If you want to be an "insurgent" when you grow up

Watch this and marvel at the deadly accuracy of an Apache heliocopter. This shows how sofisticated the toys of war are. Astounding!

www.liveleak.com...

You should just give people a heads up that this video has some pretty graphic content. Just watching now, and 4:10 caught me off guard.

What are you talking about, with "If you want to be an "insurgent" when you grow up"?

Who are you trying to address exactly?

Man, good thing I didn't check "insurgent" for job opportunities I was interested in when at the employment office, phew.

Originally posted by gem_man
Watch this and marvel at the deadly accuracy of an Apache heliocopter. This shows how sofisticated the toys of war are. Astounding!

www.liveleak.com...

Now imagine that an our of control police state decides to bring two of these babies into the fray against the militias that are trying to fight for what is right, and you have a massacre.

Let's see. If TSHTF in the U.S., this is what we can expect? Question is, who will be the "insurgents?" Who will be the "terrorists?" Who will be the "patriots?"

One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter. It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Also, I don't think any child sits there daydreaming about having their country invaded and becoming and insurgent to fight these evil war machines with the equivalent of rocks either.


[edit on 7/24/2010 by ~Lucidity]

If they are so hot how come the US hasn't won any of the wars yet?

Also, it takes money to keep those puppies in the air...when haliburton can't get 4oo bucks a gallon out of the US, it just might all come down to man to man, and if the US can't win with blackhawks , how well are they going to do without them?

IEDs seem to be pretty deadly as well and much cheaper.



[edit on 24-7-2010 by Danbones]

I really enjoyed the video.

This is why I mostly laugh when people say the american people couldn't be overrun by the army in the case of martial law, it would be a joke.

reply to post by Danbones


Great answer, just great

Touché Rupert!

Originally posted by Danbones
If they are so hot how come the US hasn't won any of the wars yet?

Star for you.
I needed that laugh too funny.

Yup...
We are losing so badly in Iraq that we are removing most of the combat units later in 2010. Apparently the war there is over and we lost.

Also, it takes money to keep those puppies in the air...when haliburton can't get 4oo bucks a gallon out of the US, it just might all come down to man to man, and if the US can't win with blackhawks , how well are they going to do without them?

IEDs seem to be pretty deadly as well and much cheaper.

Now Seriously. When was the last time an IED shot down an Apache.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I was just listening to will farrel as Bush pointing out most of the casualties happened AFTER the Mission accomplished speech.

So when are you guys folding up those permanent bases and bringing the Independant contracters home...?
and while you are at it the accountant wants to know what you did with that skid of money you guys bribed the opposition with...

We could have kept those expensive machines at home and used the blackhawks for water ski ponies if you were just going to buy the enemy off at the end of it all...

Say, isn't the war in Afgahnistan the longest war the U$ has ever fought...
If you had stuck to Hueys you could have lost already and been home for christmas...

PS gone but not forgotten
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by Danbones
I was just listening to will farrel as Bush pointing out most of the casualties happened AFTER the Mission accomplished speech.

You do know that Will Ferrell is a comedian, right. And not a very funny one, either. Tho I did like "The Ballad of Ricky Bobby."

Originally posted by Danbones
Say, isn't the war in Afgahnistan the longest war the U$ has ever fought...
If you had stuck to Hueys you could have lost already and been home for christmas...

I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo where they stated the time limit that the US has to engage in a war. I mean, did you think they named the 100 Years War BEFORE they started fighting?

reply to post by jerico65

Silly me, I thought they went there to win...with the blackhawks...


wait a minute..Korea is still on
that's gettin close to what...
a hundred years warll?

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by Danbones
So when are you guys folding up those permanent bases and bringing the Independant contracters home...?
and while you are at it the accountant wants to know what you did with that skid of money you guys bribed the opposition with...

I don't see a problem there when you consider that most of the killing in the past few years now have been Muslim-Sunni on Muslim-Shia etc Sectarian violence and not to mention the insurgents supported, trained and supplied by Iran which needlessly extended the war in Iraq a FULL 3 YEARS or more.

We don't hear about that coming out of peoples pie holes now do we?

