Is the US Military Incompetant?

[Starshark]

As suggested, I've started a new topic. Click here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12518&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) for the background.

(But first, a minute's silence for sundog, who must bear the burden of speaking for all of the left-wingers against the evil conservatives. Not only that, but not all the 'lefties' agree with him!)





















(thirty seconds... that'll do)

Now, my argument is that the US military is incompetent.

1) They run slow, pedantic campaigns devoid of any real strategy. For example, in the Gulf War and in recent times they slowly built up their forces instead of acting quickly and decisively. Leading to...

2) They fail in achieving their objectives. For example, one of the objectives in the Gulf War was to secure the oil wells. Because they ran a slow, pedantic campaign, they allowed the Iraqis plenty of time for 'scorched earth' policies.

3) They kill civilians and attack civilian targets, such as Bagdad. They are seduced by technology, leading to further civilian casualites, eg the U-236 shells and cluster bombs.

4) Because they are incompetant and have a hard time achieving their objectives, the US military lashes out like a spoiled child kicking over its lego bricks. This has lead to breaches in basic human rights. Look no further than camp X-ray.

For my part, I'm in the process of borrowing a few books from the library that tries to examine the Iraqi conflict from the point of view of the military. To anyone who thinks I just make this stuff up as I go along, I formed these opinions after reading John Ralston Saul's "Voltare's Bastards", "Unconcious Civilisations", "Doubter's Companion" and "On Equilibrium" (his fiction is quite good, too); John Pilger's "Hidden Agendas" and "The New Rulers of the World"; Noam Chomsky (although I've forgotten the exact name of the books of his that I've read because I borrowed them from the library and don't have the copies handy... Sh*t!)... and heck, I'll even admit I read "Stupid White Males" by Michael Moore, although I don't think I'll be using him as a reference for some reason.

Let the game begin!


(PS- let's leave the 'Salute' thread to saluting the US Military. I think the US military's a joke myself, but respect that other people should have the right to use the thread for what it was intended. My apologies for the hijack)


(edited to correct spelling of 'incompetent'- although by all means continue to rag me about my lack of spelling skills if that's the best you can do)

[Jon_in_london]

You obviously dont understand much about military stragetgy or tactics. Even though it is my patriotic duty to sneer at, insult and generally hold in contempt the US military, I dont think they are incompetent.

You want faster build ups? its not that easy to move 100,000s around the world with all their equiptment food and ammunition vehicles etc... at any great speed. The rest of your criticism stems from the fact that the US uses airstrikes and technology to reduce casulaties. Would you prefer no airstrikes and very high casualties? 1991 was the mother of all defeats, it was entirely possible that we could have had very high casualties (25%ish) and a war that dragged on for years. The ground war, when it came, was dynamic, unpredicatable and very fast and I think Fuller, Liddle-hart, Guderian, Wavell and Rommel would all have been quite impressed.

My 2p.

[likkerhog]

Ah crap, I'll feed the troll...

1. Several very basic points to counter your kindergarten level strategic abilities... moving heavy units ie: armored, artillery, mechanized infantry takes a lot of ships, which takes time to traverse the ocean (over and over and over...)
Then there are the supplies. You want enough to sustain your troops during the war - food, ammunition, medical supplies. Takes some time to build this up, meanwhile some are being comsumed while the buildup occurs...
If you use light units to "rapidly and decisively" attack, with no back up support, you will lose those units with nothing gained.
What did you expect - nukes? That is the only rapid and decisive unit I can think of that fits your bill.

2. Yes they burned the oil wells. Meanwhile the air campaign was knocking the sh*t out of the defenses. Hmmm, let them burn some oil or attack prematurely and suffer more casualties? Hard choice.

3. Civilians killed in war! Wow what a concept! It sure never happened before! (sarcasm in case you didn't get it). Smart weapons were more accurate than ever before but not infallible. As for the two weapons you used as examples - cluster bombs are old tech, used for troop concentrations and supply/fuel depots and airfields. Where did you get any evidence they were dropped on Bagdad? As for the u-236 shells, I assume you mean depleted urainium armored piercing rounds? These were used by main battle tanks, attack helicopters and attack aircraft. None of these vehicles got anywhere near Bagdad, therefore no civvies were harmed by them. Depleted uranium is a very dense metal, making it very effective in penetrating armored vehicles. It is not radioactive (hence the depleted) but it is poisonous. (think lead)
As stated it is great at killing tanks but not good at killing people. High explosive, fuel-air explosives and their ancestor napalm are far better at it.

4. Camp X-ray. I assume that is the place where the prisoners from Afghanistan are being held? What are you complaining about, and what would you have done with them? In this humble Canadian's opinion they should be thrown into the ocean with a large rock tied around their necks.

I have never heard of the books or authors you are quoting, I will see if I can find them. I choked my way through the communist manifesto, I'm sure I can read anything.

If you are trolling - Bravo! You got a response!

If you are serious then you should really try to learn something about the subject before making such broad sweeping accusations. You sound like a 12 year old playing Command and Conquer who can't figure out why real wars don't go the way his computer ones do.

[Stig]

The Americans do love their military technology which enables them to kill at great distance. I'm no military expert but it seems to me that the further away the attacker is from the target, the more chance there is of missing, and subsequently killing and injuring civilians.
Those that join the military know the risks entailed and know their lives may one day be in danger. Perhaps we should get the pilots that keep bombing innocents a bit closer to the danger. Perhaps this would help alleviate some mistakes.
Are there any military pilots here that can give me their opinion on this?

Stig

[Jon_in_london]

PS instead of reading Chomsky N, Pilger J et al. why not try reading Fuller JFC, Liddel-Hart BC, Rommel E and Guderian H. Et al.

Im sure your understanding of strategy might improve a tad.

[LW]

Originally posted by Starshark
1) They run slow, pedantic campaigns devoid of any real strategy. For example, in the Gulf War and in recent times they slowly built up their forces instead of acting quickly and decisively. Leading to...
And exactly why it is a bad idea to ensure numerical and technical superiority before an attack? Sure a "quick" attack may be "decisive", but it is also a gamble that may lead to heavy losses.

[likkerhog]

Originally posted by Stig
The Americans do love their military technology which enables them to kill at great distance. I'm no military expert but it seems to me that the further away the attacker is from the target, the more chance there is of missing, and subsequently killing and injuring civilians.
Those that join the military know the risks entailed and know their lives may one day be in danger. Perhaps we should get the pilots that keep bombing innocents a bit closer to the danger. Perhaps this would help alleviate some mistakes.
Are there any military pilots here that can give me their opinion on this?

Stig

This is the dumbest thing I have read since the original post. Let me put forth a senario for you:
General- " Well pilots, we have some new missles that you can launch farther away from your targets and still have a pretty good chance of hitting them."
Pilots- "Great! When do we get them?"
General- " You don't. You might hit civilians with them."
Pilots- " But we can hit civilians with our dumb-bombs and rockets too!"
General- " But if you feel closer to danger you will be less likely to kill civilians! That's what the "Make war freindly"people tell us"
Pilots- "That sounds logical!"

I wasn't a pilot, so I don't meet your criteria. I was a ground pounder for 12 years if that is worth anything...

[Stig]

Ok, fair comment. I know what I'd prefer if I was a pilot too.

Stig

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Stig
Ok, fair comment. I know what I'd prefer if I was a pilot too.

Stig

Noam Chomsky and John Pilger.

How could anybody possibly have greater insight into military competency than this pair?

[xouper]

Starshark: Now, my argument is that the US military is incompetant.Compared to what? The Australian military? :rolleyes:

[OdderMensch]

One >The U.S. Military is one of the few aspects of our government I consider compotent.
Two > As a 12 year old who plays Command and Conquer, I'm offended :mad: you'd imply I had so little knowledge as to call the US military incompotent. :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by xouper
Compared to what? The Australian military? :rolleyes:

Dont knock the Aussies. They did better than you in vietnam.

Possibly the best troops in the world IMO

[Jedi Knight]

I completely disagree with Starshark's jealous rage about the US military. Starshark can't even spell incompetent right. How can he judge the status of an institution like the US military if he can't even spell incompetent?

The US military is the most competent, versatile and lethal military force ever created in the history of mankind. In 1991, Iraq had the 4th largest military force in the world that was also highly equipped and trained and the US military destroyed it in weeks.

Knowing that then, it appears that Starshark not only doesn't know a thing about the US military, he is perhaps a bottom-feeder communist of the worst sort--a leftist that critiques only those things that promote freedom.

Starshark, I know it is difficult for you to come to grips with the fact that your own political ideology is a perversion and one that was thrown into the garbage can of bad ideas, but if you are going to critique the US military, learn two important skills first. These skills you need to learn are:

1) How to spell.

2) Know the subject matter of what it is that you are talking about.

Just because you throw names of marginal communists like Chomsky in your opinion doesn't make your opinion valid, either.

I am looking forward to reading more of your leftist drivel so post when you get a chance. I love comedy. By the way, have you ever served in the military or are you just a coward that only critiques them from a safe-distance? Cowards avoid the battlefield and many leftists I read about are cowards of the worst kind. You don't fit that description, do you?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

If you haven't served in the US military or your country's military, you are only 1/2 a man. Since you are 1/2 a man, how could you possible critique an institution of greater value than you?

Those are two questions that people need to ask themselves before they critique the US military or any military force.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Stig
The Americans do love their military technology which enables them to kill at great distance. I'm no military expert but it seems to me that the further away the attacker is from the target, the more chance there is of missing, and subsequently killing and injuring civilians.
Those that join the military know the risks entailed and know their lives may one day be in danger. Perhaps we should get the pilots that keep bombing innocents a bit closer to the danger. Perhaps this would help alleviate some mistakes.
Are there any military pilots here that can give me their opinion on this?

Stig

Prince Charles dropped bombs from his jet-fighter when he served. Those bombs weren't even laser-guided. They were not very accurate weapons.

So why don't you whine about that for a time before you stick your nose into a subject (the US military) that you obviously know nothing about.

JK

[Stig]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



So why don't you whine about that for a time before you stick your nose into a subject (the US military) that you obviously know nothing about.

JK

OK, thanks for the kind advice - O' enlightened one.

Stig

[Stig]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Prince Charles dropped bombs from his jet-fighter when he served. Those bombs weren't even laser-guided. They were not very accurate weapons.

So why don't you whine about that for a time before you stick your nose into a subject (the US military) that you obviously know nothing about.

JK

Hang on.........What the hell has Prince Charles got to do with anything? The only things he's killed are countless pheasants and grouse!!

Stig

[Gebeker]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but isn't much of the US military technology aimed at increasing the accuracy of our attacks? That, in turn, minimizes civilian casualties. It's the job of any responsible military to minimize BOTH civilian and friendly losses. To that end, the US military is very fond of air power. Today's technology allows bombs to be far more accurate than they were in the past. It doesn't eliminate mistakes and civilian casualties completely, of course, but it's far better than what we had in the past. The alternative is to send ground troops in to do the job. An invasion with ground troops when you haven't "softened up" the enemy with many airstrikes first tends to lead to a long, ugly, bloody battle. That in turn leads to far more civilian casualties than the occasional errant bomb that hits a civilian building.

I've never served in the military, so someone correct me if the above analysis is full of crap. :)

One thing about the US is that our press constantly reports it every time a civilian target is attacked by mistake. Other nations make these mistakes in war, too, but they are less likely to be reported. Couldn't that give people a misleading, negative impression of the US military's record on civilian casualties?

In the 1991 war, the US military convincingly defeated one of the world's largest military forces. We lost something like 100 soldiers, didn't we? That's not what I would call incompetent.

About the comment about being "1/2 a man if you haven't served in the military".... PLEASE tell me that was a joke.

[Stig]

Originally posted by Gebeker

One thing about the US is that our press constantly reports it every time a civilian target is attacked by mistake. Other nations make these mistakes in war, too, but they are less likely to be reported. Couldn't that give people a misleading, negative impression of the US military's record on civilian casualties?


That is an angle I hadn't considered. Unfortunately for the Americans it does appear that they have the lion's share of "Friendly fire" incidents. Of course another thing I have just considered is that in any of the conflicts my country is involved in, the Americans are taking the lead role and therefore have more firepower up front and more opportunity for a mistake to be made. This would make it seem like the Americans were reckless when in fact they are not.

Stig

[xouper]

Jon_in_london: Dont knock the Aussies. They did better than you in vietnam. Possibly the best troops in the world IMOCan they defeat the U.S. military?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Starshark
As suggested, I've started a new topic. Click here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12518&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) for the background.

1) They run slow, pedantic campaigns devoid of any real strategy. For example, in the Gulf War and in recent times they slowly built up their forces instead of acting quickly and decisively. Leading to...


Fun thing about being the attacker. You get to pick the time and place of the attack. That means you don't have to go off half cocked. You build the forces you need. Along the way, you make sure you know what your enemies are up to. If they are building an effective defense, you can either start earlier or change tactics. The US saw that the Iraqi's left their flank open, and went around it.


2) They fail in achieving their objectives. For example, one of the objectives in the Gulf War was to secure the oil wells. Because they ran a slow, pedantic campaign, they allowed the Iraqis plenty of time for 'scorched earth' policies.


Excuse me, but there was no stated goal that the wells had to be secured intact. Those wells were restored and are functioning. What exactly is the problem? Dropping in paratroops may have prevented the well heads from being blown up but would have resulted in large scale casualties. The cost in lives would not have justified the effort since the wells could be restored.


3) They kill civilians and attack civilian targets, such as Bagdad. They are seduced by technology, leading to further civilian casualites, eg the U-236 shells and cluster bombs.


OK, when it the last time that civilians were not killed in a war? Baghdad was full of military targets. The bridges across the rivers are a prime example, since they are a part of the logistics chain needed to support the Iraqi military. Also, countries like Iraq deliberately locate military resources near civilians in order to increase the casualties. See the following report:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/apparatus-of-lies.pdf

The reason the locate assets near civilians is to fool people like you into thinking the US deliberately attacks civilians.

In the mean time, study up on Physics. DU shell are made of U-238, not U-236. Their have been other threads on this board that covered the reality of what DU is and what is does. Do a search and read up.



4) Because they are incompetant and have a hard time achieving their objectives, the US military lashes out like a spoiled child kicking over its lego bricks. This has lead to breaches in basic human rights. Look no further than camp X-ray.


Rubbish. I suppose you think people at camp X-ray were just picked up off the street in Kabul and taken to Cuba. They are there for questioning because they were believed to be combatants. I suppose you have been reading torture stories and take them at face value. Nice to see you question the media once in a while. Not nice to see that you don't question it when what you read does not support your pre conceived ideas.

[Stig]

Originally posted by xouper
Can they defeat the U.S. military?

I think that if the US war machine went into full swing against any other single country in the world - they would win. The US is undeniabley militarily competent.

Stig

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Doubt


Fun thing about being the attacker. You get to pick the time and place of the attack. That means you don't have to go off half cocked. You build the forces you need. Along the way, you make sure you know what your enemies are up to. If they are building an effective defense, you can either start earlier or change tactics. The US saw that the Iraqi's left their flank open, and went around it.




But note that this type of advantage wouldn't help an incompetent force.

I saw an interesting piece on the History channel the other night.

Rome vs Hannibal.

Sorry that I can't remeber the exact details, but Rome assembled its largest ever army, 8 legions (80,000 men), to take on Hannibal at a time and place of their choosing. They outnumbered Hannibal by more than 2 to 1.

And Hannibal inflicted on them a crushing defeat, through superior tactics. He spread his line, advanced, then fell back in the centre to envelope the Romans and then completely surround them. During this process, more than half the Roman force could not take any effective part in the battle because it was jammed up behind the front line.

[xouper]

xouper: Can they defeat the U.S. military?

Stig: I think that if the US war machine went into full swing against any other single country in the world - they would win. The US is undeniabley militarily competent.I'm a failure as a troll. Obviously I need more practice eliciting flames instead of agreement.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Starshark
...

Now, my argument is that the US military is incompetant.

1) They run slow, pedantic campaigns devoid of any real strategy. For example, in the Gulf War and in recent times they slowly built up their forces instead of acting quickly and decisively. Leading to...

2) They fail in achieving their objectives. For example, one of the objectives in the Gulf War was to secure the oil wells. Because they ran a slow, pedantic campaign, they allowed the Iraqis plenty of time for 'scorched earth' policies.

3) They kill civilians and attack civilian targets, such as Bagdad. They are seduced by technology, leading to further civilian casualites, eg the U-236 shells and cluster bombs.

4) Because they are incompetant and have a hard time achieving their objectives, the US military lashes out like a spoiled child kicking over its lego bricks. This has lead to breaches in basic human rights. Look no further than camp X-ray.

For my part, I'm in the process of borrowing a few books from the library that tries to examine the Iraqi conflict from the point of view of the military. To anyone who thinks I just make this stuff up as I go along, I formed these opinions after reading John Ralston Saul's "Voltare's Bastards", "Unconcious Civilisations", "Doubter's Companion" and "On Equilibrium" (his fiction is quite good, too); John Pilger's "Hidden Agendas" and "The New Rulers of the World"; Noam Chomsky (although I've forgotten the exact name of the books of his that I've read because I borrowed them from the library and don't have the copies handy... Sh*t!)... and heck, I'll even admit I read "Stupid White Males" by Michael Moore, although I don't think I'll be using him as a reference for some reason.

Let the game begin!
...

To: Starshark

I think that your opinion is incorrect due to the fact that you do not have a good appreciation of how military forces are positioned and used. I hope that I do not sound too harsh, because I have found that many people do not have even a basic reasoning of military issues.

First, in the case of the Gulf War, the forces were actually built up rather quickly considering the vast numbers of troops, heavy equipment, and aircraft that were positioned. Sending over a few planeloads of troops can be done in a matter of hours. However sending over 250,000 troops, along with tanks, artillery, earth moving equipment, communications gear, aircraft (fixed and rotary wing), food, clothes, tents, weapons, shovels, mail bags, and on, and on, and on, is much more difficult.

