Lock 'N Load

Lock 'N LoadLock N' Load with R. Lee Ermey is a militainment television program on The History Channel that discusses the development of military weaponry throughout the centuries. It is hosted by R. Lee Ermey.

In a typical episode, Ermey focuses on one specific type of weapon or weapon system, presenting key advancements in its technology and demonstrating their use with the help of experts. In a holdover from his duties hosting Mail Call on the History Channel, he frequently adds humor in the form of light-hearted drill instructor haranguing aimed at the viewer.

He also displays an eagerness to try out the episode's relevant weapons against a wide range of targets, particularly watermelons ("they taste better after being shot with a machine gun"), as well as glass bottles.

Actor and Vietnam veteran R. Lee Ermey guides viewers through the evolution of the deadliest battlefield weapons, with 3-D graphics detailing the improvements, changes in technology and the thought process behind each weapon. Also, experts discuss the engineering and history involved, and high-speed photography shows how these firearms work and what really happens at the point of impact.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist)

Ratings: 5.60/10 from 10 users.

More great documentaries

120 Comments / User Reviews

  1. bigdaddy_RO

    Well I would probably enjoy it if it wouldn't be a total hillbilly show. I mean the way it's presented... total USA style.

  2. Nikola


  3. hawkpork

    doubt i'll get through all of it before klicking away in disgust. it sounds like more glorification of war, modern propaganda.

  4. Nemanja


  5. hawkpork

    'death and destruction! hurra!'
    'history' channel my a** cable tv is full of blatant and disgusting propaganda.

  6. thomaspain

    Like to see ya talk sh t to Gunny

  7. doberman

    enaught to ge a hillbily a half way errectiun

  8. slap

    haha, aint that the guy from Full Metal Jacket? " What is your major malfunction son?" yes?

  9. Keith

    I can't wait to NOT watch this!

  10. Allan

    Look at all the lefties talking it down. glad we still have some good Christian men around to defend the USA from arabs and jews

  11. John Seals

    Thats it I quit trying. Everything I post gets stuck in moderation, so piss on it.

  12. silkop

    Guys, don't be harsh on the presenter, it's supposed to be entertainment for younger adolescents. You have played war when you were boys, haven't you?

  13. hawkpork

    aww poor john. and i was hoping you'd reply top me on another page.

    haha allan i hope thats some sick satire you got goin on there.

    Silkop. NO! its not just entertainment for youth. it's programing for youth. this is PROPAGANDA.
    this old codger presenter probably splayed vietnamese childrens brains out with his m16 and shouted HURRA! as he did it.
    he's seen combat and still thinks it's cool. despicable.

    i've seen one previous US marine who i admire.

    KEN O'keefe. look him up if you haven't heard of him.

  14. silkop

    This show is harmless in comparison to, say, an average speech by a certain president Bush about WMDs in Iraq, or other examples of political programming. Even a kid would notice that the old fart gunny is exaggerating and behaving in a generally silly way. It is also easy to explain to a kid that the "bad guys" might hit the "good guys" with the very same ubercool rocket, that the military "fun" tends to waste public money by creating new problems, that the world is a cruel place ruled by big money etc etc.

    This program doesn't aim to educate, yet it certainly provides an opportunity for education for a dedicated commenter. It also does entertain the hapless viewer in a Hollywood-things-that-go-boom style (though there are better shows that do much the same). It is not to be taken seriously. Similarly, horror movies and violent computer games don't create bloodthirsty psychopaths nor are they any kind of "evil" propaganda. This is all tongue-in-cheek stuff, while real propaganda is dead-serious and much more subtle.

  15. hawkpork

    i disagree. it might be weak to resort to euphemysms or metaphors or whatever it is but, you are what you eat.
    we become what we watch. we are products of our environment.
    i don't recall seeing a whole series on history channel dedicated to american attrocities commited around the globe, or how world economy has been controlled by US since WW2.
    "even a kid would notice.." dude.. if they'd notice it's only because they've become such propaganda conesuiers that anything as blatant as this appears crass.

  16. Insomniac

    What did you expect? "War is bad...now watch these weapons we pay millions for."

    Aknowledge that war happens and marvel at the technology. Dont whine because a show about weaponry lacks an anti-war message, not everything is political.

    At least this show tells you what your money buys. You can now protest more efficiently ^^

  17. Achems Razor

    Canada should put on a show of its military might!
    We do have one tank you know.

  18. hawkpork

    I expect the history channel to have it's main focus on history.
    i aknowledge that war happens but will never "marvel" at the misuses of our intelligence.

    i "whine" because i used to like the discovery channel and history channel. but now it's nothing but boring pro military propaganda. it's everywhere, and it's insidious.
    i wonder when they'll militarize animal planet.

  19. scott's brain

    don't forget about the subs we bought from the British ;-)

  20. Farren

    Military-industrial complex. Enough said. This is the evil of the world today. The M.I.C. has created its own endless supply of money: go into peoples' homelands that don't want to be invaded (Americans sure wouldn't want another country coming here and taking control of everything, taking our spoils and leaving us to suffer daily and be under constant watch for being a terrorist to them). Due to the backlash of invading countries, other people get mad, and attack the M.I.C. The M.I.C. uses these attacks as propaganda to lie to people and say there is an evil terrorism thing that wants to kill us, so we need to invade and occupy even more.

    This whole situation is messed up. Karma is real, we get what we deserve in the end. Americans need to wake up.

  21. BJ

    I agree with everything said above but god does not exist! Why would he create us with a free will?

  22. Insomniac

    @BJ Why bring God in here dude? Just why? Cant there be one thread without this attention-whore stealing the show?

  23. Insomniac

    and @hawkpork theres no such thing as a misuse of intelligence. We learn more with mistakes then accomplishments. We do misuse technology if you mean that we USe it for war, but then its not technology thats the problem; its the simple fact that war exists. And if you think war is worse today then it was with good old swords and shields as many seem to do, try to see statistics, not just cold numbers. 1% of a given population today can be much more then 50% of that same population 1000 years ago. If you consider the entire populatioon, statistically less lives are lost in modern warfare, especially since butchering women and children as well is no longer the norm.

