The Energon Pub

Professor Smooth wrote:I just want to point out that if 1,000,000 people signed up when the population was 76,212,168, that is 1.3 percent of the population. That would mean that a country of 281,421,906 would need to have a military force of 3,658,484 to equal the same percentage. Unfortunately, I haven't found any recent statistics, but I am reasonably sure that the American military includes somewhere around that same area.

Yeah, sorry, you're right. Using the adjusted numbers we should have seen 3.6 million men volunteer the day after 9/11. We didn't.

We totally don't have anywhere near that number in our military though. According to the Census Bureau the entire American armed forces, all branches combined, is around 1.4 million (source) and that includes every soldier in the reserve components as well.

Anyways, here's a personal anecdote that should illustrate how we as a nation have completely lost any military edge beyond technology.

I originally enlisted in NOV 2001 while I was a junior in high school. In the summer of '02 I left in between my junior and senior year for Basic Combat Training in Fort Knox. My MOS, or job as you will, is a 19D Cavalry Scout. The premise behind the MOS is that small units of about 60-100 men operate as the complete forward most ground element. We operate in M3A3 Bradleys, M1025/6 HMMWVs, UH-60 Black Hawks, or on foot depending on the type of cavalry unit we're assigned. We're supposed to hunt out armored forces and destroy them via artillery, air strikes, or on our own. Think about that. We're talking a HMMWV engaging a main battle tank. This is not safe. Or better yet, you're air cav jumping out on foot and doing the entire thing dismounted. Plus the only immediate forces we have to back us up are the other platoons in our very small troop. This is a dangerous job. It basically combines mechanized infantry, heavy anti-armor infantry, armor crewman, forward observer, and air assault all into one MOS. We're one of the most critical MOSs in the army, particularly now because we're so versatilely trained that we can fill nearly any role in Iraq. One day I can drive an armored vehicle and the next I can jump out of a helo and start CQB maneuvers to clear a building.

So anyways, BCT in 2002. It was tough. If you screwed up you were made a harsh example of. I was struck by a drill sergeant twice on the very first day because as we marched from reception to our barracks we had to hold our two duffle bags of equipment straight out to our sides so our arms were parallel with the ground.

Well, I wasn't the first to have my dufflebag scrape against the ground but I was the first one the drill sergeants noticed. I was immediately pounced on and took a gut shot. It was pretty hard and I fell over. When I was getting back up they told me I took too long and hit me again.

As the weeks wore on I was pushed, belittled, punched a few more times, crushed by the drill sergeant on the pugil stick training, and was choke slammed against a wall and then lifted off my feet by my throat with one arm of a drill sergeant. I'm not a small man. I'm 6'1" and was about 190 lbs around then. This drill sergeant was a beast.

The lesson was that BCT is tough. And it should be. It should be vicious. These men are preparing me for combat where I will be killing other men and watching my friends be killed. I can't be phased or indecisive because that will lead to my or others' deaths. This is why it was so tough. The other reason they made it like this is to ingrain how important it is to follow orders. When you first start out you are terrified of your drill sergeant. You do what he tells you. After a few weeks you hate him. You still do what he tells you. By the end of BCT, somehow, you absolutely adore the man. I don't even know how it happened but if I was put into a unit where my former drill sergeant was my platoon sergeant or something I'd follow that man to the ends of earth until the end of time and never hesitate to do exactly what he tells me to do.

After the summer ended I passed my BCT tests and went home. The next summer after graduation I had to finish up my job training in Fort Knox. Most MOS training is done in two phases: BCT and AIT (Advanced Individual Training). My MOS doesn't do this. It's OSUT (One Station Unit Training).

OSUT means that after basic... things don't change. You're in the same place with the same drill sergeants with the same trainees.

So off I go to Fort Knox. Imagine my surprise when after a few days I ask the other guys who had been there for the nine weeks (because I already had BCT done I came into a unit had advanced to where I left off the summer before) why the drill sergeants were so damn nice. They didn't hit anyone. They gave you plenty of time to eat, they didn't smoke ya that bad (physical exercise until you basically collapse), hell, I didn't even hear them swear.

Imagine my surprise when I read all these new rules about how drill sergeants are supposed to treat "trainees." They can't strike them anymore. They can only do so much physical exercise a day. They have to give you X amount of time after you eat to "digest." They can't use tobacco products in front of you (WTF?), and they can't call you anything besides "trainee, private, or your last name."

I was in **** bizarro-world. I couldn't believe it. I thought someone was playing a joke on me. I went along for nine more weeks expecting the other shoe to drop and it never did.