Second, in regards to the troops preventing the destruction of the Kuwaiti oil wells, the Iraqis actually started to destroy these wells some weeks before the land war (probably to provide some visual cover for their ground troops and ships operating in the Persian Gulf).

Third, the military does make mistakes and does inadvertently kill civilians and destroys civilian targets. I do not why you find that surprising, that kind of thing has always happened in the past and will continue well into the future. As far as the military is concerned, it does not like to waste resources attacking targets that will not help in its efforts, but as long as it does not happen too often, that would be considered 'acceptable' by military standards.

Fourth, the objectives you are speaking of are set by the civilian leadership, not by the military. If the military had its way, then it probably would have taken Baghdad in 1991, North Vietnam in 1968, Korea in ... (well, you get the idea). Anyway, these objectives are set by the civilian leadership who set limits on how much pressure the military is authorized to actually use to achieve the objectives you speak of.

Fifth, just a personal point, it would really help your arguments if you would clean up your spelling errors (incompetent, to name one).

I hope this helps!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Drooper

And Hannibal inflicted on them a crushing defeat, through superior tactics. He spread his line, advanced, then fell back in the centre to envelope the Romans and then completely surround them. During this process, more than half the Roman force could not take any effective part in the battle because it was jammed up behind the front line.

I also watched it, very interesting prog. I think you mean strategy not tactics- tactics are what the individual soldiers do. Strategy is for the brass.

Incidentally Cannae saw more troops killed in a single day than even the Somme 1916. Bear in mind, this was done without rifles, machine guns artillery or gas :eek: I dont think we can properly imagine what that must have been like.

xouper: Can they defeat the U.S. military?

Numbers and all else being equal, I'd give odds of 5:1 against the yanks. seriously. I'd give similar odds for any small, proffesional army. What makes the US military so strong is its combination of extremely large size and the best kit in the world. On the individual level- they are nothing special (Im talking average US army here, not elite units such as rangers/airborne/marines).

This is not to say they arent competent, just that small proffesional outfits HAVE to be extremly competent, steady and self-reliant, otherwise they'd be deed.

*disclaimer* This isnt an attempt to offend americans, I have voiced this opinion before and heard it echoed not only by people from other armies but even from Americans themselves.

[Crossbow]

Excuse me guys, but that Rome vs. Hannibal thing.

Hannibal was very clever and he did win several tactical victories while on the way to, and in Italy. However, the Romans did eventually win that war.

They destroyed Carthage, killed many of the men, sold the others into slavery, and sowed the wheat fields with salt.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Excuse me guys, but that Rome vs. Hannibal thing.

Hannibal was very clever and hed did win several tactical victories while on the way to, and in Italy. However, the Romans did eventually win that war.

They destroyed Carthage, killed many of the men, sold the others into slavery, and sowed the wheat fields with salt.

Indeed, but they achieved this by NOT fighting hannibal. By avoiding battle, the romans simply left hannibal to kick stones around italy for a few years doing no great harm until he was stabbedin the back by politicians back home.

How'd they get the salt through the needle? ;)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I also watched it, very interesting prog. I think you mean strategy not tactics- tactics are what the individual soldiers do. Strategy is for the brass.


I don't like being corrected in public. What I meant was tactics vis.

"The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy"

or

"A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal"

or

"The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in order for battle, and performing military and naval evolutions. It is divided into grand tactics, or the tactics of battles, and elementary tactics, or the tactics of instruction" [Websters]

Strategy:

"The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements"


He obviously won the battle using tactics.

The Romans won the war via (eventually) using strategy.

[LW]

Originally posted by Drooper
8 legions (80,000 men)
Though not all of them participated in the battle of Cannae, at least 10000 men were left behind in fortified camps. [Edited to add: but certainly, Romans had an impressive superiority on both numbers and quality of infantry.]

He spread his line, advanced, then fell back in the centre to envelope the Romans and then completely surround them.
There's some debate between historians on whether Hannibal's center withdrew on purpose or did Romans push it back with their superior infantry. (A similar situation happened at Poltava where the right wing of Karl XII's infantry almost managed to push through Russian infantry but was encircled when the attack of the left wing failed).

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Drooper

I don't like being corrected in public.

Me neither, im going to sulk now *Adopts long face, stands in a corner and looks furtively over shoulder for attention*

PS didnt cromwell do something similar at bosworth?

[Plutarck]

Here's an interesting little thought I had:


Various enemies of the US, such as Saddam, make a habit of putting military targets very close to civilians. Now, why is this?

1) It could be more conventient.

2) If attacked they want more civilian casualties both to use to attempt to incense the populace and make the attacker look bad to other gullible people/countries.

3) They know that the US avoids civilian casualties, for many reasons, and thus by putting military targets in sensitive areas they are safer than they would otherwise be.


Now, it's probably a combination of all of these. However, here's an interesting little problem about #3:

More civilians die because we try to avoid killing them. If we absolutely didn't give a **** about who or what we killed so long as we got our target, then such things as "human shields" and putting military targets in sensitive areas would no longer make any sense. It'd just be a waste of time, effort, and resources to bother. Might as well just stick them anywhere.

So, it could be partially our own unwillingness to kill innocents that causes them to actually end up being killed.

Kind of depressing, isn't it?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Numbers and all else being equal, I'd give odds of 5:1 against the yanks. seriously. I'd give similar odds for any small, proffesional army. What makes the US military so strong is its combination of extremely large size and the best kit in the world. On the individual level- they are nothing special (Im talking average US army here, not elite units such as rangers/airborne/marines).

This is not to say they arent competent, just that small proffesional outfits HAVE to be extremly competent, steady and self-reliant, otherwise they'd be deed.

*disclaimer* This isnt an attempt to offend americans, I have voiced this opinion before and heard it echoed not only by people from other armies but even from Americans themselves.

I take issue with your odds.

If the US had to fight Britain on even terms using regular forces, yes we would probably get beat. Training and discipline would be the telling factor. When all else is equal, the battle usually goes to the side that makes the least mistakes. US leadership is not the greatest, but it is far better than average.

But there are just not that many good armies out there. Certainly, the Iraqi leadership is not even in the top 20 nations when it comes to leadership.

How many armies have consistently good leaders and training? Some are good for short periods, but drop off after they enjoy a few years of peace. One thing I once heard from a SEAL about their performace: "It is not that we are that good, it is that everyone else is that bad."

I generally don't count the airborne or marines as a true elite forces. Semi-elite would be valid, but the training and resources just are not there. The Rangers are what I would call the boundary of a real elite force. The train, train, and train some more without getting committed to things that degrade their readiness, such as peacekeeping, parades and base maintenance. The intersting thing is, that the marine corps alone is larger than most other countries armies.

[xouper]

Jon_in_london: Numbers and all else being equal, I'd give odds of 5:1 against the yanks.That wasn't the question I asked.

[Number Six]

IMO, the US military is partly a victim of its own success and partly a victim a changing world. The US military has gotten so good at all out war that not even their enemies will fight them in that way. Given that and that the US is not willing to simply destroy countries and take them over, what good is some of this incredible military capacity? Using something or the threat of using it has an effect, but if you're not likely to use it and the effect fades.

And with the way the world is today...effectively a lot smaller and more interdependent...it's harder for one country to just do anything it wants.

The technology and military capacity has increased like crazy. But even precision guided bombs, although much more precise than anything in the past, can only be so accurate. When you combine that with "the enemy" mixing with civilians where it's pretty much impossible to get them without harming others, the only two realistic possibilites are that either no military action will be taken or that military action will be taken and civilians will die. (By the way though, civilians have always died during war...unpleasant but true.)

Also, the line as to what constitutes "a civilian" can be blurred. On one hand it can be people just wanting to live their life but can't help that combatants are near them. On the other hand it could be someone sympathetic to the cause of combatants and who house, feed, etc them. Then again, "the terrorists" could say that the people in the WTC paying taxes are providing support to the US military. But then again, the terrorists have an openly acknowledged goal of killing as many of those people as possible whereas the US milltary obviously doesn't have such a goal since they could literally kill millions at any time.

It's a mess. But as long as so many different people have so many different views, things will stay messy. What if the precision guided weapons became so accurate that they'd destry everything with 10 sqare feet but nothing else and then we saw Saddam Hussein sitting next to a baby? Do we kill him and take the baby with him? People would disagree even on that question.

But the bottom line is that sheer military capacity is becoming less relevant. It's that the US military is incompetent it's just that that kind of competence is becoming less relevant.

[hal bidlack]

Is the US Military Incompetant?

Sigh...

The original post, and several that follow, demonstrate such a complete lack of insight into the US military as to be laughable if they were not so sad.

Can you read a Reader's Digest article on surgery and then be qualified to transplant a heart? Can you read a novel about lawyers and then be qualified to argue a case before a judge? Can you thumb through an owners manual and then be qualifed to design computer hardware?

Yet when it comes to military operations, doctrine, and strategy, many folks think it's all just 'common sense' that anyone can do, with little or no training.

I have long argued that there is nothing noble in war, but there is nobility in the military profession. I am now proudly into my 23rd year of service, and will continue to stand ready to protect the rights of others to make naive, foolish, and bromidic statements. I repeat myself, sigh...

[Wyrd1]

As an active duty Hospital Corpsman in the US Navy you might expect me to be offended being labeled as incompetent. I do not take offense when someone outside the military insults what I do without demonstrating any sort of conception for what it is we do.

Our goal in Desert Shield and Desert Storm was not to take over any oil wells it was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. The slow build up of forces was necessary to first give Saddam something to think about and to insure victory. Before the war Iraq had the fourth largest Military force in the world. As a crewman on the hospital ship USNS Mercy I remember training for heavy casualties that thankfully never came. In retrospect we could have attacked with fewer troops but no one knew beforehand how quickly the Iraqis would collapse. The consequences of underestimating an enemy are far greater than the costs of overestimating them.

What makes the US Military great is the individual soldier, sailor, airman, and marine not our technology. Training is what wins the wars. All else being equal the well trained soldier will defeat the poorly or half assed trained one. When the s*** hits the fan the pucker factor kicks in. Your ability to think is then greatly reduced and you do what you’ve been trained to do what you’ve repeated over and over until it is virtually second nature.

Civilian casualties are to be avoided but war should always be the absolute last resort. People who think war can be clean or civilized have never been in one. Thinking that way makes war seem more reasonable. War should never be considered reasonable. War happens when reason has broken and no other recourse is possible.

As an active duty service member I will go wherever my Commander In Chief sends me and suffer whatever miseries I must to accomplish the mission. I’m not going to wonder what people sitting in the rear on their butts are thinking about how competent my friends and I are.

While I was writing this Hal posted his excellent post! Bravo zulu as we say in the Navy Hal!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Starshark
Let the game begin!


(PS- let's leave the 'Salute' thread to saluting the US Military. I think the US military's a joke myself, but respect that other people should have the right to use the thread for what it was intended. My apologies for the hijack)

A troll argues from emotion. 'nuff said.

-z

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by Wyrd1

While I was writing this Hal posted his excellent post! Bravo zulu as we say in the Navy Hal!

Sierra Hotel!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Doubt


I take issue with your odds.

If the US had to fight Britain on even terms using regular forces, yes we would probably get beat. Training and discipline would be the telling factor. When all else is equal, the battle usually goes to the side that makes the least mistakes. US leadership is not the greatest, but it is far better than average.

But there are just not that many good armies out there. Certainly, the Iraqi leadership is not even in the top 20 nations when it comes to leadership.

How many armies have consistently good leaders and training? Some are good for short periods, but drop off after they enjoy a few years of peace. One thing I once heard from a SEAL about their performace: "It is not that we are that good, it is that everyone else is that bad."

I generally don't count the airborne or marines as a true elite forces. Semi-elite would be valid, but the training and resources just are not there. The Rangers are what I would call the boundary of a real elite force. The train, train, and train some more without getting committed to things that degrade their readiness, such as peacekeeping, parades and base maintenance. The intersting thing is, that the marine corps alone is larger than most other countries armies.

Odds are debate-able. Maybe not so high.

I agree with you about leadership. On all levels-its one of the most important things. In the Falklands, the Argie officers were lording it around Port Stanley drinking whiskey and smoking cigars and polishing their asses while their men where freezing and starving in the South Atlantic winter-shooting sheep to feed themselves. Men dont fight in that condition- they would much rather put down their rifles and walk away. Just like the Iraqis did in 91. I dont blame them, I would probably do the same.

I talked to this other American guy and he rated the (US) marines as about par with a bog-standard British infantry regiment. I must say though, the rangers are good. Certainly one of the best infantry units anywhere in the world.

I think the US marine corps is around the same size as our army- maybe a bit bigger :eek: AND they have nicer toys! *no fair*

[Giz]

Originally posted by LW

Though not all of them participated in the battle of Cannae, at least 10000 men were left behind in fortified camps. [Edited to add: but certainly, Romans had an impressive superiority on both numbers and quality of infantry.]


There's some debate between historians on whether Hannibal's center withdrew on purpose or did Romans push it back with their superior infantry. (A similar situation happened at Poltava where the right wing of Karl XII's infantry almost managed to push through Russian infantry but was encircled when the attack of the left wing failed).

Let's be clear here, it was 8 double legions (ie 8 x 2 x 5000 ish = 80,000) and thats cause the Romans (pre social war) used to pair Roman and Italian allied legions to form their consular armies.

The key point of the battle was the cavalry encirclement on both flanks (Hannibal at the time had a hefty contingent of the famed Numidean cavalry which ran amok over the Roman left).

"Indeed, but they achieved this by NOT fighting hannibal. By avoiding battle, the romans simply left hannibal to kick stones around italy for a few years doing no great harm until he was stabbedin the back by politicians back home."

Actually, the Romans won when P. Cornelius Scipio took an army to Spain, conquered it and then followed up with an invasion of the carthaginian homeland. He eventually fought (a recalled)Hannibal and won, ending the 2nd Punic War (mind you, by Zama the Numideans had switched sides and it was Hannibal who got flanked by an opponent with cavalry superiority.)

"Can you read a Reader's Digest article on surgery and then be qualified to transplant a heart? Can you read a novel about lawyers and then be qualified to argue a case before a judge? Can you thumb through an owners manual and then be qualifed to design computer hardware?"
- But I have an armchair!;)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Indeed, but they achieved this by NOT fighting hannibal. By avoiding battle, the romans simply left hannibal to kick stones around italy for a few years doing no great harm until he was stabbedin the back by politicians back home.


So that little thing called Zama wasn't the problem?

Africanus defeated Hannibal by drawing him away from Rome and fighting him on his own terms.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Stig


That is an angle I hadn't considered. Unfortunately for the Americans it does appear that they have the lion's share of "Friendly fire" incidents
Stig

Not neccessarily. Although some folks (usaully Brits, sorry) woudl have the world believe that the US invented friendly fire, the truth is it happens to everyone. Count the number of incidents in the Fauklands war, for example.

The US, since it contributes a lot of air power, often has a few more incidents where allied troops are attacked in FF incident. It the price for bringing the big guns. US air powere has saved far, far more allied soldier lives than it took.

Edited to add: Forgot to mention that one of the worst incidents of friendly fire in the Gulf War was called for by a British forward observer. Just so you know.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

How do I put someone on my ignore list?

[Wyrd1]

"I think the US marine corps is around the same size as our army- maybe a bit bigger AND they have nicer toys! *no fair*"

Nobody lets the Marines have the nice toys. They would be too likely to break them. The Marines pride themselves on doing more with less. The Brits probably have way cooler stuff.

[Dragonrock]

Starshark,

You started this rather accusatory and somewhat offensive thread, and now you are nowhere to be seen? Care to answer some of what has been said here or are we to assume from your silence that you have changed your mind?

[jj]

Originally posted by LW

And exactly why it is a bad idea to ensure numerical and technical superiority before an attack? Sure a "quick" attack may be "decisive", but it is also a gamble that may lead to heavy losses.

And ensure a much more stagnant, longer campaign as a result.

History is pretty clear on this sort of thing.

[Soapy Sam]

Any Iraquis posting here?

We still, more or less on the same side are we?

OK. (Removes tin helmet and emerges from underneath table.)

Interesting that someone brought old Hannibal up. Complex affairs, the Punic Wars- a lot of economic as well as military circumstances affected the final outcome. Scipio would never have got off the ground if Quintus Fabius had not developed the delaying tactics which gave Rome time to get its act together.

Wars are won by the use of the appropriate tactic. Sometimes this emerges by accident or blind luck, sometimes by clever thinking. If GWB can achieve his aims by doing nothing but rattle sabres while moving troops around the world and threatening invasion, then history will view him as a master strategist.

So far in the "war against terror ", the prize for tactical originality has to go to Al Qaeda. The attack on the WTC was a masterpiece of lateral thinking, whatever we might think of it's morality. The concept that anything with lots of kinetic energy is a guided missile is one all the armies of the world had to be taught by a bunch of military amateurs working on (by western standards) a shoestring budget. Classic unarmed combat stuff- use the enemy's strengths against him.

Since then we have woken up a bit to the potential of misapplied technology for mass destruction. Biotech is cheap and getting cheaper. 150mph trains can be derailed with spectacular effect. Water supplies can be poisoned.

Our western military structure, reliant on high tech weaponry, is not suitable for that sort of war, any more than Hannibal's elephants were suited to guerilla war in the Appenines.

Bombing hell out of Afghanistan looked good on TV- but we still don't know if it got Bin Laden.

Knocking lumps out of Iraq's conventional forces won't stop the sort of loony who puts a bomb in bars either. Tanks and gunships are not solving Israel's problems. The long, expensive British military presence in Ulster had limited effect in controlling terrorism.
If Saddam. or N.Korea or anyone else ever decides to hit New York with a home made nuke, an anti-ballistic missile shield won't help a bit, because the delivery system will be a boat, or a truck.
-The U.S.Marine Corps has had experience with trucks full of explosives. (Remember Beirut?).