  24. Insomniac

    The real problem with technology + war in the end is that a single group possesses so much funding for that technology that we reach a point where nothing exists to balance their power. So (insert favorite "new world order" theory)

  25. h-bomb


    I pity you, have seen you post your Christian fundamentalist cr*p on many documentary's, its so boring please stop. Its embarrassing.

  26. Nielsch

    Why not show the effect of those weapons on unarmed children and woman tied to a wooden post or something. It's what it's designed for, so why not show it..? Instead bringing the 'America, fu*k yeah' mentality into children's brains, so maybe they'll sign up faster to become brainless kill-horny retards..? Pfff, sh*t like this should be banned from TV.

  27. Timbo Jones

    "Think you," Jesus was saying, "to silence men of peace? As well may you hope to throttle the voice of God, whose very stones sing His glory and His omnipresence. Will you demand that men not celebrate in honor of the peace in heaven, but should only gather together in multitudes to shout for war on earth? Then make your preparations, O Pharisees, to overtopple the foundations of the world; for it is not gentle men alone, but stones or earth, and water and fire and air that will rise up against you, to bear witness of His ordered harmony."

  28. Achems Razor

    @ Timbo Jones:

    You are not supposed to preach on these blogs. Get the hell off!

  29. Timbo Jones

    It was not preaching. What it was was showing karma. The more violence and hatred men generate, the more they will suffer.

  30. hawkpork

    "for it is not gentle men alone, but stones or earth, and water and fire and air that will rise up against you, to bear witness of His ordered harmony.”
    yeh... the whole of the gulf may rise up against us.

    yes, technology is not the problem, using it for killing is.
    thus i say we misuse our intelligence because we use the manifestations of that intelligence to kill.
    "man is perfectible, or in other words susceptible of perpetual improvement" Godwin.
    we must evolve to a point of moral harmony.

  31. BJ

    Sorry for the gag insomnia! I couldn't help myself!

  32. silkop

    Guys, I mostly agree on the military-industrial-complex sort of thing and that money makes the world go round. Still, pacifism or showing the "evils of war" to kids rather than uncle Gunny is most probably not the solution. The problem is that once you brainwash kids in the other direction (war is evil and unintelligent, so don't fund military, but grow flowers and friends instead), then some guy abroad is bound to rise to power who can bullshit and enslave his people into a military regime and then drop an a-bomb on you peace-lovers. Basically, war is a difficult dirty topic and should ideally be presented as such, but it does NOT fall into scope of militainment shows such as this one.

    As for the History channel, it sucks as it's geared today toward a gullible average audience with attention deficit disorders. However, I believe you are confusing cause and effect when you say that these TV shows really "shape" the minds of young people. They just take straight advantage of the fact that minds of people have not been sufficiently "shaped" elsewhere (by parents and education).

    The correct way of approaching these topics (and other "taboo" topics) is to strip them from their "taboo" status and expose them as rather silly and trivial, not so much desirable "in the long run". Militainment shows, shooter computer games, "shocker" videos, alcohol, drugs, swearing, porn, the list goes on. Kids should come in contact with all this; but also with other realities such as poverty, war and other criminals, politics etc. Kids need a balanced diet and it's up to non-kids to compose a menu, while knowing that forbidden fruit tastes best.

  33. John Seals

    @ Silkop

    You said: "The correct way of approaching these topics (and other “taboo” topics) is to strip them from their “taboo” status and expose them as rather silly and trivial, not so much desirable “in the long run”. Militainment shows, shooter computer games, “shocker” videos, alcohol, drugs, swearing, porn, the list goes on. Kids should come in contact with all this; but also with other realities such as poverty, war and other criminals, politics etc. Kids need a balanced diet and it’s up to non-kids to compose a menu, while knowing that forbidden fruit tastes best."

    Amen!! Good way to put it.

  34. hawkpork

    John and Silkop,
    the thing that sticks out to me in you're quote is "expose them as rather silly and trivial".
    do you really believe war is "silly and trivial"?
    haven't you noticed how discovery channel and history channel have changed over the last few years? used to be all nature and history. now it's half weapons engineering etc;
    i think you've been desensitized to the reality of what this guys going "hurra!" about. which is handy for the people running the wars.
    why should we put idiots who seem to worship killing machines on tv as possible role models?
    i'll tell my kids this is pro-war propaganda and to turn it off.

  35. ChristPuncher

    Bah, The Series " Weaponolgy" is essentially the same thing, except clearly better presented. I'd recommend that series to anyone wanting a decent show on that subject

  36. Pacha

    I agree 100%
    I put together a video of pictures showing the horrific effects these weapons have on people and put it on youtube.
    They deleted it without warning in 24 hours.
    And yet there are dozens of videos showing troops firing the weapons at people and whooping with delight as they blow away what they refer to as 'ragheads'
    So I could only assume from that, that youtube supports illegal war, racism and the murder of innocent children.

    What a very sad world we live in.

  37. Bootstrap

    Unfortunately it is not only television which is permeated with propaganda. Even the internet, one of the relatively few free domains remaining, is under increased scrutiny by powers that be.

  38. ChristPuncher

    Pacha, Seems to me like the Proof is in the Pie, you ignorant foreigner. Youtube doesnt allow graphic videos to be uploaded so kids can see flesh get wasted, and you said you uploaded some "video of pictures showing the horrific effects these weapons have on people and put it on youtube".

    The videos which target ragheads like you are referring to, you cant ever see a body DROP let alone flesh mutilated. Maybe you should research your argument before you present it on a website that utilizes youtube, and other like websites. Go ahead and alienate some more people who are helping to entertain you, non contributing tool.

  39. Pacha

    So I'm an ignorant foreigner but you refer to people as ragheads? All of those 'ragheads' are someone's father, mother, daughter or son. Would you like to go on youtube and watch your mother getting wiped out by some foreign invader and then insulted by thousands of viewers? I doubt it.

    By the way, I really couldn't care less how many people I offend as long as one or two have enough intelligence to understand what I'm saying. If I get banned from this site for speaking the truth there's plenty of other places I can go to carry on saying the same things. And thankfully there's a lot more people like me out there who aren't afraid to stop following the herd and say what they think.