This is how our combat troops are being trained; as absolute pussies. People don't understand how big of a problem this is. The original harsh nature of training was to weed out the weak. That was it's only purpose. Combat jobs are the most stressful there are and this is how we're training our soldiers?

It's pathetic, absolutely pathetic. It's no wonder we can't win a war when we can't even train our soldiers to be men. Pathetic.

GetterDragun wrote:Isn't that kind of what Saddam did. Technically, when he was in office, his country was in a fear induced state of equilibrium. Bush kind of did the same thing, but without the equilibrium part.

It's the same thing all conquerors throughout history have done.

lkavadas wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:I just want to point out that if 1,000,000 people signed up when the population was 76,212,168, that is 1.3 percent of the population. That would mean that a country of 281,421,906 would need to have a military force of 3,658,484 to equal the same percentage. Unfortunately, I haven't found any recent statistics, but I am reasonably sure that the American military includes somewhere around that same area.

Yeah, sorry, you're right. Using the adjusted numbers we should have seen 3.6 million men volunteer the day after 9/11. We didn't.

We totally don't have anywhere near that number in our military though. According to the Census Bureau the entire American armed forces, all branches combined, is around 1.4 million (Source)

Anyways, here's a personal anecdote that should illustrate how we as a nation have completely lost any military edge beyond technology.

I originally listed in NOV 2001 while I was a junior in high school. In the summer of '02 I left in between my junior and senior year to complete Basic Combat Training at Fort Knox. My MOS, or job as you will, is a 19D Cavalry Scout. The premise behind the MOS is that small units of about 60-100 men operate as the complete forward most ground element. We operate in M3A3 Bradleys, M1025/6 HMMWVs, UH-60 Black Hawks, or on foot depending on the type of cavalry unit we're assigned. We're supposed to hunt out armored forces and destroy them via artillery, air strikes, or on our own. Think about that. We're talking a HMMWV engaging a main battle tank. This is not safe. Or better yet, you're air cav jumping out on foot and doing the entire thing dismounted. Plus the only immediate forces we have to back us up are the other platoons in our very small troop. This is a dangerous job. It basically combines mechanized infantry, heavy anti-armor infantry, armor crewman, and air assault all into one MOS. We're one of the most critical MOSs in the army particularly now because we're so versatilely trained that we can fill nearly any role in Iraq. One day I can drive an armored vehicle and then next I can jump out of a helo and start CQB maneuvers to clear a building.

So anyways, BCT in 2002. It was tough. If you screwed up you were made a harsh example of. I was struck by a drill sergeant twice on the very first day because as we marched from reception to our barracks we had to hold our two duffle bags of equipment straight out to our sides so our arms were parallel with the ground.

Well, I wasn't the first to have my dufflebag scrap against the ground but I was the first one the drill sergeants noticed. I was immediately pounced on and took a gut shot. I was pretty hard and fell over. When I was getting back up they told me I took too long and he hit me again.

As the weeks wore on I was pushed, belittled, punched a few more times, crushed by the drill sergeant on the pugil stick training, and was choke slammed against a wall and then lifted off my feet by my throat with one of a drill sergeant. I'm not a small man. I'm 6'1" and was about 190 lbs around then. This drill sergeant was a beast.

The lesson was that BCT is tough. And it should be. It should be vicious. These men are preparing for me combat where I will be killing other men and watching my friends be killed. I can't be phased or indecisive because that will lead to my or others' deaths. This is why it was so tough. The other reason they made it like this is to ingrain how important it is to follow orders. When you first start out you are terrified of your drill sergeant. You do what he tells you. After a few weeks you hate him. You still do what he tells you. By the end of BCT, somehow, you absolutely adore the man. I don't even know how it happened but if I was put into a unit where my former drill sergeant was my platoon sergeant or something I'd follow that man to the ends of earth until the end of time and never hesitate to do exactly what he tells me to do.

After the summer ended I passed my BCT tests and went home. The next summer after graduation I had to finish up my job training in Fort Knox. Most MOS training is done in two phases: BCT and AIT (Advanced Individual Training). My MOS doesn't do this. It's OSUT (One Station Unit Training).

OSUT means that after basic... things don't change. You're in the same place with the same drill sergeants with the same trainees.

So off I go to Fort Knox. Imagine my surprise when after a few days I ask the other guys who had been there for the 9 weeks (because I already had BCT done I came into a unit had advanced to where I left off the summer before) why the drill sergeants were so damn nice. They didn't hit anyone. They gave you plenty of time to eat, they didn't smoke ya that bad(physical exercise until you basically collapse), hell, I didn't even hear them swear.