If the war of the 21st century is to be a terrorist war, what will be needed to fight it will be intelligence (in both senses), good policing, a willingness of western people to accept increasingly intrusive and restrictive State Security and a psychological struggle for the hearts and minds of the terrorists.

This is a political war. Large scale weapons are useless. Aircraft useful only for transport. Any damn fool can take out a city: Bloody noses can only be delivered up close. That takes what Heinlein called a Mobile Infantry.

Can the US military fight an anti terror war? Not as presently configured. Nor can the British army or the Israeli army. The Iraqui army is probably the most unusable of all. What can it do to America? Even if it has the much sought " weapons of mass destruction"- is anybody in Wisconsin quaking in fear of the "elite" Iraqui Republican Guard?

The enemy has changed the rules and we must adapt. That's happening already. (Any Taleban prisoners been read their rights under the Geneva convention? Do we care? Is there a popular uprising in Britain against the increased anti-terrorist laws?)

Assassination is something our leaders shy away from. They maybe need to reconsider that. We need to stop thinking nuclear submarines and start thinking gunboat. We need to start thinking. And maybe we need to start asking why so many people in the world seem to hate our collective guts in the first place?

[Stig]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stig


That is an angle I hadn't considered. Unfortunately for the Americans it does appear that they have the lion's share of "Friendly fire" incidents
Stig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by kookbreaker


Not neccessarily. Although some folks (usaully Brits, sorry) woudl have the world believe that the US invented friendly fire, the truth is it happens to everyone. Count the number of incidents in the Fauklands war, for example.

The US, since it contributes a lot of air power, often has a few more incidents where allied troops are attacked in FF incident. It the price for bringing the big guns. US air powere has saved far, far more allied soldier lives than it took.

Edited to add: Forgot to mention that one of the worst incidents of friendly fire in the Gulf War was called for by a British forward observer. Just so you know.


To put my comment about "americans having the lion's share of the friendly fire incidents" in context with the rest of the post I made, here is that post in it's intirety........

That is an angle I hadn't considered. Unfortunately for the Americans it does appear that they have the lion's share of "Friendly fire" incidents. Of course another thing I have just considered is that in any of the conflicts my country is involved in, the Americans are taking the lead role and therefore have more firepower up front and more opportunity for a mistake to be made. This would make it seem like the Americans were reckless when in fact they are not.

Stig

[waitew]

"Look no further than camp X-ray" (quote)


Starshark,doesn't Australia have thousands of would be immigrants held in internment camps in the outback???Complete innocents guilty only of having come to your shores?

[Starshark]

Originally posted by xouper
Compared to what? The Australian military? :rolleyes:

There's a straaaaaaaaw maaaaaaaaan waiting in the sky
He'd like to come and meet us, but y'know he doesn't dare
There's a straaaaaaaaw maaaaaaaaan waiting in the sky
His arguments don't hold up 'cos they're nothing but hot air

[Starshark]

Plenty of hilarity to be found on this thread. I'll stand corrected on U-238- my bad.

However, all the arguments on these threads about the US reducing casualties are hollow. Thousands are dying right now from U-238. Not only that, but unexploded cluster bombs dropped by the US are also contributing to ongoing civilian casualties.

This has caused considerable resentment in Iraq. It's why they haven't deposed Hussein by now. Why should Iraq listen to a country that's responsible for the deaths of it's people?

Objective: Remove Hussien from power: FAILED

I saw, too, an argument that the oil wells had to be sacrificed to avoid US casualties. That's a pity, because one of the objectives of the Gulf war was to secure those same oil wells. Perhaps quicker, decisive action would have saved them.

Objective: Save Kuwati oil wells: FAILED

No-one seems to have addressed Camp X-Ray, either, except for one comment about 'it's better than what I would have done.

I'm glad that people like whoever posted that don't run the justice system, because it could have meant the deaths of innocent people (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/11/eveningnews/main525342.shtml).

Who could be proud of a military that resorts to these measures? Why does the military resort to barbaric means, ignoring basic human rights? Because it's incompetant.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by waitew
"Look no further than camp X-ray" (quote)


Starshark,doesn't Australia have thousands of would be immigrants held in internment camps in the outback???Complete innocents guilty only of having come to your shores?

Straw man. But in case you're wondering, I don't agree with that, either.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
Starshark,

You started this rather accusatory and somewhat offensive thread, and now you are nowhere to be seen? Care to answer some of what has been said here or are we to assume from your silence that you have changed your mind?

Click here (http://www.maps.com/learn/101-content/skl-timez.html) to learn about time zones. You may also like to know that I have a job which uses up a certain amount of my time per day.

[Nately]

Originally posted by Starshark

1) They run slow, pedantic campaigns devoid of any real strategy. For example, in the Gulf War and in recent times they slowly built up their forces instead of acting quickly and decisively.


I'm not sure why I'm trying, but here it goes. I'll skip the part about the time it takes to spin up a military and move it across the world, because by this point, that should be obvious to you. Instead, I'll talk about acting quickly. IIRC, American forces began to deploy to Saudi Arabia immediately after the invasion of Kuwait at the behest of the Saudi government. After about two weeks, the US had the 82nd Airborne and a Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Saudi. So, time to act quickly? What you have at this point is two well trained but lightly armed units. If they had any M1 Abrams with them at this point, I would be surprised. At best APCs and IFVs. The Iraqis meanwhile had very large numbers of tanks, including T-72s, the most modern Russian export tank. Maybe sheer determination would have gotten the US troops into Kuwait, but I think the battle-hardened and well-equipped Republican Guard divisions would have had a field day killing a bunch of infantry men armed with light anti-tank weapons in a great big flat sandbox. Maybe it's best to wait....

Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts were going on in hopes that Saddam would realize his folly and pull out, saving everyone lots of lives and treasure. Also, the matter was taken up before the United Nations, and a coalition was built to show legitimacy and unity. Took some time. Saddam didn't give up Kuwait, but those actions were still the correct thing to do. Not that I expect you to admit that.


2) They fail in achieving their objectives. For example, one of the objectives in the Gulf War was to secure the oil wells. Because they ran a slow, pedantic campaign, they allowed the Iraqis plenty of time for 'scorched earth' policies.


The military objective was simple - to drive the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait. Not to get rid of Saddam. Not to protect the oil wells. Just push the army out, and that was done.

For that matter, how long do you think it takes to blow up an oil well? Drive up to it and put some explosives on it. 15 minutes, maybe? That would have to be a fast campaign to seize all the oil wells in 15 minutes.


3) They kill civilians and attack civilian targets, such as Bagdad.

Would you consider the Pentagon a civilian target? Civilians work there, it's in a city, but it's function is strictly military. If terrorists were to, I don't know, fly a plane into it, would you complain that they had attacked a civilian target? I doubt it. If a F-117 blows up the Iraqi Air Force HQ in Baghdad, is it any less of a military target?


For my part, I'm in the process of borrowing a few books from the library that tries to examine the Iraqi conflict from the point of view of the military.

One might think that the US military is capable of saying something about what the war was like from it's point of view. You won't even have to look hard to find "Every Man a Tiger" or "Into the Storm," which detail the air and ground campaigns respectively from commanders who played big parts in them. Sure, it's all propaganda to you, but at least you'll get a better understanding of logistics at the very least.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Though I view myself as a leftist I must side with the conservatives here. I think the US military is probably the most competent and best trained/equiped ever seen. Save perhaps China. As for Australia having the best all I have to say is: Israel. The Israeli army from what I've heard is bad ass.

In any event, the reason I make my comment, as a layman, draws from general history and population. The US has the most money,rescources and pretty good numbers from which to train/equip their military: thus the US is likely to have a very good military. Other countries may have the numbers but lack the rescources or even the rescources and lack the numbers. Numbers are important because more numbers= more strategist, more potentially elite troops, more scientists etc. Rescources are important for obvious reasons(more rescources=making most of what numbers you have.). The US has the most rescources, and fairly good numbers.


I also believe the US military is damn effective, Desert Storm for example lasted weeks. Never heard of a shorter war in history especiallu with the world's 4th largest army involved.

In any event we are all merely lay people who probably lack a lot of perspective on the matter. Like another had said its like reading an article on Reader's Digest and commenting on heart transplants.


However the issue over killing civilians is a moral issue not limited to military. And what my position is: Ok sometimes and not other. Like most things this matter is not absolute.

Sometimes you must be willing to accept civilian loss in order to hit military targets, sometimes they ARE military targets(production). War is not supposed to be fun, innocent people die in them, if only soldiers died well then I suppose we could have a war every week. THAT is why war is oft a last resort.

However there are times when its unacceptable. For example: killing civilians out of cruelty,needlessly, etc. As well as raping and such. An example of this would include how the Nazis would slaughter Russian civilians after taking an town. Of course likewise killing hoards of civilians for trivial military gain is likewise unacceptable.

So where do we draw the line? The fact is we can't. It's a matter of aproximations and value judgements with a lot of greys. Now there are some obvious cases which lean one way or another. But sometimes there are grey areas as well. The aim of the military in these matters should thus be to lean as much in the right direction as possible in the given moment and over time, learning from mistakes and correcting them. From my limited knowledge I'm lead to agree that the US military does this.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Wyrd1
"Nobody lets the Marines have the nice toys. They would be too likely to break them. The Marines pride themselves on doing more with less. The Brits probably have way cooler stuff.


They dont worry too much about us breaking stuff. Our kit doesnt work in any case!

www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/SA80.html

:eek: :eek:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Starshark
...
No-one seems to have addressed Camp X-Ray, either, except for one comment about 'it's better than what I would have done.

I'm glad that people like whoever posted that don't run the justice system, because it could have meant the deaths of innocent people (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/11/eveningnews/main525342.shtml).

Who could be proud of a military that resorts to these measures? Why does the military resort to barbaric means, ignoring basic human rights? Because it's incompetant.

To: Starshark

I was just wanting to address your point about Camp X-Ray.

It is true that Camp X-Ray is on a US Military base,
and it is true that Camp X-Ray is being run by the US Military.

However, the US Military was ordered to setup this camp by the US President. The military did not set up Camp X-Ray on its own, it was ordered to do so.

Therefore, if you really have a problem with Camp X-Ray, then you need to direct your energies at the US President as opposed to the US Military.

I hope this helps!

[Drooper]

Surly we can let this thread fade away.

Clearly the US military is not incompetent.

It must be the single largest and most complex organisation in the world (military or otherwise). If it was inherently incompetent there would be no debate, it would be obvious to all.

[xouper]

Starshark: Plenty of hilarity to be found on this thread.And almost all of it having been posted by you. http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

[Wyrd1]

The original post, and several that follow, demonstrate such a complete lack of insight into the US military as to be laughable if they were not so sad.

And it isn't getting much better from starshark's angle. What possible qualification does this person have? The oil wells get a mention again. Forget liberating Kuwait. Apparently all we fought for was a bunch of oil wells.

Surly we can let this thread fade away.

Can't argue with that.

[c0rbin]

I too can't help but feed the troll...

This has caused considerable resentment in Iraq. It's why they haven't deposed Hussein by now. Why should Iraq listen to a country that's responsible for the deaths of it's people?

Isn't Saddam himself responsible for the "deaths of [his] people"?

Also, as I recall, the Iraqis set up not one, but two lines of mine-fields between the Saudi border and the Oil fields? Not something one can hop, skip, and jump through.

I think Soapy made some good points about tactics/strategy in the 21st century. If there is one constant in military history it is that armies who can change their strategy/tactics to rise to challenge will be successful.

[King of the Americas]

Against what type of force?

Can we win a dog fight in a ariel combat between any nation's fighter jet squadron? ABSOLUTELY.

Are our Artillery forces better armed, faster, and more accurate than any other nation's? Probably.

Do we have as many foot soliders as say China? Nope.

Can our guys shoot straighter, run faster, and hide better? Hard to say.

I think that when given ALL of the technological tools at our disposal, it would be tough to conceive of an 'army' that could face our's and win.

[pillory]

yes indeed where is the power ,i mean the POWER it is in the the US army.Feel the Power this nothing fuc*king s<*hit it is true The Power the HUMAN power is in the US army





waiting for the UFO's -Graham Parker and...

[Ladewig]

I agree with almost all the responses -

Camp x-ray is political not military.

Gulf War I was run very well (e.g. note the effective use of propoganda by telling the international journalists that the primary assault would come from the sea).

Marines are not to be messed with. (I've seen their behavior in overseas topless bars (they eat the fruit - shudder)).

[LW]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I think the US military is probably the most competent and best trained/equiped ever seen.
Agree for the equipped part, but I'd give the "most competent" label to Mongols under Ghengis Khan, Subudei Bahadur, and Jebe Noyan. I don't even try to pin the "best trained" to anybody.

I can't remember now any major battle that the Mongols lost during Khenghis's reign, and in most cases their enemies had a numerical superiority. For example, when they conquered Persia, Mohammed Shah had over 400000 men in his army while Ghengis had less than 200000, and during the 2-year scouting mission through Southern Russia Subudei and Jebe won over 10 major battles and in each one they were outnumbered.

[King of the Americas]

'Superiority' is subjective.

If my Obective was simply to 'hit and run', as opposed to 'divide and conquer', then I may gage my success rates differently than those whom I am attacking.

Say if my tactics weren't to overrun a guarded station with overwhelming force, but rather to wear them down by occasionally raiding them, killing or injuring some of the occupants. My confirmed kills may be a success, while you deem you 'holding down the fort' a success.

I think that the Mongols probably suffered some 'losses', in at least some if not all of their battles. I think true success has something to do with longevity and adaptability...

[Psiload]

Starshark(an Australian) wonders whether or not the US military is incompetent...

based on the fact the the question was posted in English, and not Japanese, seems proof positive evidence of the US's ability to produce effective fighting forces.

[waitew]

Originally posted by Psiload
Starshark(an Australian) wonders whether or not the US military is incompetent...

based on the fact the the question was posted in English, and not Japanese, seems proof positive evidence of the US's ability to produce effective fighting forces.


HEAR,HEAR!!!

[jema]

from an english persepctive my Dad is fond of repeating a wrII saying...

"When we started firing the germans ducked, when fritz started firing we ducked, when the yanks started firing everyone ducked..."

jema

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark
Thousands are dying right now from U-238.

Not only that, but unexploded cluster bombs dropped by the US are also contributing to ongoing civilian casualties.



Reeealllyyy? What are they dying of ( refer to the U238). Yes, the cluster bombs are a problem, much less of one than mines left behind by the "salt the earth" attack on Kuwait, though.

As to friendly fire, the US does well on that issue nowdays, but the "fog of war" is very real, and as much and as bad as it is, it will continue to happen, and people will die.

No, I don't like it, but I quite frankly can' t see a way to prevent all accidents, especially on a battlefield.

Oh, and check out "gps reading accidents", will you, when you talk about friendly fire episodes, too.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark


Straw man. But in case you're wondering, I don't agree with that, either.

Do they or don't they have such camps, dude?

How about the way they treat the indigineous population, mate?

Do tell.

What you like really isn't important here, but your inaccurate, obviously misleading summaries are.

Now, do tell us about those thousands of deaths from U238. What kind of deaths ARE these?

[waitew]

They do ,indeed, have such camps & they are approved of by the majority of Australians.
Camp x-ray's detainees are all men who are openly hostile towards America & many of them were captured in battle.They are given 3 meals a day,medical attention & are allowed to write letters home & we even give them each their own copy of the Koran.Camp x-ray holds only a few hundred detainees.
But such is not the case with Australia's detainment camps.They detain men,WOMAN & CHILDREN alike indefinitly!Those poor souls are not hostile towards Australia & have committed no crime except for having arrived on Australian shores.Australian detainment camps hold thousands!!
It is ,in my opinion,hypocrisy of the highest order for an Australian to criticize the USA for camp x-ray when Australia is currently doing something much worse!!


Simply type 'Australian detainment camps' into your search engine & prepare to be appalled

[Dub]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If you haven't served in the US military or your country's military, you are only 1/2 a man. Since you are 1/2 a man, how could you possible critique an institution of greater value than you?

Those are two questions that people need to ask themselves before they critique the US military or any military force.

JK

I HAVE actually served in the military, have you JK? Im guessing by the 1000's of posts you have made your aint atm, and by your attitude you never have been. As the topic was originally on the US military ill talk about mine and some of my friends experiences with them. A friend of mine was recently in Afghanistan and was working closely with the US marines. As you probably know afghan is a mountainous area. On several of the harder climbs the british troops had to go up to the top of the climbs, leave their bergens (backpacks) there, and come back down and carry the US marines bergens up for them as they were unable to do so. Another incident that happend around the same time in afghan involved a US special forces solider. (I unofficially heard he was a Ranger) His task was to pass on the co-ordinates of a target to a bomber aircraft. Basically the method involves taking storing the gird ref in the GPS then oving off to a saf distance. Unfortunately the batteries ran out after he had taken the ref and so he replaced them. This had the effect of deleting the stored gridref. He then read off the GPS reference he saw on screen to the plane. Unlucky for him this was not the old ref he had stored, and that had been deleted, but was his actually ref. The US airforce then carried out a precision bomb was acuraately hit the gridref target. Unforunatley that target was now the US solider.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Wyrd1


And it isn't getting much better from starshark's angle. What possible qualification does this person have? The oil wells get a mention again. Forget liberating Kuwait. Apparently all we fought for was a bunch of oil wells.



Can't argue with that.
This argument is flatly ridiculous. Does this mean you have to be a horse to train a horse?

Put it another way: Although I'm not an astronaut, and although I have no astronautical qualifications, amazingly enough I happen to know that if you jump out of a rocket ship without adequate protection, your blood will first freeze, then boil. Not only that, but even if you somehow survived that, you'd suffocate.

I'm also no economist, nor have I ever studied economics, yet for all that I have somehow worked out that Enron collapsed due to incompetant management.

Come back when you have something smart to say.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by jj


Do they or don't they have such camps, dude?

How about the way they treat the indigineous population, mate?

Do tell.

What you like really isn't important here, but your inaccurate, obviously misleading summaries are.

