic, let's pull everyone from the US out and just nuke the place. It's clean, very excessive, and very final for the next 10K years.
You might be mistaken in the conflict the US is in. I think camels might be a better choice of animals in this instance.Wumpus said:
So you want American soldiers to get killed while their fighting for that right of yours to bash them whenever you want? Why dont you come on down to Fort Benning and say that to my face.JMAC said:WOW yeah geeezzz thats some huge weaponry. I;m really glad they killed those guys. They could have done soooooo much with 3 ak47 and an rpg. Really wow I have to hand it to the 101st airborne, they really are doing a great job at protecting the world from those Iraqis.
that would be pretty f'd up if it were your job to fly one of those & shoot up insurgents all night. That has to seriously affect ones psyche.
It's war. It's not pretty, it's not polite, and it's not neat. You don't fight fair, this isn't a boxing match. People are dying. You get the luxury of criticizing because you are thousands of kilometers away and someone else is doing the job for you. These people were soldiers, trained to kill the enemy- which is us this time around. Do you really think that we should not kill people if it isn't "fair" for them? Should our scout/snipers not drop mortar crews and artillery spotters because they aren't giving the enemy enough of a chance? Grow up kid, this is war. It's about winning and survival, not making a good impression.
who are you talking (typing) too?jon cross said:
JMAC, I should have mentioned this. I agree that this kind of thing would weigh on the conscience of those flying the missions, but they are saving the lives of the troops on the ground. This is a war, it is violent and killing is necessary, the naivete of those who arrogantly assume otherwise is growing frustrating.
It definitely takes a different breed. Although it seems most people here are pretty desensitized to this kind of footage, so it may be easier than i thinkjon cross said:
.How much death does the average nightly news report tell about in one day? I counted 7 articles that included someone dying. And 2 of them were multiple murders. So I think that we as a country are starting to be desensitized to the whole thing.
kill your TV.
Well you're the moron here, water buffalos live in Africa not Iraq :eviltongu and your right if it was a fight between an rpg-7, 3 ak47s vs. and apache than sure I'm all for it. The fact is the poor guy ran of the road and through the RPG on the ground. he than ran back. He didn;t pick it up and take aim at teh apache, nor did they fire a single round from the aks. Soooo you're basically you're almost as much of a moron as those apache pilots. :evil:Wumpus said:
I'm so with you on this one. There's such a lack of critical thinking in the US it's beyond sad. This moron of a president lied to the general public, used the religious-right to get his ass back in office so he could have daddy go over there and reap the rewards of this crime. The search for WMD has officially been called off and they found nothing, and yet this asshat of a pres has yet to issue a formal apology for the invasion of a once sovereign nation. Yeah yeah yeah, Sadam was a prick; he murdered his own, and did this and that. But did the western nations have the right to go over there and impose our Judeo Christian values and believes on those in the Middle East? Pakistan (spelling?), ok, I'll give you that one. Hell I'm 100% behind this nation on that one, but Iraq? For those of you who believe we have a right to be in Iraq, get a grip and do some research. Read up on both side of the argument and come back and tell me there's a good reason why we should be over there. And if you come at me, take out those of your arguments that contain religious values/morals and try again. You won't have a ground to stand on. This country was built on the belief of freedoms, and this included religion. Yet, when push comes to shove, when someone else has a differing set of values due to religion and is acting on those beliefs, we lie to ourselves (by saying theyre developing WMDs) and go ahead and bomb said nation back into the Stone Age. What the f**k kind of bull$hit hypocrisy is this nation showing the world!JMAC said:
You know, Bush was such a joke of a pres until 9/11 happened. I mean think about it, the reading and speaking ability of a 12 year old and the grace to choking on a pretzel almost killing himself 9/11 would have made him one of the most prominent US President in history, much like what WWII did for FDR. Yet, because of HIS stupidity, yes stupidity, he is now the MOST HATED pres WORLDWIDE, EVER in the history of the US. If were truly a democratic nation, shouldnt the voice of the rest of the world be heard? Why? Well, because this nation has its moral values extended in its policing actions in every corner of the world. Is Jack in Jill in the middle of the Corn Belt accurately informed on what this moron is doing to the rest of the world or are they fed a filtered, morally digestible propaganda that meets their religious requirements? I mean, CHRIST, open your eyes!
Ok, sorry about that. Rant over. Have a good weekend.
Maybe you should do your homework before you start spouting off.JMAC said:
http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/djligda/wbiraq.htm
Sooo... you're still a tard lol. The only water buffalo in Iraq are domestic aka not wild. So your an idiot because you can have any kind of animal all over the world domestic that is. Please don;t try and act like I don;t know anything about wildlife....my dad is one of the top marine biologists in the world and my mom is an envriomentalist who works all over the world...both have lifed in Africa where water buffalo are wild. :nuts:Wumpus said:
It's not so much having a conscience because the things I'd like to do to those beheading bastards....JMAC said:
It' more like the ability think outside the box and judging for yourself what is true and isn't. To me, there's nothing legit about this administration. I mean, just look at the Pell student aid deal. Promised during election: $5K+, actual after the election: $4.5k+. Ok, ok, it's only $500.00/year, but this is status quo for this tardo asshat of a pres.
Sorry, didn't mean to get started again.
Jimmy_Pop said:
amazing how? it is not a video game sparky
The military isn't the police. It's amazing that they had to wait as long as they did, asking permission, and took as much care as they did before engaging. Their job is to find the enemy and kill them with all available means.