Imagine my surprise when I read all these new rules about how drill sergeants are supposed to treat "trainees." They can't strike them anymore. They can only do so much physical exercise a day. They have to give you X amount of time after you eat to "digest." They can't use tobacco products in front of you (WTF?), and they can't call you anything besides "trainee, private, or your last name."

I was in **** bizarro-world. I couldn't believe it. I thought someone was playing a joke on me. I went along for 9 more weeks expected the other shoe to drop and it never did.

This is how our combat troops are being trained; as absolute pussies. People don't understand how big of a problem this is. The original harsh nature of training was to weed out the weak. That was it's only purpose. Combat jobs are the most stressful there are and this is how we're training our soldiers?

It's pathetic, absolutely pathetic. It's no wonder we can't win a war when we can't even train our soldiers to be men. Pathetic.

GetterDragun wrote:Isn't that kind of what Saddam did. Technically, when he was in office, his country was in a fear induced state of equilibrium. Bush kind of did the same thing, but without the equilibrium part.

It's the same thing all conquerors throughout history have done.

Awesome anecdotes. You speak the truth.

Thankfully, the Maries still know how to train combat forces.

Back in the old days, when training Comamdos (Red Berretts) in the Portugese armed forces, the training was so violent and hard, that people died during the training. Those who became comandos were the kind of men that eats steel and craps nails.

The unit was disbadned in the 90´s but recently the Comandos live again, we have 150 of them in Afgnaistan.

YouFearGalvatron wrote:Thankfully, the Maries still know how to train combat forces.

The USMC uses and follows the same training guidelines. The Department of Defense mandates them, not the individual branches. Same rules apply to them.

lkavadas wrote:

YouFearGalvatron wrote:Thankfully, the Maries still know how to train combat forces.

The USMC uses and follows the same training guidelines. The Department of Defense mandates them, not the individual branches. Same rules apply to them.

That is the "official" word. But I hung out with Marines while I was in, they gave me hell for being a "zoomer", but they told me stories of their DIs throat-slamming them, punching them, etc.

So it seems that mum is the word in the Corps.

The thing about ANYONE who is a fanatic is extreme arrogance.

My best guess, (NOTE: I really don't know about this) is that they KNOW we're nigh-invincicle. 9/11 aside, what's the worst a foreign country has done to us since the War of 1812?

So they try to exploit that. Prove their dominance by taking down the Alpha Male. Unfortunately, third-world tend to be underfunded. Kim Jong Il and whathisface in Iran (I really can't remember his name!) are probably the closest, given that they have developed nuclear technology.

Then again, going by that, Russia is a bigger threat, given that their nuke-count is almost equal to ours. So maybe I'm wrong.

Also, if we're talking about US military business, why not talk about the Navy SEALS? They do some crazy stuff, but they NEVER talk about it. What's the deal with that?

Shadowman wrote:The thing about ANYONE who is a fanatic is extreme arrogance.

My best guess, (NOTE: I really don't know about this) is that they KNOW we're nigh-invincicle. 9/11 aside, what's the worst a foreign country has done to us since the War of 1812?

So they try to exploit that. Prove their dominance by taking down the Alpha Male. Unfortunately, third-world tend to be underfunded. Kim Jong Il and whathisface in Iran (I really can't remember his name!) are probably the closest, given that they have developed nuclear technology.

Then again, going by that, Russia is a bigger threat, given that their nuke-count is almost equal to ours. So maybe I'm wrong.

Also, if we're talking about US military business, why not talk about the Navy SEALS? They do some crazy stuff, but they NEVER talk about it. What's the deal with that?

Never had the pleasure of meeting a SEAL. I have met a few Green Berets. They told me a story, don't know how true it is, but it went like this:

Two Green Berets were on leave in their home town, it was a home football game in this college town. Anyway, after the game, the football team goes for drinks and the Berets are there, just the two of them, not bothering anyone, just having a couple of beers.

Well, the college slobs get all angry because the Berets are getting all of the attention from a few of the hot girls in the bar that were at the game.

So these little snots started talking crap to the Berets. They were claiming to be so "hard" because they were 1st string football players on the team. The Berets asked to settle it outside, so these two Berets decimate these 6 college football clowns in a matter of seconds.

Lesson for the day, never f*** with a genuine Green Beret.

Anyway, the ones I met were crazy. But they were also hard core.

YouFearGalvatron wrote:

Shadowman wrote:The thing about ANYONE who is a fanatic is extreme arrogance.

My best guess, (NOTE: I really don't know about this) is that they KNOW we're nigh-invincicle. 9/11 aside, what's the worst a foreign country has done to us since the War of 1812?

So they try to exploit that. Prove their dominance by taking down the Alpha Male. Unfortunately, third-world tend to be underfunded. Kim Jong Il and whathisface in Iran (I really can't remember his name!) are probably the closest, given that they have developed nuclear technology.