  40. hawkpork

    bootstrap, i think you're right. the internet, and specifically youtube, is riddled with professional disinformants. they are the proverbial "turd in the puchbowl" that discredits the whole.
    i believe bush said "we must be wary of crazy conspiracy theories" then got his minnions to make'em and debunk'em.

    oops, i'm wandering off topic again.

  41. ChristPuncher

    hey, you called em ragheads, i quoted you. L2 English foreign dude. Damn you suck at this...HAH, you admitted you are a sheep, what a tool.

  42. ChristPuncher

    Wow, anytime a documentary has a bullet in it, you Conspiracy nuts just go straight for war propoganda, instead of calling it what it really is, a quest for ratings. People watch tv cause they are bored, military hardware, isnt boring...1+1= ? anyone?

  43. Yavanna

    Dukes of Hazard meets modern military flicktardage

  44. Bootstrap


    Obviously ratings play a motivational factor with shows such as this. It seems as though you are assuming however, that such shows are merely catering to the desires of the masses. Such an assumption neglects the alternative possibility that media outlets actively seek to manipulate and structure these desires.

  45. eireannach666



    "Wow, anytime a documentary has a bullet in it, you Conspiracy nuts just go straight for war propoganda, instead of calling it what it really is, a quest for ratings. People watch tv cause they are bored, military hardware, isnt boring…"

    I agree my friend. They have radar like the religees.

    F*** peAce.

  46. BJ

    Take it easy ChristPuncher, surely there are better ways of getting your point across then droping to a 12 year old youtube viewer level and calling someone a tool.

  47. Pacha

    I'm not sure why anymore but I originally thought the people who posted here were an intelligent bunch.

  48. eireannach666

    Can I get a "BJ" BJ?

    Dont be so condescending , yourself.
    To be so simple as to say that the advancement of the military isnt needed is actually quite simple indeed.

    It has to be nice to live in a world where hippies rule but in the real world we have to be able to survive our surroundings when force applies itself.

    Try talking your way out of a gun fight. It will end badly.

    Tit for tat.

    Why is everyone being such dingleberries? You want to complain about force and the bettering of but where would you be without the warriors and weapons?

    F'in hippies are everywhere man.

  49. eireannach666

    Hey Pacha! Slainte.

  50. BJ

    eireannach666, where would I be without warriors and weapons? Is that an actual question? Because I can tell you where thousands of young dead American/allied troops would be right now, I can tell you where, what has got to be a million Iraqi/Afghan civilians would be right now. With their families. Should I embark on naming any other wars that would not have existed without "warriors and weapons", should I begin to list millions and millions of innocent people that have been killed by weapons over the years. If it were you getting hit or your child getting shot I bet you would have a different approach!

    And before you respond just look at the question you asked!

  51. Achems Razor

    @ eire666:

    Ha, I agree, my friend, for one thing the human race would of not advanced to much in technology if it were not for the advent of how to make better and better weapons, weapons first, and then follows the technology that we use today.

    Sad fact but true, the planet is run by force, force rules, no utopian hippiedom societies will ever exist. always eat or be eaten world, and if the human race ever gets into space, then will be star wars with Aliens, if any. That is human nature period.

  52. ChristPuncher

    War is the mother of Invention, how true. Look at all the Advancements in technology that took place during WW2 that we wouldnt have, and you wouldnt be able to live without, if it wasnt for the necessity that is war. and BJ, i think you should take some time, see a therapist, and deal with death. Seems like you have some issues of fear looming over your judgement.

  53. eireannach666


    Oh , how wrong you are. You would not have any of the luxuries you have today , or freedom to get on here and say whatever you want, if it werent for the warriors defending you and yours from other warriors that would seek harm upon you and yours. I am well aware of the question and expected a rational response if any at all. It was kind of rhetorical , bj .

    All throughout history and nature its been about who was the Alpha and who rules and makes rules.Its never going to change so we do ,in fact , need our warriors and weapons.

    I know too well what a bullet feels like. So dont speak of that which you dont know.

  54. eireannach666

    Even if we dont use the weapons they act , still , as a check and balance system for all. Like the colors of a poisonous snake, a sign to all of its capabilities.

  55. Insomniac

    Yes, the army (not always war itself, lets make that distinction) will always be necessary in an imperfect world in which tiranny still exists. But that is not the issue here is it? The issue is spending billions to devellop the next best weapon when 1- there is no other superpower that even comes close to balancing the US military whose past failures were caused by bad intel and leadership, not lack of funding and technology, and 2- these "advances" are most often made by private companies who end up selling their weapons to both sides anyway.

    Send the money elsewhere.

  56. Bobatron 5K

    Sure, R. Lee Ermey camps it up and acts just like you would expect him to if you've seen Full Metal Jacket, but maybe that's the point of this series; to entertain and inform you on the history of weapons.

  57. BJ

    @ eireannach666

    You are dancing away from what I was saying. Although I know, when you say your question was rhetorical, it was something I wanted to answer. And Insomniac is basically saying what reality really is. Who knows what the world would be like without the federal reserve? As for utopia, I am not saying it will happen in our life time or in the nest 50 but if it is not utopia we as humans seek and push for, what is the point of technological advancement?

    Also to say I wouldn't have the creature comforts I have today without war and destruction is ridiculous. What I consider creature comforts now, exist due to world and technological developments which I don't deny a certain percentage came around quicker due to war. Now it is ridiculous to say because I wouldn't be aware of what I would be missing out on if 'world war' wasn't as prolific as it has been. I mean how is that even an argument, pro war?

  58. BJ

    Again @ eireannach666

    "Try talking your way out of a gun fight. It will end badly"

    This is exactly what happened between the US and the Russians. Talking proved to possibly save the WORLD.

    As for Christpuncher, thanks for the advice but I assure you I am not the one in need of finding "myself". And am certainly not in need of therapy. Is this where I insert the word "tool" and direct it at you?

  59. Achems Razor

    @ BJ:

    If you are referring to 13 days, the Cuban missile crisis, talking did not save the world, it was a show of force, because that is all the Russians understood at that time, and probably still do.

    You should read the book, don't go by the Hollywood movie!

