This is well worth a read http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1605959,00.html thought provoking...

Speaking from personal experience I hope never to see combat again. A senseless waste of young life to satisfy the egos of a few cowardly old men in high office

That is probably true Doug Alas our political masters are now self-centered giant egos rather than people serving their country..... We are in trouble! Viva la revolution
I wonder what would happen if soldiers were sent off to war and then sat down with their so-called enemies and had a chat and a cup of tea rather than fighting... could make things interesting

I find it sad that, these generals you say should be the ones fighting in these wars, are soldiers who themselves have likely served in combat, its sad because that experience hasn't taught them anything it seems. My personal opinions aside, if a few of these politicians were taken into the middle of a real warzone, none of this pre-arranged crap body guards while being 200 miles from the nearest hotspot. Send them in with a platoon to see it first hand. They certainly might change various things.

Quote:


maybe not, but what about the the other statement? would you really think this war would go on if bin laden would have to make his bones by leading an terrorist attack?

Quote:


well, i think if bin laden would have to carry out the fight himself he would declare the war as concluded (prolly with some BS how it was won)

Strange how this topic suddenly veered from the horrors of the First World War & the carnage of modern conventional warfare onto terrorism.

Well alas somebody tried to hijack this thread to promote their ignorant view of the world! Calling terrorists soldiers only legitimises them

Quote:


Remember that bin Laden rose to the forefront in Afghanistan, fighting against the Soviets.  I don't think that it would be fair to say he is a leader from the rear, as he has tasted "blood" so to speak.

Quote:



Talk about WW1 carnage - Tannenberg is considered to be the single battle of all time that had the most casualties - upwards of 250,000 (practially all Russian) when two armies that were "led" by commanders that mutually hated each other headed West to do battle with a much smaller Imperial German force.  Advancing in an uncoordinated manner, the two armies were defeated piecemeal, without the Germans (led by Hindenburg and Ludendorff) having to worry about one Russian force supporting the other.

The "silver lining" was that this Eastern threat forced the Germans to move forces from the Western front to the East, thereby stalling their push towards Paris, preventing them from conquering Paris, and very possibly from obtaining an early end to the War.

What's curious about WWI was the notion that the introduction of the machine gun was "supposed" to "save lives", if you can figure that logic out.  Supposedly, less soldiers would be required to produce a given amount of firepower.  But what ended up happening was trench warfare.

Lack of mobility + lots of firepower = trench warfare carnage


And another bizzare notion was the best machine gun of WWI (the BAR) was held back for the fear that it would fall into German hands.  Another bizzare notion.  So, the Germans didn't get to get their hands on one to copy, and Americans didn't get to use it either.  Nonsensical.

I never knew that the BAR was used in WWI.
And the Allies captured the synchronized gun system from a Fokker Eindecker, I believe?

It is truly very sad looking back on the events of WWI. So many died for a very pointless reason. This amount of carnage could have been prevented if the European countries hadn't formed the 'Triple Alliance' and the 'Triple Entente', because then It would have just been Serbia and Austro-Hungary fighting, and I'm sure that they could come to a resolve soon enough.

Quote:


Mmm... hmm.

While I agree, I don't think that comment was necessary.