Then again, going by that, Russia is a bigger threat, given that their nuke-count is almost equal to ours. So maybe I'm wrong.

Also, if we're talking about US military business, why not talk about the Navy SEALS? They do some crazy stuff, but they NEVER talk about it. What's the deal with that?

Never had the pleasure of meeting a SEAL. I have met a few Green Berets. They told me a story, don't know how true it is, but it went like this:

Two Green Berets were on leave in their home town, it was a home football game in this college town. Anyway, after the game, the football team goes for drinks and the Berets are there, just the two of them, not bothering anyone, just having a couple of beers.

Well, the college slobs get all angry because the Berets are getting all of the attention from a few of the hot girls in the bar that were at the game.

So these little snots started talking crap to the Berets. They were claiming to be so "hard" because they were 1st string football players on the team. The Berets asked to settle it outside, so these two Berets decimate these 6 college football clowns in a matter of seconds.

Lesson for the day, never f*** with a genuine Green Beret.

Anyway, the ones I met were crazy. But they were also hard core.

kind of a similar story bach here. Thugs tired to rob a Army Ranger (here we also have rangers btw) and he beat all of them (3 guys)

YouFearGalvatron wrote:Never had the pleasure of meeting a SEAL. I have met a few Green Berets. They told me a story, don't know how true it is, but it went like this:

Two Green Berets were on leave in their home town, it was a home football game in this college town. Anyway, after the game, the football team goes for drinks and the Berets are there, just the two of them, not bothering anyone, just having a couple of beers.

Well, the college slobs get all angry because the Berets are getting all of the attention from a few of the hot girls in the bar that were at the game.

So these little snots started talking crap to the Berets. They were claiming to be so "hard" because they were 1st string football players on the team. The Berets asked to settle it outside, so these two Berets decimate these 6 college football clowns in a matter of seconds.

Lesson for the day, never f*** with a genuine Green Beret.

Anyway, the ones I met were crazy. But they were also hard core.

Ummm, no offense but this basically sounds like a scene from "The Substitute 3."

Green berets would never act like this. If you think they would you've never met one. They're the most solitary and non-confrontational people I've ever met. Even with their "friends" they still usually sulk off into the corner by themselves and just wait to leave.

So B.S. on that story. You guys watch too many crappy action movies on Spike TV.

Plus why the hell would a zoomie have anything to do with a green beret while both are on duty? And no offense, but the thought of a green beret hanging out with someone from the Air Force is pretty far fetched as well as green berets actually publicly advertising they're green berets.

Shadowman wrote:The thing about ANYONE who is a fanatic is extreme arrogance.

My best guess, (NOTE: I really don't know about this) is that they KNOW we're nigh-invincicle. 9/11 aside, what's the worst a foreign country has done to us since the War of 1812?

So they try to exploit that. Prove their dominance by taking down the Alpha Male. Unfortunately, third-world tend to be underfunded. Kim Jong Il and whathisface in Iran (I really can't remember his name!) are probably the closest, given that they have developed nuclear technology.

Then again, going by that, Russia is a bigger threat, given that their nuke-count is almost equal to ours. So maybe I'm wrong.

Also, if we're talking about US military business, why not talk about the Navy SEALS? They do some crazy stuff, but they NEVER talk about it. What's the deal with that?

Wow. Just wow. In the same post where you admit to not even knowing the name of the President of Iran, call the United States (who haven't had a decisive military victory in more than six DECADES) the "alpha male" and "nigh-invincible," you accuse the OTHER guys of being arrogant? Were you TRYING to be ironic?

Professor Smooth wrote:

Shadowman wrote:The thing about ANYONE who is a fanatic is extreme arrogance.

My best guess, (NOTE: I really don't know about this) is that they KNOW we're nigh-invincicle. 9/11 aside, what's the worst a foreign country has done to us since the War of 1812?

So they try to exploit that. Prove their dominance by taking down the Alpha Male. Unfortunately, third-world tend to be underfunded. Kim Jong Il and whathisface in Iran (I really can't remember his name!) are probably the closest, given that they have developed nuclear technology.

Then again, going by that, Russia is a bigger threat, given that their nuke-count is almost equal to ours. So maybe I'm wrong.

Also, if we're talking about US military business, why not talk about the Navy SEALS? They do some crazy stuff, but they NEVER talk about it. What's the deal with that?

Wow. Just wow. In the same post where you admit to not even knowing the name of the President of Iran, call the United States (who haven't had a decisive military victory in more than six DECADES) the "alpha male" and "nigh-invincible," you accuse the OTHER guys of being arrogant? Were you TRYING to be ironic?