  60. hawkpork

    the adage is actually "necessity is the mother of invention" not "war".
    i think all you who don't condemn this as propaganda are proof that it is.
    you might believe that what people watch is irrelevant to the way they think.
    but if that were true then how can you sit there defending war, weapons and death when our fellow citizens are over in iraq and afghanistan killing innocent people and ripping countries appart?
    ever see any afghani or iraqi bombs drop in your country?
    9 years later and does anyone still think WMD's or 9/11 was the real reason for invading? we all know it was for resources,OILetc
    if you're not biased and swayed by propaganda yourselves shouldn't you be complaining that as an invading nation we should at least show respect for the lifes we take and not humorise the issue and desensitize people to it by putting in on TV in this manner?.
    that at least would seem a respectful, moral and unbiased standpoint.
    if our wetern culture isn\t riddled with sly and insidious propaganda, tell me why the populations of our countries haven't risen up and demanded and end to the wars yet?
    they are clearly immoral, illegal wars of aggression. the kind the UN was set up to prevent.

  61. steckenreiner

    This makes me glad i am no American... great show for people with little peni*es tho! (like gunny). BTW, does anyone know if that gunny guy has ever seen some "real action" in his lifetime?
    I guess not..

  62. silkop

    @hawkpork Maybe the true reason why people don't stand up to "stop wars" is the same reason why they don't like to vote for taxes to be raised or the same reason why you don't go out on the street and starting giving your money to random strangers. It's called "economy" or more simply "greed" or "survival instinct". Aggressive wars and predatory exploitation sustain luxurious lifestyles, and luxurious lifestyles are what societies at large care about. Thus people are pro-war for entirely rational economic reasons. Most of them are too deluded to admit it and have to invent silly excuses instead, especially because such excuses are called upon by popular "wrapper" ideologies such as Christianity.

    This said, I repeat my view that the show here is not hideous propaganda spun by a mighty conspiracy, but an average piece of thoughtless contemporary entertainment addressed to young viewers. It's tongue-in-cheek like a Hollywood movie and should have little influence if the viewer is also confronted with more serious stuff.

    Real pieces of propaganda employ serious misinformation, typically attempting to gain viewer's trust by presenting some popular and even true stories as a platform for unsubstantiated conclusions. The techniques are mostly deliberately omitting facts (oversimplifications) and utilizing a whole arsenal of logical fallacies. An average 9/11 or FED-is-bad video might thus be easily called propaganda, but this kids' show hardly qualifies.

  63. hawkpork

    if they're sending pro-war programs out to the populace like this it is undeniably propaganda. you can only argue its effect.

    actually i just bought some poor old senile woman her dinner. she was in the supermarket, so demented or senile she couldn't figure it all out. tried to walk out without paying. couldn't remember who she was or where she lived. i payed for her pancakes. and pointed her home.

    so yes! i willingly give money to those in need.
    as do all moral people who can empathise and have the financial ability to do it.

    selfishness isn't the real reason.
    if faced with a choice between a substantial decrease in ones living standards and having to personally slaughter an iraqi family of 10, to maintain current standards. most people would choose the former.
    and that's not the reality. we can maintain our way of life without these wars. but many are getting rich off them. so they continue.
    the real reason people don't rise up is because they are ignorant and lazy. if they knew they'd care.
    necessity is also the mother of activity.

    i firmly believe that this is a thread in the propaganda matrix we live in. it may be a small thread. but they are many.
    it's not the only program or series on cable TV that is blatantly pro military. there's heaps of'em.
    it doesn't have to be an inconceivably "mighty conspiracy".
    what we watch on tv will be decided by the highest bidder. if that's other corp's selling products, or govt agencies selling ideas, it all comes down to the bottom line for the tv corp's. and control for the elites. both of us and the lives and resources of others around the globe.

    from your statement "An average 9/11 or FED-is-bad video might thus be easily called propaganda"

  64. hawkpork

    lol last sentence was meant to be edited out.

  65. hawkpork

    i refer you to "Militainment, Inc. – Militarism and Pop Culture"
    it's one of the related doc links at top.
    although i guess you are, or will be skeptical of it's thesis.

  66. Pacha

    Very good point silkop
    "Maybe the true reason why people don’t stand up to “stop wars” is the same reason why they don’t like to vote for taxes to be raised or the same reason why you don’t go out on the street and starting giving your money to random strangers. It’s called “economy” or more simply “greed” or “survival instinct”
    I think that sums up my parents and their generation perfectly.

    hawkpork said "the real reason people don’t rise up is because they are ignorant and lazy. if they knew they’d care."
    The people are deliberately kept ignorant though arent they.
    Otherwise my video would have been left online. If your average person saw the suffering we put the Iraquis through it wouldnt be allowed to continue. Instead all we hear about is 'yet another brave young soldier who lost his life, heroically fighting for freedom' Makes me want to vomit every time I hear it to be honest.

    By the way, Barrack O Puppetbama has a facebook page. You can send him personal messages saying exactly what you think of him now. You might end up with agents knocking your door down but hey, we live in free countries.. right?

  67. silkop

    hawkpork, paying for the poor old lady's pancakes (how did you know where she lived to point her home, btw?) is what I would classify as "vanity charity". This is what people are quiet eager to engage into to shut up their conscience and shift blame to "others".

    What I am talking about when I say that most people are indeed pro-war (they are not as ignorant as you paint them) is that they would rise up and walk through the streets and break windows should, for example, someone propose to raise the gasoline price substantially (to aid the poor in Nigeria) or to lift agricultural imports embargoes (to aid the poor in Brazil) or to raise domestic taxes (to aid the poor in the homecountry). You would then gete righteous U.S. citizens marching in unity and screaming out slogans about how "the rich" and "the elite" MUST pay up, but obviously not THEM, after all them being just poor lower-middle (*cough*) class and so on. Those people are fond of leftist propaganda, but show them the real economic consequences and they will turn into hardline conservatives in a blink of an eye.

