Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300gn Scenar at 2700 yards
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 395751" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>Several have stated this in different ways at different times. Let me state it my way. The <strong><u>primary</u></strong> issue being discussed is the credibility of the journalist who reported on a sniper shot(s). I want the press to report correctly, and when they blunder, I want them held accountable. For whatever the reason, our press has historically gotten it more or less right, rather than absolutely wrong, so many have come to respect these journalistic articles after they hit the press as the facts and nothing but the facts. I've dealt with the press and know first-hand that they get confused over the details on subject matter they know little about. Especially journalists working for smaller companies. They don't seem to come back to get their final draft proofed by the individuals they've interviewed. They head straight to press, errors and all. I never even considered the fact that a sniper is fabricating a tall tale, if that's the insinuation. It's all been about a published article, created by a human being - a jounalist. And did he hit the mark? Or did he miss it.</p><p></p><p>Questioning the validity of the journalist's article, secondarily led into the more interresting exchange covering the state of the art capabilities of shoulder-fired rifles of the types used by our snipers and our allies' snipers. A fairly extensive discussion and consideration of all facets if riflery associated with making hits at these extrordinary ultra-long ranges.</p><p></p><p>With respect to the question of "<u><em>from History, has anything good come from the public debate of military actions, can it help the moral of the troops, are our troops coming back and feeling supported and honored, not one I have talked to</em></u>." In my life, perhaps the prime example (because it hit personally close to home) of where our Commander's in Chief and the military leaders beholden to those administrative powers needed full public debate was the Vietnam War. If the troops feel like the debate is targeting them as individuals? Well we cannot control how others interpretate a valid public debate. The second best example - IMO - that needed a full and lengthy debate is exactly how did we get convinced to go to war with Iraq, predominantly on the belief that they had weapons of mass destruction and would surely some day come to use them against us or our allies. What about North Korea, a country that does have the nuclear bomb. Or Iran, the current pick of the day for destabilization with regard to world security and our national security. Did we spend our military efforts over personal ambitions prematurely, rather than after a complete and valid assessment of all risks posed to our national security? </p><p></p><p>No public debate is a recipe for disaster. No public debate cripples a true democracy. Full public debate can, and usually does, strengthen it. At least over the long haul. In the interim period, things can admitedly, get a little fiesty.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 395751, member: 4191"] Several have stated this in different ways at different times. Let me state it my way. The [B][U]primary[/U][/B] issue being discussed is the credibility of the journalist who reported on a sniper shot(s). I want the press to report correctly, and when they blunder, I want them held accountable. For whatever the reason, our press has historically gotten it more or less right, rather than absolutely wrong, so many have come to respect these journalistic articles after they hit the press as the facts and nothing but the facts. I've dealt with the press and know first-hand that they get confused over the details on subject matter they know little about. Especially journalists working for smaller companies. They don't seem to come back to get their final draft proofed by the individuals they've interviewed. They head straight to press, errors and all. I never even considered the fact that a sniper is fabricating a tall tale, if that's the insinuation. It's all been about a published article, created by a human being - a jounalist. And did he hit the mark? Or did he miss it. Questioning the validity of the journalist's article, secondarily led into the more interresting exchange covering the state of the art capabilities of shoulder-fired rifles of the types used by our snipers and our allies' snipers. A fairly extensive discussion and consideration of all facets if riflery associated with making hits at these extrordinary ultra-long ranges. With respect to the question of "[U][I]from History, has anything good come from the public debate of military actions, can it help the moral of the troops, are our troops coming back and feeling supported and honored, not one I have talked to[/I][/U]." In my life, perhaps the prime example (because it hit personally close to home) of where our Commander's in Chief and the military leaders beholden to those administrative powers needed full public debate was the Vietnam War. If the troops feel like the debate is targeting them as individuals? Well we cannot control how others interpretate a valid public debate. The second best example - IMO - that needed a full and lengthy debate is exactly how did we get convinced to go to war with Iraq, predominantly on the belief that they had weapons of mass destruction and would surely some day come to use them against us or our allies. What about North Korea, a country that does have the nuclear bomb. Or Iran, the current pick of the day for destabilization with regard to world security and our national security. Did we spend our military efforts over personal ambitions prematurely, rather than after a complete and valid assessment of all risks posed to our national security? No public debate is a recipe for disaster. No public debate cripples a true democracy. Full public debate can, and usually does, strengthen it. At least over the long haul. In the interim period, things can admitedly, get a little fiesty. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300gn Scenar at 2700 yards
Top