The only reason we haven't had a "decisive" victory is because the United States tries not to engage in wholesale slaughter of foreign populations. If we let out military attack, completely and totally unchecked, there isn't a single country on this planet that could even pretend to stop us.

Are you suggesting wholesale slaughter of foreign civillian populations? Under what circumstances would such a tactic be appropriate?

Professor Smooth wrote:Are you suggesting wholesale slaughter of foreign civillian populations? Under what circumstances would such a tactic be appropriate?

I'm not suggesting it, just pointing out a fact. I find the concept of population slaughter just a little bit deplorable.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:Are you suggesting wholesale slaughter of foreign civillian populations? Under what circumstances would such a tactic be appropriate?

I'm not suggesting it, just pointing out a fact. I find the concept of population slaughter just a little bit deplorable.

What's your point, then? The US can't win a war without wholesale slaughter of civillians, and the US should not engage in that?

Not to add more wood to the fire, but I just heard on the local news today that some lady in Malaysia has been fighting in the courts there for 6 years now to change the religion stated on her ID card from Islam to Christianity because she converted. The courts have been denying her rights til now, and there've been forums where people have actually posted for her to be assasinated. Apparently, freedom of religion doesn't apply in every country, though this had me really surprised.
As for my point the religious fervor that muslims seem to generate, I think it's because of the religious leaders of the past who tried to hide their own deficiencies or corruption by diverting the blame onto someone else. I mean, which would you choose? Some religious leader who tells you that suffering is only human, and that by perservering you can overcome all obstacles? Or a leader who just tells you it's someone else's fault and that you need to make them pay so that everything will be alright?
Many of my muslim friends agree with me on this, though it might not be the correct answer. Most of the Muslims here (Singapore) tend to be more moderate, more laid back. They're trying to show the world that there are muslims who appreciate racial and religious harmony. But they are kinda dismayed that those muslims who kill in the name of God may have been misled by their own religious leaders or tutors. Often it is a point of view of one, especially if that personage is important, that influences the masses. Who's to tell them that they are wrong when their very own leader tells them that killing is right? Who would they listen more to?
There is still hope that things would calm down more though. i'm pretty sure there are plenty of muslims out there who are going,' Dude, this ain't right.' So I do hope that there's a brighter tomorrow for the kids that I may have with my wife.

Did they give a reason why they wouldn't allow her to change her religion?

Leonardo wrote:Did they give a reason why they wouldn't allow her to change her religion?

From what I heard on the news, they claimed that it was more of a decision for the religious courts. But it took them 6 years to tell her that. I kinda feel that they're just passing the buck there.

Edit
Here's the link I found on Channelnews Asia on the story.

[/url]http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/279209/1/.html

Professor Smooth wrote:What's your point, then? The US can't win a war without wholesale slaughter of civilians, and the US should not engage in that?

He's bringing up the fact that ever since we decided we were "nice guys" and removed civilians and their assets as acceptable targets for violent actions we've lost every single war we've participated in.

Conversely, back when civilians and their assets were acceptable targets we won every single war we participated in.

lkavadas wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:What's your point, then? The US can't win a war without wholesale slaughter of civilians, and the US should not engage in that?

He's bringing up the fact that ever since we decided we were "nice guys" and removed civilians and their assets as acceptable targets for violent actions we've lost every single war we've participated in.

Conversely, back when civilians and their assets were acceptable targets we won every single war we participated in.

Now by "we" do you mean "people who fought before any one of us was born?"

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. When "we" dropped atomic bombs on two civillian cities, THE GOVERNMENT surrendered. The people of Japan had such respect for their government that they (for the most part) accepted the surrender. This does not apply to Iraq. The US took over Iraq's GOVERNMENT very quickly. However, the PEOPLE of Iraq did not abide by their government's decision and continued (or in many cases, started) fighting. All massive civillian casualties (and, looking at the numbers, more people have already been killed than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined) will do is get MORE civillians to fight the Americans.

I don't think it'll work.

Professor Smooth wrote:Now by "we" do you mean "people who fought before any one of us was born?"

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. When "we" dropped atomic bombs on two civillian cities, THE GOVERNMENT surrendered. The people of Japan had such respect for their government that they (for the most part) accepted the surrender. This does not apply to Iraq. The US took over Iraq's GOVERNMENT very quickly. However, the PEOPLE of Iraq did not abide by their government's decision and continued (or in many cases, started) fighting. All massive civillian casualties

I don't think it'll work.