Now, do tell us about those thousands of deaths from U238. What kind of deaths ARE these?

Refer to the documentary Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq, first shown on ITV 6 March 2000. The short answer is: radiation.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Dub


I HAVE actually served in the military, have you JK? Im guessing by the 1000's of posts you have made your aint atm, and by your attitude you never have been. As the topic was originally on the US military ill talk about mine and some of my friends experiences with them. A friend of mine was recently in Afghanistan and was working closely with the US marines. As you probably know afghan is a mountainous area. On several of the harder climbs the british troops had to go up to the top of the climbs, leave their bergens (backpacks) there, and come back down and carry the US marines bergens up for them as they were unable to do so. Another incident that happend around the same time in afghan involved a US special forces solider. (I unofficially heard he was a Ranger) His task was to pass on the co-ordinates of a target to a bomber aircraft. Basically the method involves taking storing the gird ref in the GPS then oving off to a saf distance. Unfortunately the batteries ran out after he had taken the ref and so he replaced them. This had the effect of deleting the stored gridref. He then read off the GPS reference he saw on screen to the plane. Unlucky for him this was not the old ref he had stored, and that had been deleted, but was his actually ref. The US airforce then carried out a precision bomb was acuraately hit the gridref target. Unforunatley that target was now the US solider.

I hate to sound crawly, but the British army? Damn, they're tough! Have you seen what the British SAS have to do with their training? And if Andy McNab is to be believed (or was it the other guy... can never keep them apart), the SAS were truly a force to be reckoned with.

Mind you, there's no proof that McNab is as tough as he says he is, but it makes a good story.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by waitew
They do ,indeed, have such camps & they are approved of by the majority of Australians.
Camp x-ray's detainees are all men who are openly hostile towards America & many of them were captured in battle.They are given 3 meals a day,medical attention & are allowed to write letters home & we even give them each their own copy of the Koran.Camp x-ray holds only a few hundred detainees.
But such is not the case with Australia's detainment camps.They detain men,WOMAN & CHILDREN alike indefinitly!Those poor souls are not hostile towards Australia & have committed no crime except for having arrived on Australian shores.Australian detainment camps hold thousands!!
It is ,in my opinion,hypocrisy of the highest order for an Australian to criticize the USA for camp x-ray when Australia is currently doing something much worse!!


Simply type 'Australian detainment camps' into your search engine & prepare to be appalled

Unless, of course, the Australian in question doesn't agree with it. Nice try, but unfortunately your argument is made of straw.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Thread title: "Is the US Military Incompetant?" (sic)

Definitions, please (and forgive me if they've already been given) -- are we talking about the line troops aka cannon fodder, or their overall military/civilian commanders thousands of miles away?

Remember -- The Charge of The Light Brigade was ordered by an officer who wasn't on the scene...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Psiload
Starshark(an Australian) wonders whether or not the US military is incompetent...

based on the fact the the question was posted in English, and not Japanese, seems proof positive evidence of the US's ability to produce effective fighting forces.

The australians defended themselves, thanks. You yanks didnt fight wwII all by yourselves you know!!?!!:mad:

[Ove]

I HAVE actually served in the military, have you JK?

No he's a 15'yr old boy who uses his fathers computer when daddy's not home. I know he once claimed to be an man invalided off job and living in a trailer somewhere and that he had served in the US army but that is a ridicoulus presumption. His attitude and opinions clearly screams TEENAGER!!!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Thread title: "Is the US Military Incompetant?" (sic)

Definitions, please (and forgive me if they've already been given) -- are we talking about the line troops aka cannon fodder, or their overall military/civilian commanders thousands of miles away?

Remember -- The Charge of The Light Brigade was ordered by an officer who wasn't on the scene...

Actually he was on the scene. Unfortunately what could be seen from his part of the scene was slightly different from what could be seen from his subordinates part of the scene

By the way, in my opinion, the British high-command inthe crimean war wasnt fit to dig latrines.

[Ove]

Wasn't there a story that he actually thought he was fighting the french?

[Jon_in_london]

I cant remeber who it was- probably Raglan. He was famous for saying (with french officers in attendance) "The French! they're the fellows we should be fighting next!"

Idiot.

[Giz]

Yep, that's Raglan. Served in the Peninsular War under Wellington in his younger days.

40 years later, amusingly given to absent mindedly saying "the French" instead of "the enemy".

Congrats to Charlie in Dayton for cunningly shifting the topic to: The Brits; militarily incompetant?

Probably thought no-one would notice!

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ove


No he's [Jedi Knight] a 15'yr old boy who uses his fathers computer when daddy's not home. I know he once claimed to be an man invalided off job and living in a trailer somewhere and that he had served in the US army but that is a ridicoulus presumption. His attitude and opinions clearly screams TEENAGER!!!

Not to sidetrack the debate, but I just wanted to affirm the above.

If one examines just the JK postings that deal with math and/or science then one will see that he does not even has a basic knowledge of either even though he has claimed to be college graduate.

Also, most of the military data he likes to spout looks like stuff one would see in movies as opposed to actual experience.

He is really quite a dolt.

[likkerhog]

Originally posted by Starshark


Refer to the documentary Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq, first shown on ITV 6 March 2000. The short answer is: radiation.

My apologies for calling you a troll, you came back and answered (kinda) the responses you got. I notice you totally ignored my response to your original post, did it not fit in with your pre-concieved notions of how your flame war would go? The only way Iraqis are dying from your U-238 (which I am still assuming you mean the depleted uranium anti-armor ordinance) is if they are scouring the old battlefields eating any old chunk of metal they find. On that same vein, how are cluster bombs killing them? Looking for good depleted uranium to eat at old scud launch sites? Or could this mystery death dealing ordinance be left over from that little 8 year war they had with Iran? You know, that friendly little argument they had where they used chemical weapons, human wave tactics and vast minefields?
For someone yapping about strawmen, your only evidence is a 3 year old tv show? Got any links?
Eagerly awaiting your reply....

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


The australians defended themselves, thanks. You yanks didnt fight wwII all by yourselves you know!!?!!:mad:

And the Aussies did a darned fine job of it. I'm not faulting the Australian Armed forces, they're some very dedicated and proficient hombres. I had the privilege of sailing with the Australian Navy back when I was a member of the US Navy, they were excellent sailors who really knew who to use their ships(American built), and weapons systems(again, American built). They also drank like Pompeiian gladiators, and were a pack of clowns while in port... like the time they spray painted a big red kangaroo on the side of our ship while we were docked in Pearl Harbor. My captain turned the color of a baboon's ass, and I swear he was ready to launch a few tomahawk missles at the HMAS Hobart, but I digress...

I'm sure the Australians would have put up one hell of a fight in WWII if the US had not entered the war, and the Japanese were headed for Sydney... but, given the might of the Japanese Navy, and the state of the Australian Navy at the time... it really wouldn't have been much of a contest, and sushi restaurants would be the rule, rather than the exception, in downtown Melbourne today.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Dub


I HAVE actually served in the military, have you JK? Im guessing by the 1000's of posts you have made your aint atm, and by your attitude you never have been. As the topic was originally on the US military ill talk about mine and some of my friends experiences with them. A friend of mine was recently in Afghanistan and was working closely with the US marines. As you probably know afghan is a mountainous area. On several of the harder climbs the british troops had to go up to the top of the climbs, leave their bergens (backpacks) there, and come back down and carry the US marines bergens up for them as they were unable to do so. Another incident that happend around the same time in afghan involved a US special forces solider. (I unofficially heard he was a Ranger) His task was to pass on the co-ordinates of a target to a bomber aircraft. Basically the method involves taking storing the gird ref in the GPS then oving off to a saf distance. Unfortunately the batteries ran out after he had taken the ref and so he replaced them. This had the effect of deleting the stored gridref. He then read off the GPS reference he saw on screen to the plane. Unlucky for him this was not the old ref he had stored, and that had been deleted, but was his actually ref. The US airforce then carried out a precision bomb was acuraately hit the gridref target. Unforunatley that target was now the US solider.

The story about the forward air controller making a mistake is one that I have seen in a few reports and I think may be true.
Your friend's story about the Royal Army sounds like an urban legend for several reasons. See this time line.

From the Guardian time line:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4309896,00.html

Sunday, Nov. 25, 2001

A first wave of US marines lands near the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan late at night. The marines, numbering in the "low hundreds", are to be followed by several hundred more from navy ships in the Arabian sea, a senior defence official says.


From an Alaskan news paper:

http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/012002/new_012002new0010001.shtml

January, 20, 2002

Army takes over, Marines leave Afghan base.

From the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/19/nafg19.xml

(Filed: 19/03/2002)

BRITAIN is sending a 1,700-strong commando force to Afghanistan to help American troops root out remnants of al-Qa'eda and the Taliban, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, announced yesterday.

It will be the biggest deployment for combat operations since the Gulf war 11 years ago and Mr Hoon warned MPs to expect casualties.


Now I do know that the SAS was in Afghanistan from the start, but they would probably not have worked with the US Marines, since they don't have similar missions. I have seen no news reports of joint US Marine infantry and British forces working together.

Other reasons to doubt this story:

1.) Friend of a friend nature of the story. Nothing here with a date, unit number or anything else that can be verified. These are the hallmarks of an urban legend.

2.) Tacticaly, it would be a very bad idea for the British troops to move up and down the mountain several times if they don't have to. The amount of time saved would probably not justify the added exposure for all involved.

3.) Marine Pride. Army vets like myself love to make fun of the Marines because they are so full of themselves. They believe too much of their own BS. But that pride of theirs carries them a long way. If a non-marine offered to take a pack for a marine, the likely response would be "F**K OFF". They would almost rather die first than admit to a weakness.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Doubt


The story about the forward air controller making a mistake is one that I have seen in a few reports and I think may be true.
Your friend's story about the Royal Army sounds like an urban legend for several reasons. See this time line.

From the Guardian time line:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4309896,00.html


From an Alaskan news paper:

http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/012002/new_012002new0010001.shtml

From the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/19/nafg19.xml


Now I do know that the SAS was in Afghanistan from the start, but they would probably not have worked with the US Marines, since they don't have similar missions. I have seen no news reports of joint US Marine infantry and British forces working together.

Other reasons to doubt this story:

1.) Friend of a friend nature of the story. Nothing here with a date, unit number or anything else that can be verified. These are the hallmarks of an urban legend.

2.) Tacticaly, it would be a very bad idea for the British troops to move up and down the mountain several times if they don't have to. The amount of time saved would probably not justify the added exposure for all involved.

3.) Marine Pride. Army vets like myself love to make fun of the Marines because they are so full of themselves. They believe too much of their own BS. But that pride of theirs carries them a long way. If a non-marine offered to take a pack for a marine, the likely response would be "F**K OFF". They would almost rather die first than admit to a weakness.

Trust me it aint an urban ledgend. My friend isnt in the 'royal army'. He's a marine. He told my of that story on a sat-phone when he was in afghan. He wasnt just told the story, he was one of the ones that HAD to carry the yanks bergens. the person that told me is one of my closest friends whom ive know for ober 10 years. Im not gogin to post details about my firends unit or the US unit on a public message board, but it happends on an exercise in the last week of June 2002.

Tactically it had to be done as several of the yanks said they couldnt make it. The incidnet involing my friend happend on a training exercise, not in a live theatre.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jema
from an english persepctive my Dad is fond of repeating a wrII saying...

"When we started firing the germans ducked, when fritz started firing we ducked, when the yanks started firing everyone ducked..."

jema

Yes, the British military has a long standing tradition of disparaging its allies.

Originally posted by Starshark

Objective: Remove Hussien from power: FAILED

...

Objective: Save Kuwati oil wells: FAILED



Starshark, you really need to go back and study the matter more. I can only assume you were a child at the time, or you would know better.

If we intended to remove Saddam from power at the time, we would have, believe me. The only thing that stopped us was politics. We were chomping at the bit to go and take him out.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Dub


Trust me it aint an urban ledgend. My friend isnt in the 'royal army'. He's a marine. He told my of that story on a sat-phone when he was in afghan. He wasnt just told the story, he was one of the ones that HAD to carry the yanks bergens. the person that told me is one of my closest friends whom ive know for ober 10 years. Im not gogin to post details about my firends unit or the US unit on a public message board, but it happends on an exercise in the last week of June 2002.

Tactically it had to be done as several of the yanks said they couldnt make it. The incidnet involing my friend happend on a training exercise, not in a live theatre.

Sorry, but I still don't buy it. (Call me a skeptic.)

Think like a reporter:

WHO: Unit identifications?
WHEN: What was the date. So far I see no overlap between the US Marine presence and the Royal Marines. Most of the work done by British forces happened after the US Marines pulled out.
WHERE: Location? Something more than Afghanistan. When and where the US Marines operated can be checked with some work.
WHY: The tactical differences between the US Army and Marines are different enough to make close integration of infantry difficult. (It starts with the number of fire teams in a squad and movement formations.) I don't see That kind of integration happening between the US and British.
HOW: "Had to be done". Does not tell me much. Somehow I think the British press would have found some way to latch onto this story.

One reason why I think it would have reached the news is because of this item:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,719816,00.html


Stars and Stripes, the magazine for American forces and their families, has criticised the Royal Marines for returning "empty-handed" from their search for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters.


The counter criticism that did come out was that the US did not provide a blocking force for the effort. But I think stories like your friends would have documentation to back it up.

[Jon_in_london]

Stars and Stripes, the magazine for American forces and their families, has criticised the Royal Marines for returning "empty-handed" from their search for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters.

Its nice to criticise people who are out doing all the hard work work while you sit around basecamp drinking Coke and eating Burger-King isnt it?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Yes, the British military has a long standing tradition of disparaging its allies.

Oh yes! and the US army doesnt!!! :rolleyes:

[Dub]

Originally posted by Doubt


Sorry, but I still don't buy it. (Call me a skeptic.)

Think like a reporter:

WHO: Unit identifications?
WHEN: What was the date. So far I see no overlap between the US Marine presence and the Royal Marines. Most of the work done by British forces happened after the US Marines pulled out.
WHERE: Location? Something more than Afghanistan. When and where the US Marines operated can be checked with some work.
WHY: The tactical differences between the US Army and Marines are different enough to make close integration of infantry difficult. (It starts with the number of fire teams in a squad and movement formations.) I don't see That kind of integration happening between the US and British.
HOW: "Had to be done". Does not tell me much. Somehow I think the British press would have found some way to latch onto this story.

One reason why I think it would have reached the news is because of this item:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,719816,00.html



The counter criticism that did come out was that the US did not provide a blocking force for the effort. But I think stories like your friends would have documentation to back it up.

Well whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
Who:Like I said im not going to print any details of the units involved on a public message board.
When: Ive told u the date
Where: It was just outside of Kandahar (mis-spelt?)
Why: US forces and UK marines work togther ALOT. you'd be surpirsed just how often. In combined op's there will be a overall commander for both side, either British or American. All troops will work under the orders they are given. Units will not act under their usual MO.
HOW: It 'had to be done' as far as my friend was ordered to do it. It wasnt the whole of the UK marines carrying all of the US's bergen, only for a few that said they couldnt make it.

I can see your point, and youre right to be skeptical. But dont believe everything you read in the press. I know from personal experience that what is reported is often very different than what actually goes on.

Ive known the person that told me this story for over 10 years and trust him 100%. He's a very skeptical person him self and visits this voard when he's in the UK.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Its nice to criticise people who are out doing all the hard work work while you sit around basecamp drinking Coke and eating Burger-King isnt it?

That is why I posted the counter statement about the US not providing a blocking force.

[Doubt]

Starshark,

First things first. Look up the definition of strawman. You do not appear to know what it is. Some of the counter arguments offered to your critique do contain fallacies, but I have yet to see a strawman used here.

Here is a list:

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html

For a reality check on Depleted Uranium:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_harley_03jan00.html

One thing this page does not address is the type of radiation emitted by U238. Most of the emissions are alpha particles. An alpha particle is a helium nucleus. To stop an alpha particle, all you need for shielding is a piece of paper. Nothing heavy required. Few gamma rays to be found.

If DU is responsible for Gulf war illness, it would be because of chemical toxicity, not radiation.

[Doubt]

dub,

Thanks for pointing out my error about you stating the date.

But the US Marines were gone before June 2002.

I think we will just have to disagree on this. In the mean time, lets get back to Starshark's fantasy world.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Yes, the British military has a long standing tradition of disparaging its allies.

In fact the Americans have a pleasant habit of denying that they even had any allies!! (they did it all themselves d'y'see? Thats why we must all bow down before them and be eternally gratefull nor ever deign to criticise an American government'actions. Other wise we'd be speaking german now! (or japanese) d'y'see?)

[Dub]

Originally posted by Doubt
dub,

Thanks for pointing out my error about you stating the date.

But the US Marines were gone before June 2002.

I think we will just have to disagree on this. In the mean time, lets get back to Starshark's fantasy world.

There will still US forces operating with UK forces in afgahnistan throughout June and July 2002. I may be a mistake on my part. I remeber being told he was working with US marines, army and airbourne. Ill contact him and get some further details.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Oh yes! and the US army doesnt!!! :rolleyes:

Actually, no, we don't have a long standing traditon. For onthing, only in the 20th century did the US really have allies to speak of. The exception was the French during the AMI, and not much was said about them when compared to BRitish comments and complaints about Hessian allies.

Even from the 20th century there's nowhere near as much dispariging comments made. WW1, there wasn't too much said about the French or British, wheras Churhchill in the 20's was blaming the US for extending the war. In the WW2 there was grousing about hwo the British were running the war, but I can find very little said bad by the US about the competance or bravery of Britsh soldiers/pilots/ etc.

The compare this to the post-battle treatment of the Allies after the battle of Waterloo. That was disgraceful. Everything that went wrong on the battlefield was balmed on Prussian or other allies. This was, and would continue to be, a habit.

[Jon_in_london]

Oh right. You dont have such a long tradition of denigrating/denying contribution of allies because you just dont have a long tradition. period.

Kookie: could you provide some references for British moaning re: hessians and prussians et al.?