    It's not about paying for pancakes, it's about things like giving up big cars, holidays abroad, home ownership, own social security etc etc. The truth is America and Western Europe can only afford the current lifestyle because of the attrocities committed in the past through conquest and war and nowadays through economic oppression of other less fortunate nations (with inferior military). Living in Western Europe, the least I can do is admit the ugly truth. But I'm not ready to give away my "hard-earned" personal wealth, nor do I seriously expect others to be.

    We have blood on our hands, and so I will enjoy my almost-free trip to the swimming pool and a hearty meal thereafter, in full awareness that some child is dying of hunger and curable diseases down in Africa at the very same moment.

  68. hawkpork


    silkop's greed causes complacency theory is contradicted by your and my theory that ignorance causes peoples complacency towards the wars.
    so why do you start by praising his point if you're then going to contradict it?

    "If your average person saw the suffering we put the Iraqis through it wouldn't be allowed to continue."

    i completely agree.

  69. silkop

    Your average person does see it and does nothing. It's all out there at people's fingertips on the Internet. People don't act not because they don't know but because they don't care. It has been ever thus and modern psychological experiments regarding social behavior stress the point - the "look away" mentality prevails.

  70. pipo

    This old dude needs to smoke weed or soething

  71. hawkpork

    you try suggest the internet is enough to counter the massive propaganda web we live in..?
    no way.
    normal people feel empathy and act, when faced with massacre and horror.

  72. BJ

    Speaking for today, with Afghanistan and Iraq INVASIONS, it is blatantly obvious that 9/11 was the cause for INVASION. So the western world is convinced by the governments and media that terrorism is a threat to us all and MUST be stopped. How is it possibly to stop something that can only get worse with illegal occupation, destruction and murder? It is NOT possible to stop terrorism. In fact if the US admits this and their strategy is merely to curtail it, then INVASION was NEVER going to be the answer... anybody with half a clue could have figured that out. So we are left with a "war" that has no end in sight and is pouring money into the pockets of a select few. Depending where you stand on the 9/11 conspiracy, it is clear one way or another some "sketchy shit" is going down.

    If you believe it was an inside job to the extent of the Illuminati, what can you, as an individual do?(I don't know the answer, I wish I did). If you believe it was Bush and co looking to get at Iraqi oil and who knows what else, then that I believe, is what can be rallied against and people need to stand up and not sit till the INVASION is over. However if you think it was a terrorism act, strictly carried out by bin laden and his minions then what is the right thing to do? It's still a "war" that can not be won and you run the risk of fueling the issue further.

    I know my comments are nothing new, and I probably missed a few things in my rant but my main point is I think the world was at first stunned, then a period set in of what are the US gonna do? Then it was certain people saying "well hang on just a minute, what really happened here?". So I think it has been all round confusing and people are not 100% convinced in their opinion(if they have one at all).

    On the other hand I'm sure everyone can agree this isn't going to end any time soon. The mass murder and soldier deaths is unforgivable.

  73. ChristPuncher

    Wow Hawpork...Funny i didnt see the quotations that i apparantly put around "war is the mother of all invention" how can i have quoted something wrong when i was never quoting anything to begin with...if i wanted to use the Adage, i would have. I hand you the 'Crown of missing the point'...here..go ahead, try it on. And holy crap. You guys think your iraqi war is at the center of the universe right now?! It's not...just in your ogre-like train of thought nation. Damn, its not even all that important on the world scale, you just make it out to be.

  74. ed

    you lot have seriously got to calm down.
    life is good.

  75. hawkpork

    they're not "invasions" in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore. they're occupations and have been for quite a few years now.
    the "war" is won.
    9/11 was a front.
    now they're just sticking around making excuses for why they have to be there.
    controlling, stealing resources. the oldest motive for war.
    and i'm not "sure everyone can agree this isn’t going to end any time soon."
    we need the opposite, critical mass, populace objections to the wars.
    don't try and tell me this isn't "all that important..";
    Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,366,350"
    yes my home nation is participating in these wars. and i am angered and ashamed. isn't yours?
    i didn't misunderstand you at all. i just wanted to show that whilst war is a strong instigator of invention, it is but one of many. and the mother of all is necessity. .

  76. eireannach666


    You are wrong again. Military weapons technology was the curve needed to advance it to begin with. We make weapons and then apply. Its simple really.

    And as for the Cold war , dude there was alot of military action during this. Its called covert ops and black ops. Espionage and counter intelligence. Why do you assume what you read and see on tv is so true. Its all glitz and glamor.

    Just because there wsnt a full frontal assult doesnt mean a war wasnt being fought.

  77. BJ

    @Achems Razor

    Show of force, talks, discussions, agreements whatever. All I am saying is that things didn't need to go to all out war as they had in the past to solve a problem. I have no idea why I need to be so specific about this. That is what I mean.

    Same @ eireannach666. A mass war like the world wars before it is what was avoided. If started it could have ended life on Earth or at the very least made it almost unbearable. As for your last sentence, that is exactly what I am talking about. That is what was avoided "full frontal assault".

    As for a lot of wars being fought during the cold war. I am aware of many wars and aggressions in and around Europe and I understand that Russians and Americans were arming nations and taking political sides but my point is that because of SOME rational thinking and agreements, the Russians and Americans did not fight each other in another World War.

  78. Achems Razor

    @ BJ:

    No rational agreements, only a show of force prevailed, any weaknesses, the Russians would of jumped on it. If US resorted to talks, would be a show of weakness.

    The Russians backed down because US was more powerful. Per: the Cuban crisis, take no quarters, was show by force.

  79. hawkpork

    "Just because there wasn't a full frontal assault doesn't mean a war wasn't being fought."
    yes.. Vietnam and Afghanistan spring to mind. followed closely by cuba.
    not sure exactly what my point is though. just thinking.

    I'd like as many as are willing to give thier opinion or vote here.

    1. were the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan legal, in international law or common law? (by common i mean human,moral)

    2. are the continued occupations of Iraq and afghanistan justifiable?
    please answer yes/no then elaborate if you will.

  80. hawkpork

    no votes??..ok then... i'll try kick off.

    1.No. illegal. against UN charter.
    2.no. completely unjustifiable. leave'em all alone.

    i realize answer 2 is almost always gonna be the same as answer 1.
    but hey. was kinda hoping someone else would point that out.

    can everyone really be so disinterested in the 1,366,??? dead iraqis caused by our politicians policies?

    isn't it a more relevant discussion than some dude on a cloud in the sky?