That's great but to be honest you're completely ignorant of this situation and you know approximately jack about the people over there besides whatever crap you read on that internet which makes you "feel" like your somewhat intelligible on the subject. No offense, but you have no experience on this subject whatsoever and I feel pretty safe in assuming you've never even been to the mideast, let alone Iraq, and probably have remarkably little experience with any type of Muslim let alone radical extremists. Am I correct so far? I'm pretty confident I am.

If you really want to compare the insurgency in Iraq to an enemy we've faced and defeated the best example would tbe the Philippine-American War. The circumstances are nearly identical and the enemies in both are nearly identical. The only difference between the two is motivation but capacity and tactics remain parallel. Only when we escalated the violence and extended it to the civilian population did we begin to win against guerrilla insurgents and force them into capitulation. Make no doubt about it, we were ruthless in the "Second Phase" of the war. We shot surrendering soldiers, had concentration camps that we stuffed suspected insurgent sympathizers into, et cetera. It took us ten long, bloody years but we won. Interesting to note, but the majority of the generals in this war were seasoned in the Indian Wars.

At any rate, the great majority of these people can only be negotiated with via violence. It's they way they are raised and the way their government has treated them for decades. You can't snap them out of it. On top of that their religious fervor is so intense that they have lost nearly all capacity for rational thought which is where people like you go wrong because you don't understand and simply can't comprehend that nothing we can say will ever have any impact on their thought processes.

These are not logical human beings. They can't be reasoned with because their indoctrination of Islam and violence has stripped them of that and it will never return. If you thought the Nazis had the corner on this market you are sadly mistaken.

I leave in three months for my third tour of duty in that country. I'm 22 years old. I have spent more adult time in that country and around those people then I have anywhere else since I graduated high school. The only group at large in that country which has any chance in hell of success are the Kurds but the relations between them and Turkey make things difficult for the U.S. especially since Kurdish guerrilla forces use northern Iraq as a staging ground exactly the same way Taliban forces use western Pakistan to launch attacks into Afghanistan or Iraqi insurgents use Iran. I know, I spent eight months on that border eyeball to eyeball with Turkish forces.

(and, looking at the numbers, more people have already been killed than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined) will do is get MORE civillians to fight the Americans.

Wow, didn't know Rosie O'Donnel was on these forums. Where did you get that estimate, cpusa.org?

Even ridiculous websites like Iraq Body Count put their estimate between 64,000 and 70,000 civilian casualties which is absolutely laughable to be honest. Most actual study groups put the estimate between 16,000 and 30,000 but guess what? American forces aren't killing these people. Our precision weapons make sure of that. I know, I've actually been there and have done call for fire missions alongside Combat Observation Laser Teams. Even our friggin' artillery bombardments and mortar shells are laser guided and have fins which can correct their flight paths and trajectories. It's called the M712 Copperhead artillery round. Our aircraft based munitions are even more precise. If you think we're inflicting massive collateral damage, enough to surpass the body count of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, you're... flat out retarded.

So please, save whatever crap you "think" you know for people who are just as inexperienced about this situation as you are. Any one who formulates an opinion about something like this based off any type of media, particularly the internet, really needs to sit down and discuss these things with someone who has actually lived it and use that as their reference point.

And remember, I'm only one side of this coin. The Iraqis are the other.

Edit:Actually Smooth, if you really wish to understand our enemy or at least be exposed to them I highly recommend Pierre Rehov's documentary "Suicide Killers." I can recall one scene where he's interviewing a female suicide bomber and he asked her what her motivation was. She told him she was going to sacrifice herself so Allah could restore her virginity and present her to a male suicide bomber as one of his seventy-two virgins reward in paradise.

Go watch the documentary and perhaps you'll begin to understand these people.

Watch this video for a taste.

I must say, I got quite a laugh out of the whole numbers debate regarding how many volunteers we would need to equal the percentage from the Spanish American War.

You see, even if we have that many volunteers today, we wouldn't be able to afford them. We would have to turn the majority of them away. Anybody who has read any history knows that in order to have a large military force, you need a large treasury to support them.

People have mentioned Rome, well one of Rome's early adversaries, Carthage, was a prime example. They could not afford to maintain their army during the Punic Wars, and ended up losing. Rome itself fell the same way as they could not afford to maintain its armies when the Huns were pushing into their territory, as well as the Germanic Hordes.

In the case of the Spanish American War, the treasury was fattend with the chance to gain lands in Texas.

Plus, to add on to that, even if we have 3 million troops, what would we do with them? We can only train so many at a time. We only have so many vehicles and transports. Even if they were dispersed across all branches of the military, we would still have plenty of people just sitting at home as reserves.

Even more so, hypothetically speaking, how would we feed 3 million troops, on the other side of the ocean? Sure, we could transport the millions of pounds of food there that they would require, but I feel quite a bit would spoil on the trip itself.