American Military Scorecard:

American Revolution - Win

War of 1812 - Win

Mexican-American War - Win

Civil War - Win (?)

Spanish-American War - Win

World War I - Win

World War II - Win

Korea - Draw

Viet Nam - Loss

World War III - Averted

Cold War - Win

Panama, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan - Win, win, win, win

[Dub]

Kookbreaker: You claim the US doesnt make negative comments about its allies. I find it completely diparaging when I hear of how americans think they won the 2nd world war singled handely. They seem to have a miraculous ability to forget that other countries were invloved. For a recent exmaple of this, have u seen the film, based on a true story, in which the naval engima machine was captured? Funny how in real life it was a british submarine captain that captured the mahine, but iin the film the americans decided to re-write history and make it an american captain.

Edited to say: Luke T rushes to back me up. Apparently the American won WW1 and 2, and not the allies. Also, America brought the world closer to WW3. During the final stages of WW2 Winston Churchill was adimant that either the Russian did not reach Berlin first. Eisenhower, however had other plans. As a result the Russians got there first. Churchill was the first to describe the 'Iron Curtain' and the effects it would have. He also called for nuclear diarmament after the war. Eisenhower however, thought nuclear weapons were just another part of the armoury.

[Shaun from Scotland]

World War One - Won by the Royal Navy. End of story.

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
World War One - Won by the Royal Navy. End of story.

:D

Dub, my scorecard was not meant to imply we won WWI or WWII singlehandedly. Sorry if you took it that way.

The topic was about American military incompetence. My scorecard was meant to show that wherever we were involved, we succeeded in large proportion to our failures.

I think it is a shame that we are sniping at each other's militaries. All have records to be proud of.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Dub
Kookbreaker: You claim the US doesnt make negative comments about its allies. I find it completely diparaging when I hear of how americans think they won the 2nd world war singled handely.


I won't deny this is being said by some 'mericans. At the same time I have heard some Brits say American's contribution to WW2 was nothing. At the same time, I find very few comments from Americans, especially those who fought the battles, that say bad things about British soldiers, or allied soldiers. At least in reagrds to their personal bravery.


They seem to have a miraculous ability to forget that other countries were invloved. For a recent exmaple of this, have u seen the film, based on a true story, in which the naval engima machine was captured? Funny how in real life it was a british submarine captain that captured the mahine, but iin the film the americans decided to re-write history and make it an american captain.

This was holywood blockbusterism at work. They wanted to tell the story, but figured a bunch of Brits on the sub wouldn't see to the American audiecne. They figured they could get away with a credit mentioning at the end. Nobody "forgot" about the British missions.

Conversely, I have seen certain versions of the Enigma story that forget just how absolutely critical the contrubution of the Poles were.


Edited to say: Luke T rushes to back me up. Apparently the American won WW1 and 2, and not the allies. Also, America brought the world closer to WW3. During the final stages of WW2 Winston Churchill was adimant that either the Russian did not reach Berlin first. Eisenhower, however had other plans. As a result the Russians got there first. Churchill was the first to describe the 'Iron Curtain' and the effects it would have. He also called for nuclear diarmament after the war. Eisenhower however, thought nuclear weapons were just another part of the armoury.

Do you really think the cold war would have been averted had the US/Brit/French armies taken Berlin? That is naive at best. The partitioning of Germany was decided well before the war reached that stage. Letting the Soviets take Berlin gave Stalin a token he wanted and saved about 100,000 casualties.

Churchhill crying for nuclear disarmament after the war? Disarmament of what? The US bombs were used and nobody else had them for several years. I'm not impressed.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LukeT
Dub, my scorecard was not meant to imply we won WWI or WWII singlehandedly. Sorry if you took it that way.

The topic was about American military incompetence. My scorecard was meant to show that wherever we were involved, we succeeded in large proportion to our failures.

I think it is a shame that we are sniping at each other's militaries. All have records to be proud of.

Hear Hear! (but then again, it is my patriotic duty to sneer at, denigate and generally hold in contempt the US armed forces) :D

[c0rbin]

This is the dumbest argument I have ever read on this board.

This kind of posturing is a huge disservice to the average man/boy from any country who ever poked his head out of the trenches.

Anyone of you can pick up a history book and read how, the 20th century, the Allies fought together to lessen the suffering of the world under the thumbs of facists and lunatics.

Anyone can pick up a history book and learn how dirty and unpleaseant war is to the soldier, the people, and land on which it is fought.

The world has some problems and flying airliners into buildings is not the frigging answer to solving your problems.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark


Refer to the documentary Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq, first shown on ITV 6 March 2000. The short answer is: radiation.

Yuh. How about all those lamp mantles, then? :D :D

[Dub]

Kook: i have researched extensively into the 2nd world war. My view that the cold war crisis could have at best be lessened is not naive. I am aware of how Germany was split up, but Churchill DID repeated call for the allies to be first into the major European capitals as he knew what effect communist Russia would have oin the region if it got there first. Unfortunately, Eisenhower did not share that view.

[Soapy Sam]

Just remember who started all this hiding behind trees and taking pot shots stuff in the first place. Rogers' Rangers and the Concord Militia. (The twenty fourth Smuckers' Jam Factory Minutemen).

REAL SOLDIERS wear red coats and crossed white bandoliers to give the other side a decent target!

It's not cricket if you don't play by the rules.:)

[Wyrd1]

"This argument is flatly ridiculous. Does this mean you have to be a horse to train a horse?"

Perhaps it is ridiculous to ask you to qualify yourself by actually studying the Gulf War and it's objectives. So far you have not demonstrated any knowledge of those objectives. Ad hom attacks are all swell but until you bother to do your homework I will continue to insist that you are not qualified to speak intelligently about it.

"Put it another way: Although I'm not an astronaut, and although I have no astronautical qualifications, amazingly enough I happen to know that if you jump out of a rocket ship without adequate protection, your blood will first freeze, then boil. Not only that, but even if you somehow survived that, you'd suffocate."

I'm sure your parents are so proud of you. You overlook at least one point here. You do not understand the goals of Desert Storm and Desert Shield. In order for you to understand what happens when an astronaut jumps out of a space capsule you had to study those effects.

"I'm also no economist, nor have I ever studied economics, yet for all that I have somehow worked out that Enron collapsed due to incompetant management."

Perhaps but why should we take your word for any part of that assessment? You admit you know very little about it so why take your word for it? I imagine that you you have no military experience either and your opinion that the US Military is incompetent is just that: Your opinion. You're allowed to have any sort of opinion you like no matter what justification or lack of justification you have. Your evidence is the military not removing Saddam Hussein from power which was never a goal of the Military. You say we failed in our goal to save oil wells which was never a goal of the US Military.

Your lack of expertice stems from your lack of knowledge on the subject. You don't have a single clue as to what sort of training any small part of the US Military conducts so how can you make an intelligent comment about it?

"Come back when you have something smart to say."

I can say the same thing about you. If you want to resort to troll like ad hominem attacks we can do that too. I'm not above entering the muck.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Dub
Kook: i have researched extensively into the 2nd world war. My view that the cold war crisis could have at best be lessened is not naive.


I disagree. The Soviets were determined to have satellite startes. Being invaded several times in the past couple of centuries will do that. With that you have a cold war. One can make greater arguements that had FDR survived the war he would have been able to make the Soviets less paranoid. Truman made Stalin twitch.


I am aware of how Germany was split up, but Churchill DID repeated call for the allies to be first into the major European capitals as he knew what effect communist Russia would have oin the region if it got there first. Unfortunately, Eisenhower did not share that view.

In the US we refer to this as monday morning quaterbacking.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam

REAL SOLDIERS wear red coats and crossed white bandoliers to give the other side a decent target!

It's not cricket if you don't play by the rules.:)

BTW, the British Army now has thier rank slides on the front of their smocks, just about the solar plexus. This is exactly the aiming point a marksman is going to aim for a hit. So, the Britsh army maintains its tradition of paiting targets on its soldiers. (we tried to get other armies to do it too, but they dont want to play- bunch of poofs!)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Dub


There will still US forces operating with UK forces in afgahnistan throughout June and July 2002. I may be a mistake on my part. I remeber being told he was working with US marines, army and airbourne. Ill contact him and get some further details.

If the events described happened, I would put my money on it having been the 10th "Mountain" division. They have drawn a lot of negative comments for their performance in Afghanistan. The are also not any sort of elite unit. Part of the problem would be that the only mountains they normaly train on are the Adirondacks in Upstate New York. Base elevation in that area is less than 2,000 ft. and the peak elevations are just over 5,000 ft. Not great for high elevation training.

Some people have recommended moving them to Ft. Carson Colorado, where the base elevation is 6,000 ft. and peaks in that state reach over 14,000 ft. The base elevation around Kandahar is somewhere around 6,000 ft.

I could see this kind of thing happening with them. But I would still tend to think that they would have to do the work themselves. If it is a training mission, then they would just be cheating themselves. Even if they had to rest first it would be a worthwhile effort to finish the climb.

[Wyrd1]

Jon_in_london, do you know of any links to the ranks for the British Military? We had some Brits here at 29 Palms Marine Corps Base awhile back and I was lost trying to figure who was what.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Wyrd1
Jon_in_london, do you know of any links to the ranks for the British Military? We had some Brits here at 29 Palms Marine Corps Base awhile back and I was lost trying to figure who was what.

The rank slide, worn on the front of combat 95's, there 'every day rig' are as follows: http://www.rankinsignia.info/show.php?podkategorie=Royal%20Marine%20Corps&stat=United%20Kingdom&id=965

Thats the marines rank insignia. The army, navy and airforce are simliar but do differ on some ranks. There is one mistake oon that page I posted though. On that page the Lance Corpoal rank is also referred to as 'Private'. This is NOT the case in the marines. The lowest rank in the marines is simply reffered to as 'Marine' NOT 'Private'.

[Dub]

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Churchhill crying for nuclear disarmament after the war? Disarmament of what? The US bombs were used and nobody else had them for several years. I'm not impressed.



Churchill's alarm was at Eisenhowers view that nuclear weapon shouldnt be regarded as anything special, other than just another addition to the armoury. Churchill wanted nuclear weapons to be outlawed. Calling for the US to not consider using and stop developing atomic weapons is what I would call 'disarmourment'.


Letting the Soviets take Berlin gave Stalin a token he wanted and saved about 100,000 casualties.

Id like to know why you think that the russians being the first into Berlin would have save 100, 000 casulaties. The brutallity of the Russians in Berlin is well known. The aliies hardly let the russians take it. It was a race to take the major European capitals.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Wyrd1
Jon_in_london, do you know of any links to the ranks for the British Military? We had some Brits here at 29 Palms Marine Corps Base awhile back and I was lost trying to figure who was what.

Dont worry, Im still trying to figure it out myself :p

[Doubt]

Amending LukeT's list:

American Revolution - Win (By default. The Brits bailed out because they were in a standoff that they could not afford anymore. They also had to deal with other countries that had joined in the war to regain lost colonies in the Caribbean. Those countries were France, Spain, and The Netherlands. The war went on for several more years without the US.)

War of 1812 - Win (For the French. Prior to the war, the French did everything they could to get this war started. Not a whole lot gained here for the US. It is a good chance for both the US and the Brits to blame Canada, since the troops the burned Washington were from up North.) :D

Mexican-American War - Win

Civil War - Win (?) (First case of proving that you can do almost everything wrong for a couple of years and still win. Good come back by the Union.)

Spanish-American War - Win (Incompetent opponent.)

World War I - Win (We were a late in the game sub for the Russians.)

World War II - Win (Pacific, yes. Europe, 1/3 ours.)

Korea - Draw (Primary goal achieved. Stalin was the real winner, since this war kept both the US and China distracted from what he was doing.)

Viet Nam - Loss (Westmoreland was the wrong man for the job. It was over the day he got off the plane.)

World War III - Averted (Or postponed due to a forfeit. Other players may yet emerge.)

Cold War - Win (Only if we look at it as a zero sum game. The Russians lost, but I am not sure we won anything. Being the only superpower standing is not that great a deal. You catch flack for everything you do and everything you don't do.)

Panama, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan - Win, win, win, win (Mostly pushovers. And that is a good thing.)

Then there are all those little conflicts that don't get remembered:

The Moro campaign in the Philippines. (Spelling?)(Win?)

Somalia. (Original goal achieved, but we still lost?)

"Polar Bears" attempt to protect US interests in Russian Revolution. (Waste of time and lives.)

Undeclared Navel war with France after our revolution. (Draw)

Any others I am forgetting? I am not trying to rain on any parade here, but even when we win, it often is not as good as we would like it.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Doubt
Amending LukeT's list:

American Revolution - Win (By default. The Brits bailed out because they were in a standoff that they could not afford anymore. They also had to deal with other countries that had joined in the war to regain lost colonies in the Caribbean. Those countries were France, Spain, and The Netherlands. The war went on for several more years without the US.)

War of 1812 - Win (For the French. Prior to the war, the French did everything they could to get this war started. Not a whole lot gained here for the US. It is a good chance for both the US and the Brits to blame Canada, since the troops the burned Washington were from up North.) :D

Mexican-American War - Win

Civil War - Win (?) (First case of proving that you can do almost everything wrong for a couple of years and still win. Good come back by the Union.)

Spanish-American War - Win (Incompetent opponent.)

World War I - Win (We were a late in the game sub for the Russians.)

World War II - Win (Pacific, yes. Europe, 1/3 ours.)

Korea - Draw (Primary goal achieved. Stalin was the real winner, since this war kept both the US and China distracted from what he was doing.)

Viet Nam - Loss (Westmoreland was the wrong man for the job. It was over the day he got off the plane.)

World War III - Averted (Or postponed due to a forfeit. Other players may yet emerge.)

Cold War - Win (Only if we look at it as a zero sum game. The Russians lost, but I am not sure we won anything. Being the only superpower standing is not that great a deal. You catch flack for everything you do and everything you don't do.)

Panama, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan - Win, win, win, win (Mostly pushovers. And that is a good thing.)

Then there are all those little conflicts that don't get remembered:

The Moro campaign in the Philippines. (Spelling?)(Win?)

Somali. (Original goal achieved, but we still lost?)

"Polar Bears" attempt to protect US interests in Russian Revolution. (Waste of time and lives.)

Undeclared Navel war with France after our revolution. (Draw)

Any others I am forgetting? I am not trying to rain on any parade here, but even when we win, it often is not as good as we would like it.

Doubt: So you think the Americans 'won' the War in the pacific on there own? And the persian gulf and afghan - all on their own?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Dub
Churchill's alarm was at Eisenhowers view that nuclear weapon shouldnt be regarded as anything special, other than just another addition to the armoury. Churchill wanted nuclear weapons to be outlawed. Calling for the US to not consider using and stop developing atomic weapons is what I would call 'disarmourment'.

Can you explain to me exactly what this tangent has to do with my earlier comments? I honestly don't know why I'm being called to defend anything here.

[Dub]

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Churchhill crying for nuclear disarmament after the war? Disarmament of what? The US bombs were used and nobody else had them for several years. I'm not impressed.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Dub


Doubt: So you think the Americans 'won' the War in the pacific on there own? And the persian gulf and afghan - all on their own?

We had help, and it is nice to have it. But we were the decisive element in those conflicts. No US, no win in those efforts. I cannot say the same for Europe.

Edited to add:

I was writing in very general terms with my additions to Luke's list. Rather than bring in all the players I will state this for diplomacy purposes:

In WWII, the US role in North Africa was not relevant to victory:

WWII: Win (Pacific yes, Europe 1/3, North Africa - not much.)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Dub


Doubt: So you think the Americans 'won' the War in the pacific on there own?


You're right, the Chinese army drew off a lot of Japanese resources.


And the persian gulf and afghan - all on their own?

The Germans and French were very helpful.

[Dragonrock]

YEAH! Well my dad can beat up your dad!!

[Starshark]

Originally posted by LukeT


Starshark, you really need to go back and study the matter more. I can only assume you were a child at the time, or you would know better.

If we intended to remove Saddam from power at the time, we would have, believe me. The only thing that stopped us was politics. We were chomping at the bit to go and take him out.

Aaaah! A ray of hope! Someone's beginning to get the picture!

It was, in a way, similar to Vietnam. Yes, you could have taken him out if you wanted to. Yes, you were 'chomping' (hate to be a nitpicker, but I prefer 'champin') at the bit to go and take him out, but you failed.

Your military took too long to do it, you see. It was indecisive. Incompetant. The public had time to wonder, 'is it all worth it'? Just like Vietnam. I've tried not to bring up Vietnam because, let's face it, when Mel Gibson makes a movie on a subject, the subject's been done to death. But the point still needs to be made: if the US military had a better understanding of strategy and tactics, the war would have been over long before the peace protestors could have put enough pressure on the Government to withdraw. An army that knew what it was doing might have ended the conflict in '66.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Doubt
Starshark,

First things first. Look up the definition of strawman. You do not appear to know what it is. Some of the counter arguments offered to your critique do contain fallacies, but I have yet to see a strawman used here.

Here is a list:

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html

For a reality check on Depleted Uranium:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_harley_03jan00.html

One thing this page does not address is the type of radiation emitted by U238. Most of the emissions are alpha particles. An alpha particle is a helium nucleus. To stop an alpha particle, all you need for shielding is a piece of paper. Nothing heavy required. Few gamma rays to be found.

If DU is responsible for Gulf war illness, it would be because of chemical toxicity, not radiation.

First up, my understanding of a strawman argument is, 'an argument that's nothing to do with the topic and therefore a waste of time and energy to refute'.

So when someone says, "The Australian military isn't any better than the US', that's a strawman. I'm not discussing the Australian military: that's a debate for another time. Ditto the refugee vote-winner camps in Australia. Ditto the half-assed argument that if I'm not in the military I'm a communist or whatever.