There's no apologizing for using 30mm against individual people. There is, in fact, nothing in the Geneva convention or any military doctrine against it. You can "legally" (and I use the term with some irony) attack any amount of enemy troops with any and all weapons, from a taser to a fuel-air explosive bomb. Geneva readily defines war as killing and weapons as the tools which accomplish this.
"Banned" weapons (poison and glass fragmentation weapons are mentioned specifically) are banned because their purpose is not just to kill, but specifically to cause suffering aside from or in lieu of killing. Glass fragments, for example, were devised so as to be more difficult to locate with x-rays during medical treatment. It is sort of an absurd thing to try and adjuticate, but in the shadow of WWI, it's not hard to understand why they tried.
So yeah, it was hitting a housefly with a sledgehammer in the video...and that's what the military is trained to do. The only "issue" for the US is the economics of it...several helicopters in the air, burning expensive fuel and ammo, just to take out some small arms and 3 insurgents. But hey, we've got the tech, and perhaps this kind of thing (attack without warning from the sky if you're simply carrying weapons) will have a great psychological impact (though I really doubt it.)
It's interesting, though, to watch the video and how the "deal" went down...I assume they were selling weapons, and they were prepared for ground troops or police by dropping the weapon far enough from the site of the deal that they could claim ignorance of its existence if they were suprised before the deal was concluded. Little did they know...
However, this type of footage is dangerous to the US, like most 'tech' footage, in that people think we can win conflicts like this with our superior technology. We can't. Tech is window-dressing for the kinds of wars that Americans don't like to think about, and low-intensity conflict is won with the same types of weapons the Iraqis have.
But gawd, do Americans love to watch things blowing up in FLIR sights from the comfort of their living room and/or computer at work, and feel smug about how baaaaad-ass we are.
MD
There's no apologizing for using 30mm against individual people. There is, in fact, nothing in the Geneva convention or any military doctrine against it. You can "legally" (and I use the term with some irony) attack any amount of enemy troops with any and all weapons, from a taser to a fuel-air explosive bomb. Geneva readily defines war as killing and weapons as the tools which accomplish this.
"Banned" weapons (poison and glass fragmentation weapons are mentioned specifically) are banned because their purpose is not just to kill, but specifically to cause suffering aside from or in lieu of killing. Glass fragments, for example, were devised so as to be more difficult to locate with x-rays during medical treatment. It is sort of an absurd thing to try and adjuticate, but in the shadow of WWI, it's not hard to understand why they tried.
So yeah, it was hitting a housefly with a sledgehammer in the video...and that's what the military is trained to do. The only "issue" for the US is the economics of it...several helicopters in the air, burning expensive fuel and ammo, just to take out some small arms and 3 insurgents. But hey, we've got the tech, and perhaps this kind of thing (attack without warning from the sky if you're simply carrying weapons) will have a great psychological impact (though I really doubt it.)
It's interesting, though, to watch the video and how the "deal" went down...I assume they were selling weapons, and they were prepared for ground troops or police by dropping the weapon far enough from the site of the deal that they could claim ignorance of its existence if they were suprised before the deal was concluded. Little did they know...
However, this type of footage is dangerous to the US, like most 'tech' footage, in that people think we can win conflicts like this with our superior technology. We can't. Tech is window-dressing for the kinds of wars that Americans don't like to think about, and low-intensity conflict is won with the same types of weapons the Iraqis have.
But gawd, do Americans love to watch things blowing up in FLIR sights from the comfort of their living room and/or computer at work, and feel smug about how baaaaad-ass we are.
MD
Ummm, Pakistan? We've never invaded Pakistan...Pau11y said:
Perhaps you're thinking of Afghanistan?
I appreciate your thoughts, but if you're going to give an impassioned rant on a subject, you might want to make sure you have a clue as to what you're talking about.
In any case, this thread has already made the slippery slide from talking about the military and media/social aspects of this video to a general ranting about the origins of war in Iraq...which is, as Paully points out, quite a can of worms.
But don't blame the guys with the 30mm cannon for being sent their to do their jobs.
MD
Here's my beef w/ this kind of thinking. Extreme and overwhelming fire power saves lives, our soldiers lives. This is true, proven here as well as in WWII w/ the use of nukes on Japan. But with our end goal of "winning", are we willing to achieve this by any means? Say this is not a dirt poor nation we're in conflict w/, and it's someone also w/ nuke tech, say someone like N. Korea. Does this escalate till both our nations are standing at the Big Red Button daring each other? In this instance the sledge on the fly worked. But follow this to the logical conclusion here:MikeD said:
we take their little pawn, they take our knight, we take a town, they take out a base, we take out an entire city, they booby trap the city and kill thousands of our troops as the city is occupied, what's next? Do we sterilize the nation, 'cause no one like to loose...
I hear the term, "a measured proportional response". I'm thinking ok, maybe a 3 on 3 w/ some Seals. But this risks lives, our soldiers lives.
The guy who worked me before was right, this IS war and it's not fair. However, keep this in mind. There's a fine line between a terrorist and a revolutionary. We are to them, an invading empire, as they are to us, the enemy. So the question comes down to this: Who is in the wrong and why exactly is it that we're there?
Pre-dinner rant over. I promise I won't do this again...tonight.
Edit: sorry, forgot to run it thru spellcheck