  81. Achems Razor


    You asked what my take is on wars, can only give you my take in general.
    War to me it is a group think Orwellian mentality, Re: Orwells 1984
    But it may be changing with the advent of our information highway, who knows?

    Have no solutions, no answers, always has been eat, or be eaten world I suppose. Might is right, and all that.

  82. hawkpork

    A R,
    "can only give you my take in general."

    why can't you give me your opinion?

    illegal or legal?
    fair enough if you don't have a stance. or wish to get into it.

    but i wonder. are you a resident of one of the countries present in Iraq or afghanistan? if so, don't you feel an obligation to be informed and take a stance?
    i personally think this is a great forum to discuss it and increase awareness. which is possibly a small step, or drop in the bucket of stopping the wars.

    i think it is deffinetely an illegal war as there were no WMD's.
    it was a "pre-emptive war" that pre-empted nothing. it was a war of agression that went directly against the UN charter set up by the US,UK etc;
    the occupation is therefore illegal and all participants are criminals.
    "War to me it is a group think Orwellian mentality, But it may be changing with the advent of our information highway,"

    Not if people keep their heads in the sand, or the stars and refuse to take a stance! :)

  83. Achems Razor


    Well okay, will give my viewpoint. For one, am Canadian and at this time living in Manitoba.

    the war in Iraq. my take, is completely illegal, like you said, no WMD.

    911 was an inside job, have said that on many docs. concerning that subject.
    911 was a false flag op. to start a war. As many false flag op. at other times to start wars.
    Yes, all participants should be tried in a court of law as war criminals. In fact the author of Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi, a lawyer, started a criminal injunction against the former pres. Bush, accusing him of murder.

  84. Insomniac


    "illegal or legal?"

    All wars are both depending what side your on. I guess your asking if the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are justifiable, in which case the answer is clearly no, theres really no need for a debate over this. The real question is: Why is no one in jail for it? How can we prevent such clear violations from happening again when there is no accountability whatsoever? Why do we allow some people to be above the law? Why is there no vigilante super-hero chopping heads of??!

    Plz answer, I'm baffled >.>

  85. hawkpork

    i'm not just asking if they're justifiable.
    the UN is meant to be a neutral conglomerate with a mandate to prevent wars of aggression. there was no grounds for attack, therefor illegal. simple.
    "How can we prevent such clear violations from happening again when there is no accountability whatsoever?"

    i guess we must enforce accountability through mass protest or civil disobedience. for that to happen we must first make people aware of the facts regarding the occupations and the propaganda web we live in, of which this history channel program is but a tiny thread.

  86. M.R.

    What I find funny are the ignorant anti-war people that don't realize what the human race has developed from: violence. We owe all of our current technological prowess from the aftermath of the two World Wars, and the cumulative technological advances of all wars previous. It took war to get everyone out of the religious hole that was dug for us centuries earlier. Sure war is terrible, but winning forces one side to do better than the other, which means revolutionary thinking and tactics. That ultimately makes it back to everyday life.

    I'm not condoning the crimes against humanity, don't get me wrong. I'm simply saying don't be so quick to put down violence when it has been the deciding factor in the progress of humans (good or bad).

  87. M.R.

    Being able to edit posts would be nice. Anyways. . .

    I would like to add that whether or not the current issue regarding Iraq is justified, I don't know. We can speculate all that we want and provide moving evidence, but the higher echelon of U.S. government will be keeping that information locked away somewhere.

    The U.S.A. being in Iraq after the "war" has been won isn't new, by the way. There are still bases in Germany and Japan. That war was over how many years ago, again? It's all one, big international display of might that's costing Americans billions of dollars a year. This kind of war does not improve technology at ALL, nor is it wholly justifiable.

    Nevermind the fact that a nuclear war would just wipe out the human race. Why research a defense when you can subliminally keep the threat of a Nuclear Apocalypse alive? Even if war has consequently improved human life, it can also completely destroy it.

    We're at the point I believe where an all-out war would annihilate everything.

  88. hawkpork

    ".. whether or not the current issue regarding Iraq is justified, I don’t know. We can speculate all that we want and provide moving evidence, but the higher echelon of U.S. government will be keeping that information locked away somewhere."

    international law, and moral logic say a nation can only use military force in self defense, when sanctioned by UN security council.
    there was no evidence of WMD's or they would've shown it to us as justification. there was no threat from Iraq.
    it goes directly against the UN charter.
    the fact the UN security council allowed the invasion/occupation shows their bias corruption.

    try giving the "war = development" spiel to the relatives of the 1,366,350 dead iraqis.
    or just try put yourself in their shoes and see how you'd feel if someone belittled their plight as you have.

  89. M.R.

    Whether or not the victims like the war or not doesn't matter when technological development is in discussion. Minus the emotional effects of war (which are staggering, to say the least), it progresses human technology.

    Now, I never condoned the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq. My point is that some people are too quick to scorn the effects of war. They forget too easily that it is one of the factors why we have so many luxuries available for us today, and why many of them are affordable.

    Whether or not the Iraq situation is actually doing any good, no one will know until a few decades after its (hopeful) conclusion. We know the bad that war causes because that's naturally the immediate effect.

    We don't realize the full extent of any wars until many years have gone by. But, usually (as in the case of the World Wars) much progress is made following the aftermath. Unless, as I said earlier, the war is an Apocalypse that wipes out most of the human race.

  90. hawkpork

    the fact that you can even write this, regardless of context,
    ("Whether or not the victims like the war or not doesn’t matter..") shows your serious deficiency in empathy. victims, by definition don't "like the war".

    so what if war has accelerated invention?
    does that make the death of 1,366,350 people less important? or the wars less worth stopping?

    "What I find funny are the ignorant anti-war people that don’t realize what the human race has developed from: violence."

    does this mean you think that if one DOES "realize what the human race has developed from: violence." then one is pro war?
    if not. why mix the ideas?

  91. M.R.

    Cutting and pasting my words and making an inference on only a section of my text is unfair. I can also take parts from your words and twist them around as well.