One of the things that the documentary I addressed is the large increase in cancer incidents post gulf-war. Apparently it's close to the levels experienced at Hiroshima. Whether it's due to radiation or toxicity is irrelevant: it's the result of the US military being seduced by technology, it's causing civilians to die and resent the US (and, consequently, support a dictator like Saddam), it shows that the US either doesn't understand or doesn't care about it's objectives. Either way, that's incompetent.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Starshark


Aaaah! A ray of hope! Someone's beginning to get the picture!

It was, in a way, similar to Vietnam. Yes, you could have taken him out if you wanted to. Yes, you were 'chomping' (hate to be a nitpicker, but I prefer 'champin') at the bit to go and take him out, but you failed.


When exactly where we able to "take him out" in Vietnam?


Your military took too long to do it, you see.


Our amries were quote fast thank you. ALthough I beleive Ghengis still hold the record.


It was indecisive. Incompetant. The public had time to wonder, 'is it all worth it'?


No, our public had to wonder "Why are we going to Bagdad when all we said we were going to do was liberate Kuwait?


Just like Vietnam. I've tried not to bring up Vietnam because, let's face it, when Mel Gibson makes a movie on a subject, the subject's been done to death. But the point still needs to be made: if the US military had a better understanding of strategy and tactics, the war would have been over long before the peace protestors could have put enough pressure on the Government to withdraw. An army that knew what it was doing might have ended the conflict in '66.

The US Military actually wasn't the core of the problem. Poor political leadership, intolerable corruprion in South Vietnam, tenacious beyond tenacious NVA, etc. etc.

Military Monday morning QB'ing again.

[waitew]

Starshark,since you're so concerned with human rights.I offer you the following:

"Clean up your own backyard first"

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Wheather you agree with your country's policy of detainment or not is irrelevant.As an Australian,you have no moral high ground to stand upon from which you to criticize America for camp X-ray.
Unless, you're attending/organising protests or writting letters to newspapers & MP's to put a stop to it,you are a hypocrite.
How dare you point the finger of guilt at America & demand we explain ourselves & then (after the evil deeds of your nation are pointed out) simply say it doesn't matter what your nation does because you're opposed to that too.Well,until Australia releases those poor souls detained in those camps,shut up!

[Starshark]

Originally posted by LukeT
American Military Scorecard:

American Revolution - Win

War of 1812 - Win

Mexican-American War - Win

Civil War - Win (?)

Spanish-American War - Win

World War I - Win

World War II - Win

Korea - Draw

Viet Nam - Loss

World War III - Averted

Cold War - Win

Panama, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan - Win, win, win, win

You're very quick to claim a few wins there.

Many historians would argue that, were it not for the US, World War II would never have occurred. Your claim that the gulf war was 'won' is a little premature, too: sure, you got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but you failed two other objectives. I guess one out of three ain't bad. Afghanistan isn't exactly a complete victory as well, you've now created massive instability by appointing a minority government. Oh well, if the dictator has the US seal-of-approval, then I guess they're the 'good guys'.

Pretty funny definition of a victory, if you ask me. Or is war purely about who has the lowest body count? Typical US military thinking.

(edited to say, Glad you put that question mark after 'civil war'... how the Hell do you lose a civil war???)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Starshark

One of the things that the documentary I addressed is the large increase in cancer incidents post gulf-war. Apparently it's close to the levels experienced at Hiroshima. Whether it's due to radiation or toxicity is irrelevant: it's the result of the US military being seduced by technology, it's causing civilians to die and resent the US (and, consequently, support a dictator like Saddam), it shows that the US either doesn't understand or doesn't care about it's objectives. Either way, that's incompetent.

What is the evidence for these cancer rates?

You do realise that Depleted Uraniam is not radioactive, right?

Unless people are going into the desert and eating the metal off detroyed tanks, they are not in any danger from depleted Uranium.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by c0rbin
This is the dumbest argument I have ever read on this board.

This kind of posturing is a huge disservice to the average man/boy from any country who ever poked his head out of the trenches.

Anyone of you can pick up a history book and read how, the 20th century, the Allies fought together to lessen the suffering of the world under the thumbs of facists and lunatics.

Anyone can pick up a history book and learn how dirty and unpleaseant war is to the soldier, the people, and land on which it is fought.

The world has some problems and flying airliners into buildings is not the frigging answer to solving your problems.
:confused: Where the Hell did this come from?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Starshark


You're very quick to claim a few wins there.

Many historians would argue that, were it not for the US, World War II would never have occurred.

They can argue all they want. I can also argue that had England stayed out of WW1 there would also be no WW2.

Of course, larger chunks of France would now be speaking German.

I would also remind you how much the allied powers were pleading with the US to enter.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Wyrd1

Perhaps but why should we take your word for any part of that assessment? You admit you know very little about it so why take your word for it? I imagine that you you have no military experience either and your opinion that the US Military is incompetent is just that: Your opinion. You're allowed to have any sort of opinion you like no matter what justification or lack of justification you have. Your evidence is the military not removing Saddam Hussein from power which was never a goal of the Military. You say we failed in our goal to save oil wells which was never a goal of the US Military.

Your lack of expertice stems from your lack of knowledge on the subject. You don't have a single clue as to what sort of training any small part of the US Military conducts so how can you make an intelligent comment about it?



No, it isn't an objective now that you've failed. But at the beginning of the Gulf War the three objectives were: liberate the Kuwatis, secure the oil wells, depose Saddam Hussein. Because the US guffed the last two, the objectives changed to, "Liberate the Kuwatis, and we're doing it purely out of the goodness of our hearts because, even though we can't even point to Kuwait on a map, well, shucks, we just love those little guys".

[Starshark]

by kookbreaker
When exactly where we able to "take him out" in Vietnam?


You can't be that stupid. Read the post again.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


They can argue all they want. I can also argue that had England stayed out of WW1 there would also be no WW2.

Of course, larger chunks of France would now be speaking German.

I would also remind you how much the allied powers were pleading with the US to enter.

Yes they were, a lot earlier than when they did. The US strategy during WWI and WWII was to sit back, let the Allies do all the hard work, then come in for mopping up and bask in the glory. That's why the Brits get irritated when the US claims to have 'won' WWI and WWII. As one letter-writer to Viz magazine put it: "We should help the Americans out in the Gulf war the same way they helped us in WWII and go to the US, shag their women, and talk in loud voices while they do all the fighting".

[xouper]

Regarding Sadam:

Starshark: Yes, you could have taken him out if you wanted to. Yes, you were 'chomping' (hate to be a nitpicker, but I prefer 'champin') at the bit to go and take him out, but you failed.What kind of dumb logic is that? It's not possible to fail at a mission that was never a mission.



Disclaimer for the peanut gallery: I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. :eek:

[xouper]

Starshark: Many historians would argue that, were it not for the US, World War II would never have occurred.<blockquote>http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/lach.gif</blockquote>

Starshark's view of the '91 Gulf War:


It was, in a way, similar to Vietnam. Yes, you could have taken him out if you wanted to. Yes, you were 'chomping' (hate to be a nitpicker, but I prefer 'champin') at the bit to go and take him out, but you failed.

But here is the capper:


Your military took too long to do it, you see.

I think I'm done here. I can't argue with that kind of ignorance....

[Shaun from Scotland]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starshark: Many historians would argue that, were it not for the US, World War II would never have occurred.

I know quite a few of military historians.. I can't think of any who would agree with this

[Wyrd1]

"No, it isn't an objective now that you've failed. But at the beginning of the Gulf War the three objectives were: liberate the Kuwatis, secure the oil wells, depose Saddam Hussein. Because the US guffed the last two, the objectives changed to, "Liberate the Kuwatis, and we're doing it purely out of the goodness of our hearts because, even though we can't even point to Kuwait on a map, well, shucks, we just love those little guys".

You seem to know better than anyone else why not provide some references? I was there and not one word was ever mentioned about securing any oil wells. While Stormin' Norman did promise to kick Saddam Hussein's ass this was not an actual policy statement.

If you don't believe we could have captured Saddam if we (the coalition not the US only) so desired then you are sadly mistaken.
And if Oil Wells were in fact a goal it would have been very little trouble to put out the fires and save them.

I would appreciate the sources because if you are correct I would not mind admitting it here. You are not, but I don't blame you for trying.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark
Many historians would argue that, were it not for the US, World War II would never have occurred. Your claim that the gulf war was 'won' is a little premature, too: sure, you got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but you failed two other objectives. I guess one out of three ain't bad. Afghanistan isn't exactly a complete victory as well, you've now created massive instability by appointing a minority government. Oh well, if the dictator has the US seal-of-approval, then I guess they're the 'good guys'.

Pretty funny definition of a victory, if you ask me. Or is war purely about who has the lowest body count? Typical US military thinking.

(edited to say, Glad you put that question mark after 'civil war'... how the Hell do you lose a civil war???)

War is economics.

You're a troll and a wind-up.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark
One of the things that the documentary I addressed is the large increase in cancer incidents post gulf-war. Apparently it's close to the levels experienced at Hiroshima. Whether it's due to radiation or toxicity is irrelevant: it's the result of the US military being seduced by technology, it's causing civilians to die and resent the US (and, consequently, support a dictator like Saddam), it shows that the US either doesn't understand or doesn't care about it's objectives. Either way, that's incompetent.

Yeah, right, this has nothing to do with those megatons of carcinogens releasted by the megatons of burning oil, too.

Try again. Look up what you get when you burn oil incompletely.

[jj]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


What is the evidence for these cancer rates?

You do realise that Depleted Uraniam is not radioactive, right?

Unless people are going into the desert and eating the metal off detroyed tanks, they are not in any danger from depleted Uranium.

I can believe the cancer rates in Kuwait and the parts of Iraq that got polluted by the burning oil, though.

Consider, what do you get when you burn crude oil incompletely? You get all sorts of polycyclics, benzenes, etc, hideous carcinogens (not just run of the mill ones, either) the lot.

[waitew]

"Whether it's due to radiation or toxicity is irrelevant: it's the result of the US military being seduced by technology"(quote)



You admit you don't know what's causing it,but you're eager to blame the USA!!Your anti-American bias clouds your judgement,I'm afraid.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark


Yes they were, a lot earlier than when they did. The US strategy during WWI and WWII was to sit back, let the Allies do all the hard work, then come in for mopping up and bask in the glory. That's why the Brits get irritated when the US claims to have 'won' WWI and WWII. As one letter-writer to Viz magazine put it: "We should help the Americans out in the Gulf war the same way they helped us in WWII and go to the US, shag their women, and talk in loud voices while they do all the fighting".

Yeah, yeah, hit the beach at Normandy and say that. Naples, Casino, Salerno, the whole Italian campaign. North Africa, Guadalcanal, :mad:

"Naples and Casino, a holiday with pay ".... (That's part of a song making fun of one "Lady Astor" who put her foot in her mouth during the war.)

The "isolationist" stance of the USA was I problem, I think, but that's a different problem altogether.

[Nately]

This guy should change his name to Strawshark.

First off, your definition of strawman as "'an argument that's nothing to do with the topic and therefore a waste of time and energy to refute" isn't quite right. A strawman is where you take the other guy's argument and make it into a simple, inaccurate caricature of reality, in the same way that a scarecrow doesn't really represent a man very well. Then having set up the straw man position, you kick the crap out it, much in the same way that one could beat up a scarecrow far more easily than a real person.

Originally posted by Starshark
No, it isn't an objective now that you've failed. But at the beginning of the Gulf War the three objectives were: liberate the Kuwatis, secure the oil wells, depose Saddam Hussein.

You've said this multiple times now like it's a fact, but no one agrees with you. It's time to provide a citation.


Your military took too long to do it, you see. It was indecisive. Incompetant. The public had time to wonder, 'is it all worth it'?

The air war was a few weeks. The ground war was 100 hours. How can this be too long? What is indecisive about cutting off an army and destroying it? Halting the offensive was a political decision, which I think ticked off Schwarzkopf if I remember correctly. Nothing you say is making any sense. The irony of it all is that you accuse the US of indiscriminate destruction and overkill, but in order to achieve your idea of competence, overkill and indiscriminate destruction is exactly what would be needed.

I'm beginning to think you spent 90-91 in an alternate universe.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dub


I HAVE actually served in the military, have you JK? Im guessing by the 1000's of posts you have made your aint atm, and by your attitude you never have been. As the topic was originally on the US military ill talk about mine and some of my friends experiences with them. A friend of mine was recently in Afghanistan and was working closely with the US marines. As you probably know afghan is a mountainous area. On several of the harder climbs the british troops had to go up to the top of the climbs, leave their bergens (backpacks) there, and come back down and carry the US marines bergens up for them as they were unable to do so. Another incident that happend around the same time in afghan involved a US special forces solider. (I unofficially heard he was a Ranger) His task was to pass on the co-ordinates of a target to a bomber aircraft. Basically the method involves taking storing the gird ref in the GPS then oving off to a saf distance. Unfortunately the batteries ran out after he had taken the ref and so he replaced them. This had the effect of deleting the stored gridref. He then read off the GPS reference he saw on screen to the plane. Unlucky for him this was not the old ref he had stored, and that had been deleted, but was his actually ref. The US airforce then carried out a precision bomb was acuraately hit the gridref target. Unforunatley that target was now the US solider.

That is nonsense you read about in the newspaper.

JK

[Dub]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


They can argue all they want. I can also argue that had England stayed out of WW1 there would also be no WW2.

Of course, larger chunks of France would now be speaking German.

I would also remind you how much the allied powers were pleading with the US to enter.

Yes they wanted the US to enter ALOT earlier. If they had the war may have ended alot sooner. Infact they waited until they had no choice but to enter. Remeber also, the British declared war on Japan immediaetly following the Peral Harbour attack. At a time when most of mainland Europe was under Nazi control and invasion a serious threat, the British STILL declared war on Japan because they attacked the US.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Dub

the British STILL declared war on Japan because they attacked the US.

Not strictly true. Britain declared war on the 8th December, largely in response to Japanese attacks on Hong Kong and Malaya the same day.

[Wyrd1]

As an historian I hate see alot of sniping back and forth over who contributed what to winning WWI and WWII. It was a joint effort and if there hadn't been teamwork we'd all be driving German Cars and Japanese Cars and...

Umm...Well hell. I hope people can see what I mean.

There is no way to know what would have happened if this or that didn't happen or if it did. It can be fun to speculate but it's pretty silly to get into protracted arguments about it. How can you ultimately prove your point? Can you develop a mathmatical formula to demonstrate your point? I mean one that works?

My Father was in World War II and he spent alot of time in England working with the RAF and he had nothing but great respect for The Royal Air Force, their planes, their pilots and their ground crews.

There was a very good chance that WWII would have ended in a stalemate if it hadn't been for all allies working together. Without the Soviet Union draining troops in the East, if it hadn't been for the RAF destroying most of the Luftwaffe and if it hadn't been for the combined forces of British, Canadian, and US Soldiers to actually invade Fortress Europe the whole war would have been so different as to be unimaginable to us today.

Nobody "knows" what it would have been like and I am grateful that we didn't have to find out the hard way.

[Starshark]

by natelyFirst off, your definition of strawman as "'an argument that's nothing to do with the topic and therefore a waste of time and energy to refute" isn't quite right. A strawman is where you take the other guy's argument and make it into a simple, inaccurate caricature of reality, in the same way that a scarecrow doesn't really represent a man very well. Then having set up the straw man position, you kick the crap out it, much in the same way that one could beat up a scarecrow far more easily than a real person.

This is where I got my definition (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=straw*1+4). True, I didn't explain it very well earlier. But the other posters were suggesting that I was saying that the Australian military is better, that Australia doesn't have camps like the US (BTW, bad as those camps are, they really aren't a patch on camp X-ray), and it is a waste of time for me to debate those points when they're nothing to do with the topic.

by kookbreakerThe US Military actually wasn't the core of the problem. Poor political leadership, intolerable corruprion in South Vietnam, tenacious beyond tenacious NVA, etc. etc.

Military Monday morning QB'ing again.

That's what you tell yourself so that the sting of the loss isn't quite so bad. Read Ralston Saul's Voltaire's Bastards, which gives an analysis of the loss in Vietnam with references. If you have read this work and have any problems with it, feel free to post criticisms here.

by Shaun from ScotlandI know quite a few of military historians.. I can't think of any who would agree with this

I'm not exactly referring to the US military here. Apparently (and I don't know a whole lot about WWI so I'm not going to stick to this line any more than this post), the US drafted the Marseilles treaty which caused so much resentment in Germany.

from Wyrd1You seem to know better than anyone else why not provide some references? I was there and not one word was ever mentioned about securing any oil wells. While Stormin' Norman did promise to kick Saddam Hussein's ass this was not an actual policy statement.

If you don't believe we could have captured Saddam if we (the coalition not the US only) so desired then you are sadly mistaken.
And if Oil Wells were in fact a goal it would have been very little trouble to put out the fires and save them.

I would appreciate the sources because if you are correct I would not mind admitting it here. You are not, but I don't blame you for trying.


I'm having a hard time finding on-line references because most of the sites require you to subscribe. Excuse me if I don't pay to prove a point. It is also detailed in Voltaire's Bastards. But really, you don't need the references, you can always resort to common sense. What good does it do if the oil wells are left to burn? Makes it a hollow victory if you liberate a country with such damage to the infrastructure. And, like you say yourself, the oil wells would not have been difficult to save. So why weren't they saved?

As to getting rid of Saddam, again, I can't find the references straight off the bat. I remember George Bush saying every other night that they were going to get rid of him. And if it wasn't an objective, why did Bush waste so much time and energy trying to get rid of him in the aftermath? (click here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_4-27.html) for one reference of many). Why get the Kurds to try to depose Hussein when the US military could do it just as easily?

by jj
War is economics.

No, it isn't. That's the problem the American military and the American government have: they don't seem to know what war is.

Sun Tzu: "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected".

(oh, I can hear my old Uni tutor barking at me... So I have to tell you guys I agree with Sun Tzu... Never understood that myself, if you're using a quote to back up an argument, why wouldn't you agree?)

This isn't economics. Trite as the answer is, war is war.

While you're on, look up the definition of 'troll' here (http://catb.org/esr/jargon/) (that goes for the rest of you JREF'ers as well). It doesn't mean 'someone who disagrees with the majority'.

by Nately
The air war was a few weeks. The ground war was 100 hours. How can this be too long? What is indecisive about cutting off an army and destroying it? Halting the offensive was a political decision, which I think ticked off Schwarzkopf if I remember correctly. Nothing you say is making any sense. The irony of it all is that you accuse the US of indiscriminate destruction and overkill, but in order to achieve your idea of competence, overkill and indiscriminate destruction is exactly what would be needed.

I've said what I'm going to say on overkill, on this thread and previous threads. Voltaire's Bastards also has an analysis.

Later... when my connection works a bit f***ing better... I'll try to put a few links up.

(edited to add this link (http://prop1.org/2000/du/du98list.htm) which has a list of articles about the Iraqi's trying to get an enquiry as to why, exactly, they are getting sick)

[Badger]

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jj
War is economics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, it isn't. That's the problem the American military and the American government have: they don't seem to know what war is.

Sun Tzu: "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected".

(oh, I can hear my old Uni tutor barking at me... So I have to tell you guys I agree with Sun Tzu... Never understood that myself, if you're using a quote to back up an argument, why wouldn't you agree?)

This isn't economics. Trite as the answer is, war is war."

This is hilarious. I don't usually respond to people such as you, but the sheer stupidity of your above statment prompts me to point it out explicitly.

War is about power, control, and survival. Your trite answer is simply that..... trite.

It's obvious to me how bright a bulb you are.

Later, sharkboy.

[Soapy Sam]

JJ-
My father was one of the "D-Day Dodgers" in sunny Italy. I hadn't expected that song to have percolated as far as Redmond.
I know people who are still bitter about that remark, almost sixty years on. There's still debate about what Mary Astor actually said. Whether you admire the woman or despise her, you have to feel a certain sympathy for anyone who found herself the public target of Churchill's wit as much as she did.


Re the way this thread has developed. Seems like the Territorial Imperative is alive and well on the JREF forum. From my own shallow perspective as a member of the human species, I tend to list every war in history as a loss for the only side involved.
They were all civil wars. They always will be. The question is not whether one military outfit is prepared for a particular conflict, but why we can't stop feuding over ephemeral, insignificant nonsense. .

[Badger]

Soapy Sam,

Would that it were that easy. But even the intelligetn members of this board get their backs up on occasion. I guess it's the nature of the beast.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Starshark:
I'm not exactly referring to the US military here. Apparently (and I don't know a whole lot about WWI so I'm not going to stick to this line any more than this post), the US drafted the Marseilles treaty which caused so much resentment in Germany.

The Marseilles Treaty?

The Treaty of Versailles on the other hand was drafted by the victorious allies, America, France, Britain and Italy, as the peace settlement to formally end WWI. Woodrow Wilson tried to bring some gravitas to the proceedings, but the desire for revenge among the Europeans was too great. Guess what else? The USA never signed the Treaty. Congress rejected it, and the US later signed a seperate peace treaty with Germany. In fact during the 1920's it was American loans that helped Germany recover economically.

Many historians would argue that, were it not for the US, World War II would never have occurred.

So who are these historians? Or could it be that your argument is pure fantasy arising from a deep held prejuduce on your part?

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Badger
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jj
War is economics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, it isn't. That's the problem the American military and the American government have: they don't seem to know what war is.

Sun Tzu: "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected".

(oh, I can hear my old Uni tutor barking at me... So I have to tell you guys I agree with Sun Tzu... Never understood that myself, if you're using a quote to back up an argument, why wouldn't you agree?)

This isn't economics. Trite as the answer is, war is war."

This is hilarious. I don't usually respond to people such as you, but the sheer stupidity of your above statment prompts me to point it out explicitly.

War is about power, control, and survival. Your trite answer is simply that..... trite.

It's obvious to me how bright a bulb you are.

Later, sharkboy.

Hmmm... Well, how can I respond to rebuttal like that?

It's a bit hard to find out what your point it through all the abuse, but I take it you didn't like the bit where I said that the US government has a tendency to think that war is economics. If the US gov doesn't think that war is economics, why does the US stand on a permanent war footing, why is the majority of US spending on weapons, and why is the US's biggest export weapons?

As for the US military, they seem to have lost sight of what the objective of war is. It's not to show who has the biggest nuts. It's not to keep finding reasons to keep the dollars flowing into the pentagon. The purpose of war is to win. They forgot that in Vietnam, and they didn't keep it in mind in the Gulf either. They spent so long with the bombing campaign, the Iraqis had plenty of time to sabotage the oil wells.

Now, I'm used to anti-social bulletin boards where flame wars are allowed and encouraged. I find polite debate very frustrating. Is it all right with everyone if I induldge in a little flame myself?

Badger- I notice that hammer of yours has a brown stain near the bottom of the handle. May I ask where it's been?

Shane Costello- Ooops! Versailles! And, as I said, I'm not going to argue about WWI any more because I don't know enough about it.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Starshark:
Shane Costello- Ooops! Versailles! And, as I said, I'm not going to argue about WWI any more because I don't know enough about it.

So why did you open your gob about it in the first place?

[Starshark]

...because I thought it was common knowledge. It's called a mistake. Maybe you've heard of them.

[Starshark]

Meanwhile, click here (http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61) for and address from Professor Doug Rokke.

Interesting points:

Many exposures were caused by our deliberate actions. We knew where Iraqi chemical and biological chemicals were stored so as General Schwarzkopf wrote in his autobiography It Doesnt Take a Hero, we decided to blow them up with artillery rounds and aerial bombardment. Consequently chemical, biological, and radiological warfare materials were released.

I haven't read Schwarzkopf's book, but it sounds like -by his own admission- the US knew where these weapons were stored and, instead of using appropriate means of disposal, blew them up like a cowboy shooting at gunpowder barrels. Schwarzkopf got a congressional medal of honor for his role in the Gulf. Is this reward appropriate for a general who appears to be incompentent?

The burning of the oil wells as Iraqi forces retreated was an excellent tactical operation. Health and environmental problems started immediately. Members of our unit were dispatched to conduct an initial assessment of potential risks. It was obvious that incomplete combustion of inorganic and organic compounds was occurring and that these were being released into the air and onto terrain causing immediate respiratory and skin problems. The released mixture was so thick that we used sticks to scrap the junk out of our nose, ears, and mouth.

This is interesting. I'd like to post more, but don't want to violate copyright. Although he discusses the use of depleted uranium, he also says the burning oil wells may have contributed to the observed cancer rates in the Gulf. As can be seen in the link I posted earlier, we may not know for quite some time, since there seems to be a bit of foot-dragging on seeing if DU causes cancer or not. Let's assume for a moment that DU doesn't cause cancer, and that the DU munitions used in the gulf wasn't mixed with plutonium (as accused in Pilger's "New Rulers of the World").

Even if all that is true, it still remains that the US army was obviously caught flat-footed by the burning of the oil wells. Using sticks to scape oil out of orifices? Is this the hallmark of an army that knows what it's doing? Call it Monday-morning quarterbacking all you want, but if you are fighting an enemy over oil wells, shouldn't the scenario that maybe they'll be put to the torch be considered?

Someone mentioned in the "Salute" thread that Sun Tzu is taught at military schools. If this is true (and the only reason I doubt it is because the US military never seems to use any of the principles from it), why don't they pay more attention to this bit:

The natural formation of the country is the soldier's best ally; but a power of estimating the adversary, of controlling the forces of victory, and of shrewdly calculating difficulties, dangers and distances, constitutes the test of a general.

I'll point out again: Scwarzkopf got a CMoH even though he didn't seem to realise that the Iraqis were going to burn the oil wells and cause damage -if nothing else- to his own troops. How does this show that the US military is competent?

As we completed the Depleted Uranium Burn Test at the Department of Energy Nevada Test Site in November 1994, DOE medics performed a radio-bioassay on me that found 5000 times the permissible level of uranium in my body. THEN THEY NEVER TOLD ME FOR 2.5 YEARS. AGAIN A DELIBERATE ACTION TO DENY MEDICAL CARE BY PREVENTING CORRELATION OF EXPOSURES TO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS!!!


(emphasis, I suspect, the San Fransisco Times')

Now, can someone tell me if, among other carcinogens, burning oil contains uranium?

From http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1996/2/96.02.08.x.html (
Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

On October 26, 1990, the London Financial Times reported that a senior engineer of the Kuwait Oil Company stated that Iraq had prepared 300 of the 1000 oil wells for destruction.3 The concern of the Bush Administration about Hussein’s threats to use Kuwait oil as a weapon caused it to initiate top secret studies on “environmental terrorism of fires/oil spills in the Middle East.” The studies concluded that the smoke’s impact would have little effect on weapons.

So, the US knew what effects burning oil wells would have, knew that the Iraqis were going to burn them, yet still let it happen? It says there that studies concluded the smoke's impact wouldn't affect weapons. Don't soldiers count as weapons? If they don't, are weapons any good without soldiers to use them?

As far as DU not causing harm... maybe someone should tell the World Health Organisation (http://www.who.int/environmental_information/radiation/depleted_uranium.htm).

Here's where I think people are getting confused. The report says:

Only military use of depleted uranium is likely to have any significant impact on environmental levels.

Certainly, DU isn't as radioactive as Uranium, but it's still radioactive. It still isn't healthy to have it in your system. If you use DU as a weapon, you're supposed to clean up after yourselves, otherwise you might be observing effects like thousands of people dying from cancer.

This all ties back to what I was saying earlier: The US military sees this neat new weapon, doesn't use it properly, and obviously didn't test it properly or didn't care about its side-effects before using it. This has resulted in Iraq's people hating the US and supporting their leader all the more. Not only that, but the US has earned the hatred of other countries, too. And let's not forget Timothy McVeigh. :)

I'm trying to point out the consequences of charging like a bull in a china-shop when it comes to warfare. An intelligent, competent army does not do this. Look no further than Australia's role in East Timor.

(before I continue, I am only using the Australian army as a point of comparison. I'm not going to argue wether the Australian army is more competent than the US army, because that isn't the point of this thread. Feel free to start your own thread on the topic if you like).

The Australian army acted quickly to remove Indonesia-supporting guerilla forces from East Timor. They did it without a bombing campaign, using ground forces and taking risks. They acted quickly and decisively. There were only seventeen casualties in the conflict. This is how an army that knows what it's doing can liberate a country. Click here (http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/UntaetF.htm) for source material.

I'm not saying that the US could possibly limit the Iraqi casualties to a similar amount. That would be ridiculous. But if the US army had known what it was doing, the conservative estimate of 100 000 Iraqis killed and Lord-knows how many civilians could have been greatly reduced.

Sun Tzu: "Therefore, the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field'.

[jj]

Originally posted by Badger
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jj
War is economics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, it isn't. Trite as the answer is, war is war."
...
War is about power, control, and survival. Your trite answer is simply that..... trite.
...


Yep, war is about power, control and survival. In other words, WAR IS ABOUT ECONOMICS.

By the way, who is "sharkboy", pray tell?

Thank you for admitting I'm right two a paragraphs after you said I was wrong.

[jj]

Originally posted by Badger
Soapy Sam,

Would that it were that easy. But even the intelligetn members of this board get their backs up on occasion. I guess it's the nature of the beast.

You must be confused, because you just agreed with me again.

I don't like armies. I wish we didn't need one. I wish nobody did.

BUT WE DO AND SO WE NEED THE BEST ONE.

Sad, isn't it?

[jj]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
JJ-
My father was one of the "D-Day Dodgers" in sunny Italy. I hadn't expected that song to have percolated as far as Redmond.



I picked it up on the east coast of the USA (where I lived for many years) from a Canadian vocal group who got it from an old guy who moved to Canada from the UK.

Believe it or not, that's how I heard it.

I hope you understand my ironic use of it in reply to someone's nonsense about USA late this and that. It took the lot of "us" to win WW2, end of discussion. I can't really support the isolationist behavior of the USA that may have helped Hitler think he could get away with it, but then again, I wasn't born until the Korean Armistice.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark


Hmmm... Well, how can I respond to rebuttal like that?

It's a bit hard to find out what your point it through all the abuse, but I take it you didn't like the bit where I said that the US government has a tendency to think that war is economics. If the US gov doesn't think that war is economics, why does the US stand on a permanent war footing, why is the majority of US spending on weapons, and why is the US's biggest export weapons?



Well, you also failed to notice that he didn't agree with me by accident three lines or so down where he said war was about power and control and all that, either.

So I guess I know how you'd respond.

In case it's not clear, I happen to think your bizzare attack on the US military is simply mindnumbingly stupid.

While I don't like wars, I don't like armies, I also have watched the human race for a long time, I've studied some military campaigns, the US military WAS NOT SLOW OR INCOMPETANT in the Gulf War (ask me about the politicians later), and your inane rantings strike me as simply bizzare.

Oh, and like it or not, armies are extremely necessary. (Yes, I realize you have not stated your opinion on that, yet.)

(edited because I san't cpell)

[xouper]

Starshark: Now, I'm used to anti-social bulletin boards where flame wars are allowed and encouraged. I find polite debate very frustrating. Is it all right with everyone if I induldge in a little flame myself?No.

[waitew]

according to Starshark,the usa is damned if it does & damned if it doesn't!!If there is a conflict in this world & the USA involves it's self we are blamed for the atrocities that follow!If we do not become involved we are blamed for not having prevented the atrocities that follow!!We can not win!>>>So,F???CK ..U ,starshark!!


By the way..the Australian military consists almost entirely upon USA manufactured weapons!!!

[Starshark]

Originally posted by jj


Yep, war is about power, control and survival. In other words, WAR IS ABOUT ECONOMICS.

By the way, who is "sharkboy", pray tell?

Thank you for admitting I'm right two a paragraphs after you said I was wrong.

I think you're getting confused. Keep in mind the section you've quoted is a 'conversation' between me and badger. I didn't call anyone sharkboy, that's badger's attempt at a flame. I also don't think I've said you're right anywhere, either. Read the thread carefully. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Waitew: no, this isn't a 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' argument. You're getting confused with some other thread. The US, on careful consideration, are free to enter any theatre of war they like- provided of course the decision to fight a war isn't taken lightly.

But what was the point of liberating Kuwait if the oil wells are destroyed? And, assuming that no-one cares if the oil wells are destroyed as long as those cute little Kuwatis have their freedom, why didn't the US military at least consider the effect it would have on its own soldiers?

As for your comment about Australian weapons being 'almost entirely' American...

A) it's irrelevant to the topic
B) I think you're talking out of your hat. Show me where it says that most Australian weapons are American. I can name at least two (http://www.entreprise.com/Fal/Aus/aust_man2.htm) that aren't.

May I suggest, before you reply, that you don't have quiet so much to drink?

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark


I think you're getting confused. Keep in mind the section you've quoted is a 'conversation' between me and badger.


It was, even though you may be showing some confusion, I who said "war is about economics".

I have no idea of your own view in the matter, you're frankly incoherent, except when you're trying a would-be whipsaw at the USA's reputation, or making ad-hominem attacks on people who toss your rotten eggs in the dustbin.

Follows the relevant quote, directed at one of your attempts at a contrived whipsaw involving "losing" the previous Gulf War. The whole sorry mess is still back there, if you need some refreshing after your Foster's, go back and see:

Originally posted by jj


War is economics.

You're a troll and a wind-up.

This was in direct reply to you. The mustelid did the technicolour yawn all over it, and I raised my hackles at his snarky litte tirade.

But somehow you seem to think he's replying to you. I suppose it's possible that he did think he was replying to you, after all, you are the kind of annoying git what causes unrest, but most Mustelids usually know what they are attacking, I suspect he wanted to disagree with me.

Do tell!

Enquiring minds want to snow!
---
Edited to add:

Oh, this test in Nevada relates how to a bunch of tanks in the desert?

While I will certainly agree that spreading heavy metal poisons about the planet isn't the best thing in the world to do, I also know enough chemestry to know what soot from half-burned petrolium is like, and why it's extra-specially bad for you.

In case you're about to point it out, yes the combination of the two is unquestionably worse, perhaps synergestically so, I frankly don't know, and would not care to see the experiment take place.

[Starshark]

by jj
I have no idea of your own view in the matter, you're frankly incoherent, except when you're trying a would-be whipsaw at the USA's reputation, or making ad-hominem attacks on people who toss your rotten eggs in the dustbin.

...speaking of which...




PS... I think you'll find Badger was trying to say I don't know what war is. Maybe you should turn the paranoid dial down a notch or two.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark


...speaking of which...




PS... I think you'll find Badger was trying to say I don't know what war is. Maybe you should turn the paranoid dial down a notch or two.

And he would do that by attacking something I said without a trace of your comments?

I think Badger is smarter than that, even if I disagree with him on some issues.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Starshark:
...because I thought it was common knowledge. It's called a mistake. Maybe you've heard of them.

No, it's called "a woeful lack of critical thinking". You've obviously never heard of that.

[Starshark]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

You've picked me up on one point. Care to try any of the others?

[Nately]

Starshark, you never did answer the question of how long you think it would take to blow up an oil well. I myself am no expert, but it seems to me that a couple of guys in a jeep with a box full of explosives could take care of a few of them in a short matter of time. That being the case, there is no offensive that could have been fast enough to protect the oil wells.

You also have not proven that the objective was oil wells. US actions in the war make sense in light of the objective of expelling the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Without further evidence which you have not provided, does that not make it the simplest and most likely answer?

I just can't get over the fact that an "incompetent" military destroyed a large air force, paralyzed a C2 system, and routed a massive, modern ground force with minimal casualties. And the oil fires are out, and Kuwait still has a viable economy based almost entirely on oil. I'm just not seeing it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nately
Starshark, you never did answer the question of how long you think it would take to blow up an oil well. I myself am no expert, but it seems to me that a couple of guys in a jeep with a box full of explosives could take care of a few of them in a short matter of time. That being the case, there is no offensive that could have been fast enough to protect the oil wells.



While I don't have evidence, I think you're grossly overestimating the difficulty. They are fragile, sensitive, explosive targets. Any army has lots of things that can cause such a target to explode, it doesn't require proximity or preparation.

[Starshark]

I have no idea how easy it is to explode an oil well. Someone earlier said that if the US military wanted to save the oil wells, they could have.

But even if it was dead easy, and even if there was no way to save the oil wells, at the very least why wasn't the US military prepared for such an eventuality? Why were so many troops exposed to oil smoke?

As for your comment about 'minimal casualties'- that's a laugh. 100-200 thousand casualities is hardly minimal. That's 2-4 times the number of casualties (US forces, that is) in Vietnam, and we still hear whining about it. Never mind the civilian casualites. Which, BTW, are continuing thanks to DU.

[jj]

Originally posted by Starshark
I have no idea how easy it is to explode an oil well. Someone earlier said that if the US military wanted to save the oil wells, they could have.

But even if it was dead easy, and even if there was no way to save the oil wells, at the very least why wasn't the US military prepared for such an eventuality? Why were so many troops exposed to oil smoke?

As for your comment about 'minimal casualties'- that's a laugh. 100-200 thousand casualities is hardly minimal. That's 2-4 times the number of casualties (US forces, that is) in Vietnam, and we still hear whining about it. Never mind the civilian casualites. Which, BTW, are continuing thanks to DU.

You said earlier that the US military could have saved the oil wells. Take some responsibility for your own words, will you?

Why do you think the US military wasn't prepared? Do tell?

Where do you get YOUR casualty figures?

And where is your evidence for Iraqui civlian casualties?

Hint: You haven't shown any.

You, sir, are a troll.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Starshark
As for your comment about 'minimal casualties'- that's a laugh. 100-200 thousand casualities is hardly minimal. That's 2-4 times the number of casualties (US forces, that is) in Vietnam, and we still hear whining about it. Never mind the civilian casualites. Which, BTW, are continuing thanks to DU.

Those were Iraqi casualties, not American casualties. Been drinking too much fosters? seems to me its the Iraqi army that was incompetent. No?

BTW, the Aussie army in east timor was there for peace keeping not to fight a full-scale war.

And Sun Tzu isnt the be-all and end all of military philosphy.

waitew: cheap shot saying the Aussie army uses American weapons- cant you think of something better to say?

[waitew]

Oil wells & oil fields are not the same thing.Oil wells can be rebuilt.It's the oil fields that are all important.I believe the USA's goal was to liberate the oil fields (which it did) not to protect the wells.


Ps......I have no evidence for this,but I rather suspect that Mr. Bush senior allowed the Iraqis to destroy those wells so that his friends in the American oil industry could make a hansome profit rebuilding them.It's just a thought,but if it were true then it wasn't a matter of incompetence!

[Starshark]

Originally posted by jj


You said earlier that the US military could have saved the oil wells. Take some responsibility for your own words, will you?

Why do you think the US military wasn't prepared? Do tell?

Where do you get YOUR casualty figures?

And where is your evidence for Iraqui civlian casualties?

Hint: You haven't shown any.

You, sir, are a troll.

Here (http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html) is an estimate that puts the civilian casualites at 2500. I think this is a very, very conservative estimate because he also puts the military casualites at 20 000... even the Pentagon estimates casualties to be 100-200 000. (trying to link to the Pentagon, but my connection's s**ted up on me again)

It also doesn't account for ongoing casualties due to DU and unexploded ordinance, such as cluster bombs.

Because I'm such a nice guy, I haven't counted the trade sanctions as military action, although, of course, there are many who say the sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction. :)

[Soapy Sam]

Well, you generally don't rebuild a well. You redrill it. But your point is true. It was primarily U.S. companies which benefited from the extinguishing, controlling and re-equipping of the Kuwait Fields. Well no. It was primarily the Kuwait Government (such as it is) which benefited, then U.S. companies.
What is interesting, is that the people who controlled those wells ( and I know a bunch of them) did not suffer from "Gulf War Syndrome". Whatever caused that had nothing to do with the oilfield fires; It was exclusively military in origin. My bet would be the anti chem war / gas agents impregnated in military clothing.

[Starshark]

:mad: *&%^$*@#*%(%&#^@!*^($*&%(&@#*!(&^%&^@#&^!(^%^*%^(@#&$(*&:mad:

I imagine the Pentagon's estimate of casualites is in here (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/) somewhere.

::leaves to find new ISP::

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Starshark


Here (http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html) is an estimate that puts the civilian casualites at 2500. I think this is a very, very conservative estimate because he also puts the military casualites at 20 000... even the Pentagon estimates casualties to be 100-200 000. (trying to link to the Pentagon, but my connection's s**ted up on me again)


I did some googling and found many places that had variations of this quote:

Original figures listed 100,000 Iraqi military dead, but more recent estimates place Iraqi dead at 20,000 military and 2,300 civilian.

I can't find an original source for this; anyone know where these numbers come from?

[FutileJester]

Ah, this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html) gives some sources...


Independent analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates. In the immediate aftermath of the war, these estimates ranged as high as 100,000 Iraqi troops killed and 300,000 wounded.

According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports.

The Iraqi government says 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by Giz
Yep, that's Raglan. Served in the Peninsular War under Wellington in his younger days.

40 years later, amusingly given to absent mindedly saying "the French" instead of "the enemy".

Congrats to Charlie in Dayton for cunningly shifting the topic to: The Brits; militarily incompetant?

Probably thought no-one would notice!

Giz -- take a pill, or have a beer, or maybe even both. Chill out even...

As a minor participant in the US's recent unpleasantness in Southeast Asia, I raised the comment only to delineate the difference between the military leadership and the political leadership. If the politicians want to run things, fine -- but once shots are fired, don't throw political obstacles in the way of the troops on the line. I have few if any doubts that something like this has been the complaint of the lower ranks since the time of invention of lower rank...

Philosophically speaking only, Hal, I'd be somewhat curious as to your take on the above. I understand if this isn't possible...hey, we can talk about it 20 years from now with a pitcher of root beer and a pepperoni pizza...

[FutileJester]

So was the US military incompetent in the Gulf War? Let's summarize what happened from a military perspective. In a span of less than two months, the fourth largest military in the world was defeated. They suffered 20,000 casualties, the US 250. They lost the vast majority of their heavy equipment and armaments, the US very little. I cannot see how any army in the world could have created a more decisive result in less time.

So, was the US military overly aggressive and careless of civilian deaths in the Gulf War? The US caused 2,300 civilian deaths in war against an invading country. Saddam caused 2-20,000 Kuwaiti deaths by invading their homeland to steal their stuff. He's also killed thousands of civilian Kurds. It seems that singling out the US as the worst offender is biased at best.

The sanctions open up other issues, but I just don't see how the military can be pegged for these. The US government, particularly the Executive Branch as embodied in the President and the State Department, is where those decisions are made. The military makes military decisions, not political ones.

(Note: in all cases above I'm saying US although I do, of course, know that a coalition of a couple of dozen countires really accomplished this. But for some reason they are being held blameless in this, so I'm limiting myself.)


If you were to make an argument about particular intances of misguided US foreign intervention, you would probably find me agreeing with you a lot. But instead of addressing the justness of the causes - which I guess is the root of your discontent - you make unsupportable statements about the military being incompetent. This is both untrue and irrelevant. The military will not decide whether or not the US goes into Iraq. Direct your anger to the President and policy-makers and you may find that a lot more people agree with you. Claiming that the problem is that the US military is not an effective military just drives otherwise sympathetic people away since it is obviously contrary to facts.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by FutileJester
So was the US military incompetent in the Gulf War? Let's summarize what happened from a military perspective. In a span of less than two months, the fourth largest military in the world was defeated. They suffered 20,000 casualties, the US 250. They lost the vast majority of their heavy equipment and armaments, the US very little. I cannot see how any army in the world could have created a more decisive result in less time.

So, was the US military overly aggressive and careless of civilian deaths in the Gulf War? The US caused 2,300 civilian deaths in war against an invading country. Saddam caused 2-20,000 Kuwaiti deaths by invading their homeland to steal their stuff. He's also killed thousands of civilian Kurds. It seems that singling out the US as the worst offender is biased at best.

The sanctions open up other issues, but I just don't see how the military can be pegged for these. The US government, particularly the Executive Branch as embodied in the President and the State Department, is where those decisions are made. The military makes military decisions, not political ones.

(Note: in all cases above I'm saying US although I do, of course, know that a coalition of a couple of dozen countires really accomplished this. But for some reason they are being held blameless in this, so I'm limiting myself.)


If you were to make an argument about particular intances of misguided US foreign intervention, you would probably find me agreeing with you a lot. But instead of addressing the justness of the causes - which I guess is the root of your discontent - you make unsupportable statements about the military being incompetent. This is both untrue and irrelevant. The military will not decide whether or not the US goes into Iraq. Direct your anger to the President and policy-makers and you may find that a lot more people agree with you. Claiming that the problem is that the US military is not an effective military just drives otherwise sympathetic people away since it is obviously contrary to facts.

First of all, the topic is, "Is the US Military Incompetent", not "Is the US Military better than Iraq". Competence is judged on its own terms, not by comparing to other armies.

My argument is that, because the US didn't conduct the war properly, lives were lost unnecessarily (with the result that Iraq now sides with Saddam against the US... perhaps if the US hadn't killed so many Iraqi civilians there would be more chance of a revolt against the Iraqi government), and they lost 900 oil wells.

As I've said, I don't know how easy it is to save oil wells. One thing I do know is that you don't save oil wells by conducting a three week bombing campaign. Because the US military was too scared to take decisive action (because they were afraid US soldiers were going to skin their pink knuckles going toe-to-toe with the Iraqis), 900 oil wells had to be rebuilt... after the waste of oil and subsequent pollution, of course.

As I've shown, it doesn't even look like the US military accounted for the effects the burning oil wells would have on their own soldiers. How's that for competent?

I agree that the sanctions are a seperate issue. That's why I said I wouldn't bring them up, even though others would.

The argument that 'Saddam killed more civilians, so the US military isn't incompetent' is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen. White Australia only killed about half the indigenous population and tried to culturally assimilate the rest... compare this to Hitler killing 6 million Jews. So Australia isn't a racist country.

Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't make sense to me.

[Nately]

Originally posted by Starshark
As I've said, I don't know how easy it is to save oil wells. One thing I do know is that you don't save oil wells by conducting a three week bombing campaign. Because the US military was too scared to take decisive action (because they were afraid US soldiers were going to skin their pink knuckles going toe-to-toe with the Iraqis), 900 oil wells had to be rebuilt... after the waste of oil and subsequent pollution, of course.

No, that isn't how you save the oil wells. It's how you cripple an army so that you can drive it from the land it is occupying. You are still stuck on that premise of the oil wells, making your whole argument fundamentally flawed. To reduce it to the absurd - if you evaluate the US military's performance in light of the objective of creating the perfect chicken sandwich, then they look incompetent. In light of trying to drive the Iraqi army from Kuwait is a different story...

As for skinning pink knuckles... Hundreds of coalition aircraft flew into realm of a modern, integrated French-built air defense system. (Despite the running-away jokes, the French make good military equipment.) Stealth aircraft flew into what I believe was the most heavily defended city in the world, counting on a technology that had not been proven against a true air defense system. British and US special forces were dropped deep in Iraqi territory to operate alone. US A-10s and British Tornados flew many dangerous low-altitude missions, and more than one paid the price for it. When the ground war started, Marine units moved directly into the main prepared defenses to hold those troops in place while others could execute the left hook. Armored units did in fact go toe-to-toe with Iraqi tanks. At times, armored scout units engaged Iraqi units far greater in size. Better training, tactics and technology were the difference. Competence might be a good word to some it all up.

In the end, the Coalition had time on their side. The buildup was going to require at least a few months no matter what. There is just no feasible scenario that starts sooner than that. Anything the Iraqis needed time to do, they could have had done by then. And to finish it all off, the US military and its allies could not attack until ordered. The Coalition chose to give the Iraqi government time to choose the smart way out. That was politics, and not the realm of the military. And still the correct decision in my opinion.

You just don't have a leg to stand on.

[FutileJester]

Okay, I know, stop feeding, sorry...

Originally posted by Starshark


First of all, the topic is, "Is the US Military Incompetent", not "Is the US Military better than Iraq". Competence is judged on its own terms, not by comparing to other armies.


I wasn't intending to say simply that the US has a better army than Iraq. The point is that they accomplished their goals in a short time with minimal losses. From a military point of view, that's the definition of success.


My argument is that, because the US didn't conduct the war properly, lives were lost unnecessarily (with the result that Iraq now sides with Saddam against the US... perhaps if the US hadn't killed so many Iraqi civilians there would be more chance of a revolt against the Iraqi government), and they lost 900 oil wells.


And (correct me if I'm wrong) your contention is that specifically the US could have gone in on the ground sooner or eliminated the air campaign entirely, and that this would have saved lives. As has already been pointed out, this just isn't so. Putting two large ground forces toe-to-toe would have meant the release of devastating amounts of ordinance all over the countryside. The two results of skipping the air campaign would be more casualties overall, and a much higher proportion of Kuwaiti casualties, as Kuwait is where those engagements would have taken place.


As I've said, I don't know how easy it is to save oil wells. One thing I do know is that you don't save oil wells by conducting a three week bombing campaign. Because the US military was too scared to take decisive action (because they were afraid US soldiers were going to skin their pink knuckles going toe-to-toe with the Iraqis), 900 oil wells had to be rebuilt... after the waste of oil and subsequent pollution, of course.


First of all it would be impossible to save the wells. It's not like you can sneak up on a desert oil field, and oil wells are delicate and flammable structures. Second of all, knowing that it was impossible, it was never a goal. Thirdly, I think they were quite right not to be willing to trade US lives for oil. If they had, I'm sure they would have been blasted for putting corporate interests above the welfare of their men.



The argument that 'Saddam killed more civilians, so the US military isn't incompetent' is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen.


Yes, it is ridiculous. I wonder where you heard it. In my post, I claimed that it showed bias to single out the US military for causing far fewer civilian casualties. I don't think this relates to their competence in achieving their objectives in any way.

I hate war. I distrust standing militaries. Nevertheless, I believe that war is sometimes the only answer, and when it happens, people will die. It is the job of the military to make sure that it is the enemy that dies and not their own. It is not a question of whether or not civilians died - that's tragically inevitable. The question is if there was more that could have been done to minimize those casualties without compromising the military and political goals. You say it would have been better for the civilians if they had rushed in with ground forces right away; everyone else says that would have been far worse.

Again, we could argue about the worthiness of the political goals which were given to the military to achieve. But if you don't want to go there, all we're left with is how well they achieved the goals they were given. Presumably, their goals involved minimizing American losses first and Iraqi losses second. Whether or not you agree with this as a goal, they certainly achieved it.

Could other armies have done any better? We'll never know, but here's a homework question: How many times in history have decisive wars been waged between armies of a half-million each, with fewer than 2500 civilian casualties?


You argue that the US military is incompetent because they didn't achieve things they weren't told to do. The things you bring up could have been changed only by the politicians who set the parameters for the military. The military may act unjustly; they may be given unjust objectives; but they can't be called incompetent for doing what they've been told to do, and doing it well.

[xouper]

Starshark: My argument is that, because the US didn't conduct the war properly, ...At this point, who cares anymore what YOU think about it. :rolleyes:

[Shaun from Scotland]

I also seem to remember that during the buildup, weren't people pushing George Bush to "go the extra mile for peace".....?

Damned if you attack and damned if you don't.............

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Starshark

Interesting points:

Many exposures were caused by our deliberate actions. We knew where Iraqi chemical and biological chemicals were stored so as General Schwarzkopf wrote in his autobiography It Doesnt Take a Hero, we decided to blow them up with artillery rounds and aerial bombardment. Consequently chemical, biological, and radiological warfare materials were released.

I haven't read Schwarzkopf's book, but it sounds like -by his own admission- the US knew where these weapons were stored and, instead of using appropriate means of disposal, blew them up like a cowboy shooting at gunpowder barrels. Schwarzkopf got a congressional medal of honor for his role in the Gulf. Is this reward appropriate for a general who appears to be incompentent?


Bwahahahahahahaha! "Appropriate means of disposal."

Do you understand anything? There were Iraqi military units protecting these "chemical and biological chemicals". There was a large possibility that these units would use the chemicals to attack our troops. How were we supposed to dispose of them appropriately? File a petition with the Iraqi Environmental Protection Agency?

[jj]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Bwahahahahahahaha! "Appropriate means of disposal."

Do you understand anything? There were Iraqi military units protecting these "chemical and biological chemicals". There was a large possibility that these units would use the chemicals to attack our troops. How were we supposed to dispose of them appropriately? File a petition with the Iraqi Environmental Protection Agency?

Now, Ipecac, you do't get it, dude. Our soldiers are supposed to "go the extra mile" to avoid any pollution or burning of exothermic materials. Their guys aren't. Our guys are supposed to let them keep their ammo and shoot it at will. Their guys can do whatever they want. Don't you GET it, man?

Yeah, you figure, that certainly isn't MY idea, in case that's not clear.

It would seem that while their guys who lit off the wells and were launching SCUDS at Israel aren't taking any heat here, our guys who made them stop are taking a whole heap of abuse for making them stop.

Also not my bright idea, that.

It seems to me that "exothermic disposal" of weapons in a battlefield is, shall we say, rather wise. It means they don't get to do it to our guys, after all. I can't say as I can blame us for bombing their ammo dumps. DOH!

edited to fix gross typo

[waitew]

All of the criticisms of camp x-ray concern the possible violation of the human rights of those detained there.No one has claimed that camp x-ray doesn't accomplish its goal (to detain enemy combatants who pose a threat to Americans & American interests).It certainly does that.How does that show incompetence?Human rights & incompetence are two different things!and in any discussion of human rights violations the Australian detainment camps certainly are relevant,isn't that right Starshark?