^ good point

Somehow it still turned political.I saw real footage I dl on p2p site.Gruesome shit

War is hell. Have just completed a grief counseling seesion with family members of a unit who lost 4 men. There is no honor and glory in war. It is a matter of survival...period. These guys and gals are doing a mission. They only have each other to depend on to get it done. Every veteran I have counseled who has been in combat is changed forever, and not all for the good. A WW2 vet I counsel wakes up EVERY NIGHT. It has been that way for him for 50 years!

 

The question is not whether or not war is cool or can be transfered to pixels on a computer screen. The question is whether real brothers and sisters are giving their lives for a good policy or bad policy? Will a Muslim country, led by warlords for centuries, accept American democracy? We know now its not about nuclear weapons or al Quada. So what is the policy we are giving our children to die for in Iraq? President Bush and nearly all experts agree terrorism is a war that will never be "won." So how do we fight it? This is beyond "cool" or "realistic mod."

Great minds think alike

There is no honor and glory in war. It is a matter of survival...period.

 

I disagree.... to a point.

Now, when technology is as much part of the war as the man who wields it, sure, there is no honor in fighting. This method is too unpersonal, too dishonorable, one and hes enemy have not equal chances. Its plain butchery - a matter of who killes more. Who kills more people without names, nameless puppets. One shouldnt be concerned about them, shouldnt see them as humans, breathing, living beings, but a stray dogs, that only use for them is to be slain. Thats the view on war for last 100 years, but it started 200 - 300 years earlier (mostly with gunpowder warfare revolution).

Before those honorless times, there was a time that people were fighting honorably in a meaning, that they stood man-to-man, clashed their weapons physically and the better one won. Not the one who had better technology behind him, but skill, bravery and sometimes luck. THAT was honorable fighting. Each warrior gave another a chance of winning by facing him in a fight/duel.

Ky...I'm talking today. :roll: To the hundreds of vets I've counseled who have been in battle, they say, not me, but they say technology does not make killing impersonal. They still see the body parts, the smell of burnt flesh, maggots, on and on. Death is death no matter how it is achieved. As for honor, well, again, the vets I talk to don't give a *edit* about that. It is an abstract imaginary feeling. It quickly disappears when the brutality of death hits the fan. Not one vet, NONE, I have spoken with talk about honor. To them it is a misnomer by people who have not experienced first hand the hell of combat.

 

I agree Gator! :wink:

Somebody probably already said this:Warfare is for warriors.This is what i see: technology and ability to kill somebody even without seeing his face is what made/makes 'warriors' weak. They are insulated from the feeling of the battlefield, they fear it; fear the death, they do not see it as an honor but as death- nothing more. So then after training they go into a battlefield and there they witness all the horribles modern warfare can make to human and his body: see the corpses, the brains all the insides that once made the dead move, talk, breathe, eat and make little warriors. Thats why they break down after witnessing these horrors. They are not prepared, not ready. They think, that becouse they can do little more than squeeze the trigger and another being hundred meters away falls down, that thats nothing special. This warfare is impersonal, but it is too heavy a burden to most. There is no honor in that death and that killing. That probably has some merit too.

I fell flaming coming..

I fell flaming coming..

spammer

I fell flaming coming..

 

 

spammerWay to encourage it. You're worse than GH if you're gonna follow him around and put that.. EVERYWHERE.

Before those honorless times, there was a time that people were fighting honorably in a meaning, that they stood man-to-man, clashed their weapons physically and the better one won. Not the one who had better technology behind him, but skill, bravery and sometimes luck. THAT was honorable fighting. Each warrior gave another a chance of winning by facing him in a fight/duel.

ah yes...the good old days. I remember them well

 

 

I think the most honorable war in recent times was World War II. Back then, they didn't have a whole lot of technology, and both sides were pretty even in terms of weapons and such.

The dogfighting part was perhaps the most honorable you might say. Each side only had a inch of plating between themselves and the gunfire, and whoever had the better skills won. Know-a-days, knocking jets out of the sky 2 miles away just seems cowardly.

Yes, you could say that. But not go very far with it.Air fleets we then still young additions to the military. So the dogfights had some romantic ideals of honorable duels. But not so when it came to bombarding cities and such.

I agree with some of chappy's points but some I think are misguided from the symbols they found this week. I will not go into this for obvious reasons.

There is no honor and glory in war. It is a matter of survival...period.

 

I disagree.... to a point.

Now, when technology is as much part of the war as the man who wields it, sure, there is no honor in fighting. This method is too unpersonal, too dishonorable, one and hes enemy have not equal chances. Its plain butchery - a matter of who killes more. Who kills more people without names, nameless puppets. One shouldnt be concerned about them, shouldnt see them as humans, breathing, living beings, but a stray dogs, that only use for them is to be slain. Thats the view on war for last 100 years, but it started 200 - 300 years earlier (mostly with gunpowder warfare revolution).

Before those honorless times, there was a time that people were fighting honorably in a meaning, that they stood man-to-man, clashed their weapons physically and the better one won. Not the one who had better technology behind him, but skill, bravery and sometimes luck. THAT was honorable fighting. Each warrior gave another a chance of winning by facing him in a fight/duel.

Ky...I'm talking today. :roll: To the hundreds of vets I've counseled who have been in battle, they say, not me, but they say technology does not make killing impersonal. They still see the body parts, the smell of burnt flesh, maggots, on and on. Death is death no matter how it is achieved. As for honor, well, again, the vets I talk to don't give a *edit* about that. It is an abstract imaginary feeling. It quickly disappears when the brutality of death hits the fan. Not one vet, NONE, I have spoken with talk about honor. To them it is a misnomer by people who have not experienced first hand the hell of combat.

 

I agree Gator! :wink:

I have to agree as well. Though i fortunately have not seen war, i have seen cities destroyed by disasters as member of a rescuedog team. seemingly random death changes one for life. "Choosing" to end someone others life must be even harder to live with, especially if you carry the image with it for life. That has nothing to do with honour, it's all about pain and trauma. Pls respect those who are suffering from this so we can live our untroubled lifes.

Visions, sounds and smells of destruction can not be erased from one's mind, it is haunting you forever. It can be managed by counseling/ therapy, but please do not say you want these kind of experiences to be reproduced as good as possible in games. In my opinion that is a lack of respect.

this video is made for propaganda prupose, i have a "real" Falluja video on my comp and its not as "cool" as this

What makes you say its "propaganda"? Maybe the whole war effort is "propaganda". Then again I bet thats what your thinkin' huh?