    I didn't say that war came without consequences. Again, you're putting opinions in my mouth. Rather, you are implying that those are my opinions.

    You cannot try and put focus on one part of the war and not the others. My views take into account the WHOLE aftermath, not one (bad) part. What you are doing is splitting it up and trying to make an opinion from one part apply to the whole thing. Perhaps I should have used a different word then. Let's say it was witnesses. Witnesses to a war can be in it and not like it, but they can also like it. What if they are being liberated from a brutal, occupying country? Then those witnesses would, at least to an extent, like the changes that the war brought to them.

    One does not have to be "pro war" to understand what the human race has developed from. That's like saying: if I understand why the Nazis persecuted the Jews, does that make me a part-Nazi? No, it does not. It means I understood why they did what they did.

    Now applying that back to this, I understand what war does. Yes, it does cause massive amounts of devastation (both physically and psychologically), but it also progresses technology. Whether or not one outweighs the other depends on the extent of each effect. For example, WWII brought the world out of the Depression, but it also led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people. Had WWII not happened, who knows what would've happened. What I know for sure, however, is technology would not be the same.

    So, simply put, it depends. If too many people are killed for the technological progress (such as the Iraqi invasion/occupation), then the war is useless. Genocides are also a form of war, but that's extermination. So in that case, it's also useless. Going back to WWII, the conflict forced countries to improve in order to gain the upper hand. Tens of millions of people died for the improvement of technology.

    But was it worth it? It's too early to say. As I said, we don't realize the full effects of something that changes so much until many years, sometimes decades, later.

  92. hawkpork

    i didn't twist your words.
    and i didn't try to imply what your opinions are. you implied them yourself. i just asked you to clarify.

    "Tens of millions of people died for the improvement of technology.
    But was it worth it? It’s too early to say."

    would it be "too early to say" if it was your family being gassed?

    should we forget our morals or weigh them against the potential value of undiscovered stuff?
    if so, why not make war more often, in the interests of development.
    haha; war is peace, war is progress.

  93. M.R.

    The opinion is different when it's non-biased. If I'm a witness/victim to a war, of course I'll naturally hate the war and those who were responsible for starting it. There wouldn't be a doubt in my mind. It would take many years for me to reconcile with the war and realize its effects, if I reconcile at all.

    Our morals should never be forgotten. It's not like anyone wants war. Who does? It's horrible and always has negative effects. But the improvement of technology is a side-effect. You wouldn't wage war to improve technology the same way you wouldn't eat a big meal to take a big washroom break.

    So, in a way, we're damned if we do, yet damned if we don't.

  94. M.R.

    Just something I'd like to clarify on what I said earlier:

    "Tens of millions of people died for the improvement of technology."

    These people didn't die specifically to improve technology. Rather, the progress came after their deaths.

    If a general has astounding results in a battle, why would he change his tactics or equipment? That's inefficient. But if massive losses are taken, then that side is force to innovate or possible invent new tactics and/or equipment. As I've heard somewhere before, human civilization was built upon failure, not success. And since war is rarely an almost completely one-sided event, progress is undeniable.

    Once again, editing would be nice. =/

  95. hawkpork

    "progress is undeniable" then so is regress.
    one can also reason that war has had various detrimental effects on social and technological evolution.
    i would argue that if war has both progressive and regressive effects that the two basically cancel each other out and we're left with loss of life, for gain of property.
    which isn't worth it.
    "It’s not like anyone wants war. Who does?" the warmongers of course!
    seen "lord of war"?

  96. M.R.

    Yes, of course it has. The Crusades for example did not do much in the way of improving life, especially since religion continued to drastically slow down human progress. But that's another topic altogether.

    But how can the two cancel each other out? WWII brought the end of trench warfar and brought the world out of the Depression. It did leave us with millions of lost life and nuclear weapons. But the rest of the century after that showed unbelievable growth in technology and standards of living (which we are still enjoying, despite the most recent economic recession).

    Perhaps you are right though. Ultimately, those nuclear weapons might cancel everything out by giving us a nuclear war and, subsequently, an Apocalypse.

    Warmongers of course want war, but they rarely are the ones who have to suffer through it. More often than not, they are politicians and people in the top reaches of society who have excuses to stay out of the fighting. You don't see Generals out there fighting the enemy themselves these days.

  97. hawkpork

    how can the progressive and regressive effects of war cancel each other out?
    well it's a bit hard to quantify loss or gain. as we are theorizing on what might've been.
    but a few things spring to mind as being clearly regressive.
    the destruction of archaeological sites in Iraq, the birth place of civiization. both in the current occupation and all the way back when it was called mesepotamia and the mongols burned it down.
    destruction of the library of alexander. genocide against native folks all around the world.
    these, and many more occurances have had an unquantifiable regressive effect on humanity.
    the net benefit or loss to human development due to war is impossible to quantify.
    the loss of life and property is not impossible to quantify.
    we can intellectualize the pro's and cons of war as much as we want, as we have the luxury of dislocation from it.
    but the simple truth is that "blood for oil" is a bad deal.

  98. M.R.

    Well perhaps the positive result(s) of one war are counteracted by the negative conclusions of another. But that I believe is just a coincidence, not something that has to occur to even the playing field.

    I keep going back to WWII because it is the most recent example where enough time has passed to look at most, if not all, of the effects it caused. Here I don't believe the war canceled itself out, simply because I don't think the loss of human life is regressive. It does slow us down for a couple of decades, just in time for us to reproduce and fill those numbers back in.

    I think the factor that sets us back most is our disregard of infrastructure. Electricity powers us as a race, yet all of our power lines are vulnerable to a tree branch falling over it. So when war starts, of course the first thing to fall down are those big, bulky electrical towers above ground.

    Infrastructure is many times harder to rebuild than a missing population. Humans can always reproduce, we can't always give ourselves the lives we have now. So when we go to war, the loss of life is not nearly as destructive as the loss of infrastructure (unless, of course, the loss of life is something so massive that reproducing becomes difficult).