Just think of the strain on Iraq's already scarce resources would be by essentially increasing the population of that nation by 3 million. Even with it being mostly desert, it would still get rather crowded. I would also think that would bring even more resentment from the insurgents as 3 million Americans in their country would have more to eat than the people that live there.

Granted, I'm not a soldier, I'm a student. I learn from mistakes made in the past to avoid making them in the future. If we had more students in this world than soldiers, then perhaps peace across the globe could occur.

As far as I'm concerned, the Middle East can still be saved. In my personal opinion, I agree with the idea of dividing Iraq into 3 sections. These 3 groups of people were combined against their will, much like many of the African nations in existance today.

What I feel we need to do is negotiate with the Kurds and Turks and create the nation of Kurdistan. If we give the Kurds what they want, or even at least 3/4 of what they want, the violence will shrink, just like Ireland with the attacks on the UK when Ireland was part of the UK. As the IRA has proven though, the violence won't completely disappear, but it will reduce it to what I would consider a tolerable level.

With the Sunni's and Shiites, I would divide the rest of Iraq into two provinces, east and west. Diplomatic relations would have to be solidified with Iran for this to work, however. If we can win Iran over to help us, I feel eastern Iraq should be made part of Iran.

Yes, I know, what the hell am I thinking giving this supposed "evil" nation half of Iraq, but hear me out. We gave half (technically a quarter) of Germany to our Cold War adversaries, the Russians after WW2. Several years later, they switch governments and are no longer a threat to us. By making half of Iraq Iran's problem, we neutralize them as an adversary and gain them as an ally.

Chances are, the current insurgents will be just as against Iranian occupation as they are US occupation. They may deal with the insurgents a bit more brutally than what we would, but that's there perogitive. It may sound a bit synical, but with any luck, the Iranian government would commit some atrocity to cause public outcry against the current government.

Then again, things could be spun, as they often are, and Iran could try to blame any said atrocities on us. But there is really no way to predict either way.

Meanwhile, in the east, I would encourage the creation of another independant nation. I suggest this as I doubt Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Syria would want to touch this territory with a 10 foot pole. I would think Sunni's would be attracted to this to get away from the Shiite. Given the proper financing, this nation could possibly flourish, just like Israel.

This could cause an escalated civil war, but I would rather take my chances with segragating both groups than allowing them to remain mixed together and fighting on a day to day basis while innocent civilians get killed in the crossfire.

Granted, Israel is no paradise with the Palestinians, but at least there are some front lines established between the two forces. And when you differentiate your friends from your foes, you can achieve victory that much easier.

All in all though, I still maintain that Iraq was better off before we invaded it.

In regards to the talk of the US not losing a war other than Vietnam, I pose this question:

When was the last time terrorists lost a war?



If the answer you found is that they have not, then you would be right. The United States were terrorists in 1776 while declaring independace from England. So were the IRA in Ireland. The Vietcong in Vietnam won. Castro took Cuba from Batista. Some terrorist groups who have fought in Africa may have not won, but they have not lost either. For some reason, assymetrical warfare always favors the underdog.

Ok, I've rambled on enough. Back to the discussion.

FB, a few points:

1. You have the Spanish War confused with the Mexican War.
2. "Approximately 1,426,713 personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components."-- Wikipedia... so about 3 million.
3. Iran funds much of the insurgency (including manpower) in Iraq, so it would null the fires in a slightly different manner.
4. Turkey will never willingly give up land for a Kurdistan. They gassed the Kurds along with Saddam in the early 90's, and imprisioned a represenative of their parliament for 15 years for speaking in Kurdish, as well as still hostilly occupy half of Cyprus, but we're too chicken to drop a NATO ally in which we still have nukes pointed at Moscow.

Fender Bender wrote:I must say, I got quite a laugh out of the whole numbers debate regarding how many volunteers we would need to equal the percentage from the Spanish American War.

You see, even if we have that many volunteers today, we wouldn't be able to afford them. We would have to turn the majority of them away. Anybody who has read any history knows that in order to have a large military force, you need a large treasury to support them.

People have mentioned Rome, well one of Rome's early adversaries, Carthage, was a prime example. They could not afford to maintain their army during the Punic Wars, and ended up losing. Rome itself fell the same way as they could not afford to maintain its armies when the Huns were pushing into their territory, as well as the Germanic Hordes.

In the case of the Spanish American War, the treasury was fattend with the chance to gain lands in Texas.

Plus, to add on to that, even if we have 3 million troops, what would we do with them? We can only train so many at a time. We only have so many vehicles and transports. Even if they were dispersed across all branches of the military, we would still have plenty of people just sitting at home as reserves.

Even more so, hypothetically speaking, how would we feed 3 million troops, on the other side of the ocean? Sure, we could transport the millions of pounds of food there that they would require, but I feel quite a bit would spoil on the trip itself.

You do know that several nations boasted armies far greater than 3 million in the past, including the United States, and kept them well fed and maintained. I'm not saying either way about the situation in Iraq right now, but an army of 3 million is not unheard of in history.

Granted, I'm not a soldier, I'm a student. I learn from mistakes made in the past to avoid making them in the future. If we had more students in this world than soldiers, then perhaps peace across the globe could occur.

Are you saying soldiers don't learn from mistakes? That seems somewhat insulting to soldiers.

What I feel we need to do is negotiate with the Kurds and Turks and create the nation of Kurdistan. If we give the Kurds what they want, or even at least 3/4 of what they want, the violence will shrink, just like Ireland with the attacks on the UK when Ireland was part of the UK. As the IRA has proven though, the violence won't completely disappear, but it will reduce it to what I would consider a tolerable level.

I don't believe the Kurds are a problem, at least not for US forces. I do agree they should get their own nation though, just force Turkey to accept it.

Yes, I know, what the hell am I thinking giving this supposed "evil" nation half of Iraq, but hear me out. We gave half (technically a quarter) of Germany to our Cold War adversaries, the Russians after WW2. Several years later, they switch governments and are no longer a threat to us. By making half of Iraq Iran's problem, we neutralize them as an adversary and gain them as an ally.

I doubt doing so would make Iran an ally. Far from it, it could very well embolden them. Splitting up Germany wasn't exactly a pleasant experience either, just look at how many East Germans suffered under the Secret Police.

Chances are, the current insurgents will be just as against Iranian occupation as they are US occupation. They may deal with the insurgents a bit more brutally than what we would, but that's there perogitive. It may sound a bit synical, but with any luck, the Iranian government would commit some atrocity to cause public outcry against the current government.

The strong possibility that at least a portion of these insurgents are backed by the Iranian government leads me to believe that Iran would have far fewer problems with them.

I have believed for some time that the solution in Iraq will involve dividing it up into 2 or 3 nations. Its not the ideal situation, but I think it would guarantee at least one US friendly nation coming out of everything.

Fender Bender wrote:Granted, I'm not a soldier, I'm a student. I learn from mistakes made in the past to avoid making them in the future. If we had more students in this world than soldiers, then perhaps peace across the globe could occur.

This is a really poopy comment to be honest. The only reason you even have the privilege to attend college is because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf.

Anyways, your insinuation that soldiers are less intelligent than students, who are arguably the most pompous and ignorant group of people I've ever met (I'm currently taking classes at the University of Colorado and have half of my B.A. knocked out), is **** insulting.

Enjoy the freedom I provide for you and don't insult me for doing it. Without me you would not take pleasure in the luxuries you have. Don't forget that. Nothing you do in your entire life will ever be as important as the four years I've given to my nation and it's citizens. Nothing.

People please let's dial the tempers down a little. I don't want a war breaking out in here.

The following questions are not meant to insult and I apologize in advance if they do, as I tend not to beat around the bush if you don't seem to. I have a couple questions/observations from what I've read.

The only reason you even have the privilege to attend college is because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion? Surely the ability to attend college is not a direct result of these rough men willing to fight? If anything, as I see it, guys like you exist because there are those out there who seek to attack our privileges, but the fact that you exist does not give us those privileges.

Anyways, your insinuation that soldiers are less intelligent than students, who are arguably the most pompous and ignorant group of people I've ever met (I'm currently taking classes at the University of Colorado and have half of my B.A. knocked out), is **** insulting.

Enjoy the freedom I provide for you and don't insult me for doing it. Without me you would not take pleasure in the luxuries you have. Don't forget that. Nothing you do in your entire life will ever be as important as the four years I've given to my nation and it's citizens. Nothing.

Wow, that's hypocrisy right there if I ever saw it. You first say that students are the most pompous and ignorant people, and then you say that you have done the most important thing here? I find that to be insulting.

Here's a counter argument. Nothing you will ever do will be as important as what I do. I assist in maintaining a part of The Internet. If something happens and servers go offline, companies start losing money. In the worst case scenario 1/4 of the Internet could go offline if something were to screw up in my company. Data could be lost, and considering that my company has data for several of the big credit card companies not to mention government data and other companies (youtube, myspace, verizon), chaos could ensue. Now please tell me how what you are doing is more important than what I do.

Also, how exactly do you (I'm assuming I = the military) provide freedom?