We could have kept those expensive machines at home and used the blackhawks for water ski ponies if you were just going to buy the enemy off at the end of it all...

What?

Are you mad that the killing stopped?
Get over it. The war in Iraq is done. We are pulling out. Saddam is gone.

Say, isn't the war in Afgahnistan the longest war the U$ has ever fought...

You actually think that we are there to win and then leave?
We will be there for a long long time.

Stay tuned.

The New Great Game is in play

reply to post by SLAYER69

saddan offered to go when bush offered him amnesty till he found out the US was going to renage on their end of the deal...and the killing hasn't stopped...see the thread.

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by jerico65

 

Silly me, I thought they went there to win...with the blackhawks...

wait a minute..Korea is still on
that's gettin close to what...
a hundred years warll?

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Danbones]

First of all, you apparently don't understand the concept of "research."

Secondly - the blackhawk you keep bringing up over and over again is not an "attack chopper." It's designation "UH-60" means "Utility Helicopter." I think what you keep referring to, or well, trying to refer to in your ignorance, is the AH-64 or the "Apache."

I personally watched what happens when a group of insurgents piss off a patrol base at night and a couple of Apaches go after them. We're the US. It's not supposed to be fair. Sorry.

IEDs a "deadlier" weapon? - LOL. Okay.

Another thing, I'd like you to point out exactly how the US "lost" in Iraq...? Judging by the way most people like you act on this site, I doubt you'll be able to provide me a clear answer on that if you don't start in with deflection right off the bat. So I'll answer for you. A democratic government was established, free elections are being held, they have asked us to leave as our role is no longer needed there. Hmm. Don't really see how that was a loss?

Since you and American liberals like to keep falling back on the "mission accomplished" speech that Bush gave, let me educate you for a second. At that point in time - the direct conventional conflict between two uniformed armed forces was over. Major "combat" operations ended. You can't deny that. At that point in time, the operation switched from a war to a counter-insurgency. So, technically, the "war" that we "lost" was won and we switched to a new type of operation - which - oh! - looks like we "won" that too.

Finally, as for Afghanistan, I don't think there's a statute of limitation on the time allowed for some fat civilian sitting at a computer in a sub-standard country somewhere to determine whether or not we lost or won a war. Try again.

You clearly have to be joking or just be extremely misinformed. The Korean conflict? Explain how that was a loss for the US as well... I bet you can't. Compare the South - which we supported along with a ton of other UN countries and the North. If you think the North is doing better and it's people are happy - you're insane.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by mf_luder]

By the way - awesome video OP.

Metallica AND wiping scum out?

Nice.

I'm reposting that to fb.

www.apacheclips.com...

There are more there for those of you who appreciate overwhelming military power tearing into savages that made the mistake of provoking the US in the first place.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by mf_luder]

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by jerico65

 

Silly me, I thought they went there to win...with the blackhawks...

wait a minute..Korea is still on
that's gettin close to what...
a hundred years warll?

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Danbones]

Do you know what win means?
The U.S had the military capability to blow afghanistan out of the desert.
But they didn't, Why?
Bad press, and they say they are there to help rebuild aswell as take out insurgents and other U.S boogeymen.

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

saddan offered to go when bush offered him amnesty till he found out the US was going to renage on their end of the deal...and the killing hasn't stopped...see the thread.

Here is an UNBIASED report.
Xinhua News Agency---CHINA
U.S. commander says military on track to pull out of Iraq

July 21 (Xinhua) -- U.S. military is on track to meet its drawdown goals in Iraq, Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq said Wednesday in Washington.

Briefing reporters in Pentagon, Odierno said the U.S. forces " will be at 50,000, probably by the last week of August." With 70, 000 troops still in Iraq -- down from 145,000 in January 2009 -- the military is on schedule to meet President Barack Obama's September drawdown goals, Odierno said.

The U.S. forces last year have pulled out of Iraqi cities and are working to formally end combat operations by Sept. 1 of this year, cutting the U.S. military force from just under 90,000 to 50, 000. A full withdrawal is also in sight at the end of 2011.

A $10 bullet could have taken out Saddam. Saddam was sooooooooooo not the issue. That should be crystal clear to everyone by now. Plus he's probably still alive