    It could just be two steps forward, one step backward. For everything we progress in, there's always going to be something to delay us, even if for a little bit. I say this because if it was indeed two steps forward and two steps backwards, we never would've made it as a species: we would've been too stupid to realize our mistakes and fix them. We're not still back in the Dark Ages, there has been tremendous progress.

    We have lost much of our ancient history, which is deeply saddening. The Library of Alexandria contained a myriad of documents about the ancient knowledge of our ancestors. And were it not for the fire that destroyed it all, who knows what would be available to us today. But even that could not stop the progress of the human race, as the event was still fairly localized. There was no major loss of life and the infrastructure of the area remained intact, for the most part.

    I do agree with you in that it's much easier for us to speculate on wars when we are not involved in them directly. Being detached gives you the luxury of speculation.

    I still find it funny that oil is valued so much when solar power can be harvested infinitely without warming the globe. Strange how these top fools are so smart that they fail to realize that when Earth's oceans start rising their major coastal cities will flood. Where's your precious New York City now? Furthermore, how about the ever-growing human population? The issue of overpopulation is all-too-often ignored, I believe.

  99. hawkpork

    in the words of bill gates,
    " the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health.

    And that sounds paradoxical. You think: Okay, better health means more kids not less kids. Well in fact, what parents are doing is they’re trying to have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them. And so, the more disease burden there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability. So there’s a perfect correlation, that as you improve health, within a half generation, the population growth rate goes down. In fact, Hans Rosling, here at this conference in two of my favorite speeches actually showed that unbelievable correlation that population growth has gone down. Today, where is there high population growth? It’s in the places with the worst health conditions — Northern Nigeria, Northern India … And so the two problems go exactly hand in hand and if we improve health rapidly we will get the peak population to be as much as a billion below the current expected peak — that is about 8.3 billion versus 9.3.

  100. M.R.

    Well, I do hope that you have read my rant as it concludes my thoughts.

    It's difficult to justify both legally and morally, as in this case they don't go hand in hand. The U.S. has a tendency to find ways to legalize such actions. As there are no countries opposing them with military force other than the Taliban.

    However, in my opinion, they should quit the BS and actually go after what they're in there for. Where are these hidden WMDs? If there was actual fighting going on over an unstable country having nukes, then I would condone their actions (though not the civilian casualties, among other things). But as of now, no. The're wasting billions of their own dollars. If the WMDs were there, they would've found them. If they are in fact there, well we can safely say that Iraq is doing a good job of not using them and America is doing a piss-poor job at finding them and getting out of there.

  101. anonymous

    Disappointing - I'd hoped for a more considered review. And the original Hughes Huey had a max altitude of nearly 20,000 ft, not 10,000 as the presenter stated.

    Wished that he'd concentrated on the helicopters and not the accessories...

  102. Lance

    From a technical point of view the show could be interesting. It's too bad the host is such gung ho militarist. His primary joy in life seems to be in the destruction of his fellow humans. I would like to hoo raa his sorry butt.

  103. Andy

    His shouting and b@##$%^& is sooo annoying to listen to it ruins the whole show!

  104. jose

    takes the glory out of gory and instills propaganda
    i'm not very proud of this at all and i was army. served 1982 till 1988 and i thought i questioned everything...to find i are the enemy there and now here

  105. xock

    haha so biased but still cool

  106. Jay W

    For all those people complaining about the tone of this show ... seriously, what were you geniuses expecting from a former Marine Corps Drill Instructor? Peace signs and flowers? Forrest Gump was right, "Stupid is as stupid does" ...

  107. Johnny

    What is your malfunction marine?!

  108. Akim_Souary

    I hope he gets a stroke sooner than later.. he totally ruins the whole watching experience for me. He's a major distraction and such a f--king cliché: "Yeah that's what I'm talking about... YEAH go get 'er!" - "Almost like the 4th of july OOORAH!!"

    Lol - What a tool....

  109. Bouncy444

    This guy is really annoying and when you think about it he's also kinda evil the way he makes war out to be some kind of video game. The world would be better off without people like him to be honest

  110. testicularfortitude

    After that crap series Mail Call, I expected a much better show...As a matter of fact, I expected Lee Ermey to s*** tiffany cufflinks but he fails miserably with this show and it looks like I'm gonna have to unscrew his head and s*** down his Neck!

  111. Belvene Macabale

    damn right brother

  112. 1WonkyFunkfart69

    "Death and destruction.. hurrah!" What a f--kwit! That Remy dude needs a taste of his own medicine. Some napalm or Agent Orange sprayed all over his redneck home town USA perhaps?

  113. tariqxl

    A lot of people talk as though they're pacifists yet they naturally want to watch this show. Its an evolutionary thing.., we need meat to meet our energy demands, which you obviously can't pick from a tree. The big game changer was the mass extinction event which put us in a struggle for resources which gave sapiens the chance to shine as we could throw spears giving rise to our love with ranged warfare. Violence is a learned action, it is necessary and has given us all the technology we have today. All we have to do now is unlearn it with free energy and food for all just make the bankers less greedy. Unfortunately greed is not learned and is innate so unless you can figure that problem out you better accept the inevitable. ooh rah!

  114. spamotron

    "we need meat to meet our energy demands, which you obviously can't pick from a tree."

    Mmmm.. I don't need meat to meet my energy demands.
    And I do like to pump iron 2 to 3 times a week.
    But, yes, pacifism is just militarisms retarded brother.

  115. Abjective

    The one of the most irratating twits i have seen in this doc. Weapons are only made for one purpose only and that is to kill many people as possible which is quite depressing to contemplate.

    There is already enough explosives to blow the entire planet several times over, what worries me the most is that the Americans are the type of loons that will cause this catastrophic doomsday.

  116. Gwank

    If guns were only ment to kill people mine must not be working..............but they do???

  117. jazblake55

    We Americans have no say as to whether our idiotic, weak-minded, president decides to bomb or nuke another country. And I guess you think the North Koreans or Iranians wouldn't "cause this catastrophic doomsday" if they had the ability too.

  118. Ronald Jones

    Have you been un the military at all ? Lots of our people in uniform act like that. If you don't like the show simply don't watch it. However NO you people just want to complain about something. Get a life!!!

  119. Jon Lewis

    So your friends name is iron?

Leave a comment / review: