NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone read/ see that american troops are going to pull out of fallujah and be replaced by iraqis? Its called surrender.

Might help if you post a link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3670193.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206015,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/29/iraq.main/index.html

This one isn't directly relevent but interesting:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=516306

Oddly, Fox hasn't got a story on it. I think I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and they don't update as often as other agencies.

Well, technically, it's not a surrender. We are supposedly withdrawing our troops in favor of an Iraqi peacekeeping force which will be headed by a Saddam-era general (or something, I can't remember what his rank was, but he was a part of Saddam's army). They will work with the new provisional Iraqi government to keep order in the city and remove insurgents.

So, it's a surrender in spirit but allows everyone to save face and gives Bush something to point at and say plans to turn over control of Iraq to Iraqis are progressing.

Possibily, though, it's an indicator of things to come and a less intrusive approach to future military actions, as the Pentagon is well aware it's handled this situation badly.

When US forces pull out of an area after establishing a locally raised security force, after taking note that both Iraqi and personal casualties are only going to get worse if they remain, and in preparation for the upcoming government and the forthcoming relative autarky of Iraq, I call it the entire point of them being there in the first place.

What would you prefer, the Americans continue killing Iraqi civilians who, regardless of reasons and how justified they may be, don't like Americans? For them to allow the cities to devolve into factional and religious war? Or for the Iraqis to have a relatively functional security system that tries to stop either from happening, with the Iraqi people standing on their own feet as much as possible?

This is the best case plausible scenario, chaps.

I applaud this action!

Anyone read/ see that american troops are going to pull out of fallujah and be replaced by iraqis? Its called surrender.
No its not :roll: They are using the opportunity to achieve three important objectives in one move- give their troops a rest, test the combat efficiency (and loyalty) of the new Iraqi security force and dump the responsibility for further civilian casualties onto the shoulders of the said Iraqi force. After all, the media doesn't make that big a deal when Iraqis kill Iraqis.

Well, technically, it's not a surrender. We are supposedly withdrawing our troops in favor of an Iraqi peacekeeping force which will be headed by a Saddam-era general (or something, I can't remember what his rank was, but he was a part of Saddam's army). They will work with the new provisional Iraqi government to keep order in the city and remove insurgents.

So, it's a surrender in spirit but allows everyone to save face and gives Bush something to point at and say plans to turn over control of Iraq to Iraqis are progressing.

Possibily, though, it's an indicator of things to come and a less intrusive approach to future military actions, as the Pentagon is well aware it's handled this situation badly.

I'm not entirely sure how handing over a city to a Ba'athist General saves face considering the current mantra is that the US went in to liberate Iraq from the Ba'athists.....

Ostensibly this General will still be under US control, however they have agreed to stay out of Falluja as part of the bargain. How are you in command and control of somebody if you can't keep tabs on what they are up to?

Saddly, many Iraqis might take this as a cue that the US will step back if faced with fierce resistance. IT erodes confidence in their ability to provide security. After all, the only reason they went to Falluja in the first place was to arrest those responsible for the killing of those four contractors.

Anyone been taken into custody yet?

Or has enough time and blood passed that we're all suppsed to forget about that?

-Z-

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..
I don't think it is the bad groupd force. More like the fact that today's American military tactics are heavily dependant on factors other than military- that is, politics and press coverage.

Anyone read/ see that american troops are going to pull out of fallujah and be replaced by iraqis? Its called surrender.
No its not :roll: They are using the opportunity to achieve three important objectives in one move- give their troops a rest, test the combat efficiency (and loyalty) of the new Iraqi security force and dump the responsibility for further civilian casualties onto the shoulders of the said Iraqi force. After all, the media doesn't make that big a deal when Iraqis kill Iraqis.

Why do they have to be loyal to America?

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..

-re-edit-

Wow Steph yet another bash on America. :shock: Who would have thought? :roll:

This is one time you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. A "real" ground war, what the hell is that? Soldiers and civilians died in Viet Nam. Brace yourself. Soldiers and civilians died here as well.

They could have taken the approach of shoot first and ask questions later but then I guess you would have screamed about that.

I am now starting to expect that from you. America does the wrong thing. "Wow they suck" America does the right thing. "Wow they suck"

Turn down the prejudice button and try and evaluate a few things.

Anyone read/ see that american troops are going to pull out of fallujah and be replaced by iraqis? Its called surrender.
No its not :roll: They are using the opportunity to achieve three important objectives in one move- give their troops a rest, test the combat efficiency (and loyalty) of the new Iraqi security force and dump the responsibility for further civilian casualties onto the shoulders of the said Iraqi force. After all, the media doesn't make that big a deal when Iraqis kill Iraqis.

Why do they have to be loyal to America?


I think he means loyal to the new goverment. The americans would prefer they don't start shooting at them as well! ;)

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..
I don't think it is the bad groupd force. More like the fact that today's American military tactics are heavily dependant on factors other than military- that is, politics and press coverage.

I don't disagree Wombie.. but, if the Americans are going to embark on this new bold preemptive war ideology and neo-conservatism of nation building the world (or the parts they don't like) the reality is most of that is going to have to be done by force. Sure there will be countries that fold and capitulate..but on the whole... many theater wars will have to be fought in their new bold doctrine. I suspect or at least one would hope they will learn from what is turning into a debacle in Iraq and start to train their ground troops in the art of Gorilla warfare. Otherwise, I don't believe they will achieve their objectives in the long run, I think the war on "terror" will be over before it's really started. They need to train their army in modern/Urban warfare. I think because it's been so long since they had to fight using ground troops, they better get them up to snuff. I doubt the American public will put up with mounting body-bags of their young men and women forever.

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..
I don't think it is the bad groupd force. More like the fact that today's American military tactics are heavily dependant on factors other than military- that is, politics and press coverage.

I don't disagree Wombie.. but, if the Americans are going to embark on this new bold preemptive war ideology and neo-conservatism of nation building the world (or the parts they don't like) the reality is most of that is going to have to be done by force. Sure there will be countries that fold and capitulate..but on the whole... many theater wars will have to be fought in their new bold doctrine. I suspect or at least one would hope they will learn from what is turning into a debacle in Iraq and start to train their ground troops in the art of Gorilla warfare. Otherwise, I don't believe they will achieve their objectives in the long run, I think the war on "terror" will be over before it's really started. They need to train their army in modern/Urban warfare. I think because it's been so long since they had to fight using ground troops, they better get them up to snuff. I doubt the American public will put up with mounting body-bags of their young men and women forever.

The problem is that the US, and anyone for that matter, is yet to find an effective ways of supressing insurgency while keeping collateral damage low. Israelis do it better than the US (compare the Jenin operation with its 52 total deaths and what is going on in Fallujah), but, as another poster proves in a different thread on this very page, European peacekeeper under UN command were hardly any better. It is the eternal paradox of our world- that peace, unfortunately, can only be kept with guns, not with poetry.

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..

-re-edit-

Wow Steph yet another bash on America. :shock: Who would have thought? :roll:

This is one time you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. A "real" ground war, what the hell is that? Soldiers and civilians died in Viet Nam. Brace yourself. Soldiers and civilians died here as well.

They could have taken the approach of shoot first and ask questions later but then I guess you would have screamed about that.

I am now starting to expect that from you. America does the wrong thing. "Wow they suck" America does the right thing. "Wow they suck"

Turn down the prejudice button and try and evaluate a few things.

Making an observation that the American army is not what I expected, or as strong as I expected is hardly "American bashing" Sure the Americans could just carpet bomb every thing in sight.. but not without breaching some pretty important Geneva & Hague Conventions.. If the Americans fight according to the rules and laws of war.. then fine, if they don't, then they're no better then the people they purport to be fighting and that's a fact!

You should never listen to the political opinions of anybody who doesn't know its spelled "guerilla" warfare. :lol:

But seriously...

Currently, the US is willing/forced to take larger casualties than necessary rather than to take the sociopolitically unpleasant measures necessary to fully eliminate hostiles in areas like Fallujah.

This is why Fallujah still stands, rather than being ash and fused glass.

It has very little to do with the superiority of tactics and very much to do with being visibly seen to follow the "rules" of war.

Unfortunately, the enemy cares less than nothing for those same "rules," which is why they use suicide bombers, use mosques as gun emplacements and hide among civilians.

The problem is that the US, and anyone for that matter, is yet to find an effective ways of supressing insurgency while keeping collateral damage low. Israelis do it better than the US (compare the Jenin operation with its 52 total deaths and what is going on in Fallujah), but, as another poster proves in a different thread on this very page, European peacekeeper under UN command were hardly any better. It is the eternal paradox of our world- that peace, unfortunately, can only be kept with guns, not with poetry.

Damn Womblingdon! Beat me to it. We are changing with the times as more of the units are designed to be light and fast responce.

As to Guerilla warfare Steph :roll: We are not ignornat slobs about it. We have been dealing with it. What do you think the guys in Colombia(the fabled drug war), the PI, and Afganistan are doing?

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..
I don't think it is the bad groupd force. More like the fact that today's American military tactics are heavily dependant on factors other than military- that is, politics and press coverage.

I don't disagree Wombie.. but, if the Americans are going to embark on this new bold preemptive war ideology and neo-conservatism of nation building the world (or the parts they don't like) the reality is most of that is going to have to be done by force. Sure there will be countries that fold and capitulate..but on the whole... many theater wars will have to be fought in their new bold doctrine. I suspect or at least one would hope they will learn from what is turning into a debacle in Iraq and start to train their ground troops in the art of Gorilla warfare. Otherwise, I don't believe they will achieve their objectives in the long run, I think the war on "terror" will be over before it's really started. They need to train their army in modern/Urban warfare. I think because it's been so long since they had to fight using ground troops, they better get them up to snuff. I doubt the American public will put up with mounting body-bags of their young men and women forever.

The problem is that the US, and anyone for that matter, is yet to find an effective ways of supressing insurgency while keeping collateral damage low. Israelis do it better than the US (compare the Jenin operation with its 52 total deaths and what is going on in Fallujah), but, as another poster proves in a different thread on this very page, European peacekeeper under UN command were hardly any better. It is the eternal paradox of our world- that peace, unfortunately, can only be kept with guns, not with poetry.

Actually, the Americans certainly could take a page out of the play book from Israel on this subject, I agree. The Israeli's certainly seem to have targeting a person with amazing accuracy with low collateral damage down to a fine art. Perhaps the Israeli's could help the Americans improve their tactics. I certainly think it would help them.

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

Yes, it suggests that the coalition occupation was an honest attempt at giving the Iraqis fairly secure sovereignty over their own nation, as opposed to (purely) being an American attempt to show how big their military fist is.

American and British forces crushed the Iraqi Army with pathetic ease, barely slowing down as they ground over the Republican Guard, and they could, if it were their desire, crush the Iraqi dissidents too with just as ridiculous ease. In the process they'd also have to slaughter a significant amount of the civilian population too, and herein lies the problem. I doubt very many countries could maintain a ground presence in a country which has a hefty portion of its population hating them without conflict, and in those cases raising a local security force, defending the Iraqis' forthcoming government and the Iraqis' rights, is blatantly the best course of action.

As to Guerilla warfare Steph We are not ignornat slobs about it. We have been dealing with it. What do you think the guys in Colombia(the fabled drug war), the PI, and Afganistan are doing?

Screwing up.

You should never listen to the political opinions of anybody who doesn't know its spelled "guerilla" warfare. :lol:

Yes, because a typo certainly would invalidate my whole argument.. :roll:

Yep.... hard to fight by the rules and win standing in the ring with gloves on while the opponent is jumping in and out of the ring swinging chains and weilding a knife. You might expect the crowd watching the fight to BOO the opponent for using those tactics but they only seem to cheer and reserve the Boo'ing for the other should he remove the gloves.

Strange world we live in indeed.

im a SGT in the 82nd with the 1-505th. We trianed those Iraqi ICDC troops so they can do their own security and stop the loss of American lives. Its an insult to the troops to call it a surrender. We would rather fight to the death with the insurgents fighting us then have people not there have it called a surrender if your not there dont open your mouths.

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..
I don't think it is the bad groupd force. More like the fact that today's American military tactics are heavily dependant on factors other than military- that is, politics and press coverage.

I don't disagree Wombie.. but, if the Americans are going to embark on this new bold preemptive war ideology and neo-conservatism of nation building the world (or the parts they don't like) the reality is most of that is going to have to be done by force. Sure there will be countries that fold and capitulate..but on the whole... many theater wars will have to be fought in their new bold doctrine. I suspect or at least one would hope they will learn from what is turning into a debacle in Iraq and start to train their ground troops in the art of Gorilla warfare. Otherwise, I don't believe they will achieve their objectives in the long run, I think the war on "terror" will be over before it's really started. They need to train their army in modern/Urban warfare. I think because it's been so long since they had to fight using ground troops, they better get them up to snuff. I doubt the American public will put up with mounting body-bags of their young men and women forever.

Stephistan..you should have taken the time to read up on some US military journals before you made your statements...our forces are extensively trained in urban, jungle, and desert warfare at various times and places around the country.....the problem isn't that our boys aren't trained in urban warfare..they are..it's just that we'll restrained by damn politicians and the media..

Some would say we'd gone soft..in Vietnam if we'd wanted to get a village elder who might also have been the local VietCong commander we simply would have leveled the village and then gone in..I would have blared out in Arabic during the time for prayer that Sadr needed to give himself up or we will make Fallujah a graveyard..and any innocent blood is on his hands because it's up to him to saveyou..he need only give himself up.

Now..I would have handled this differently...I simply would have laid seige to Fallujah..nobody gets in..nobody gets out..turned off the power..turned of the water, told the city's officials to produce Sadr or nothing gets turned on and no food gets in..I wouldn't have wasted one life to get him..

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..

-re-edit-

Wow Steph yet another bash on America. :shock: Who would have thought? :roll:

This is one time you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. A "real" ground war, what the hell is that? Soldiers and civilians died in Viet Nam. Brace yourself. Soldiers and civilians died here as well.

They could have taken the approach of shoot first and ask questions later but then I guess you would have screamed about that.

I am now starting to expect that from you. America does the wrong thing. "Wow they suck" America does the right thing. "Wow they suck"

Turn down the prejudice button and try and evaluate a few things.

Making an observation that the American army is not what I expected, or as strong as I expected is hardly "American bashing" Sure the Americans could just carpet bomb every thing in sight.. but not without breaching some pretty important Geneva & Hague Conventions.. If the Americans fight according to the rules and laws of war.. then fine, if they don't, then they're no better then the people they purport to be fighting and that's a fact!

Hmmm . . . so if America follows the conventions and the enemy doesn't it's America's weakness that you note? Interesting logic. Nice and round.

:shock:

im a SGT in the 82nd with the 1-505th. We trianed those Iraqi ICDC troops so they can do their own security and stop the loss of American lives. Its an insult to the troops to call it a surrender. We would rather fight to the death with the insurgents fighting us then have people not there have it called a surrender if your not there dont open your mouths.

And if you'd all (since you're for some reason speaking for all of the Americans in the coalition forces,) rather fight to the death then call it a surrender then the loss of American lives shouldn't be a concern to you.

Now get back to work and stop wasting tax payer's money, bleeding army grunts live a life of luxury these days...

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..

-re-edit-

Wow Steph yet another bash on America. :shock: Who would have thought? :roll:

This is one time you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. A "real" ground war, what the hell is that? Soldiers and civilians died in Viet Nam. Brace yourself. Soldiers and civilians died here as well.

They could have taken the approach of shoot first and ask questions later but then I guess you would have screamed about that.

I am now starting to expect that from you. America does the wrong thing. "Wow they suck" America does the right thing. "Wow they suck"

Turn down the prejudice button and try and evaluate a few things.

Making an observation that the American army is not what I expected, or as strong as I expected is hardly "American bashing" Sure the Americans could just carpet bomb every thing in sight.. but not without breaching some pretty important Geneva & Hague Conventions.. If the Americans fight according to the rules and laws of war.. then fine, if they don't, then they're no better then the people they purport to be fighting and that's a fact!

There is the problem. All of your "observations" (at least what I read, I don't have time to ready your 4000+ posts ;) ) have been critical.

Carpet bombing hasn't been used since WWII. It was a different way of bombing then what is used today.

Rules of War?

*Psst* Guerilla Warfare(or terrorism depending on what side you are on) does not abid by Geneva.

Now get back to work and stop wasting tax payer's money, bleeding army grunts live a life of luxury these days...

They do? Wow! I must of missed the news bit about pool parties and banquets in Iraq?

Oh and Afganistan is a real resort! :roll:

I can just see it now....

:US Army General with bullhorn:....WILL EVERYONE PLEASE BE QUIET, I'D LIKE YOUR ATTENTION...WILL ALL IRAQI INSURGENTS PLANNING TO ADHERE TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS STEP TO THE RIGHT OF THE MOSQUE...ALL THOSE WHO WILL NOT ABIDE BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS STEP TO THE LEFT OF THE MOSQUE...

Somehow I'd venture to say that the General's field of vision to the right will have unimpeded access.

Now get back to work and stop wasting tax payer's money, bleeding army grunts live a life of luxury these days...

They do? Wow! I must of missed the news bit about pool parties and banquets in Iraq?

And free internet access, at the expense of the taxpayer. Hell of a lot better than you or I get, and so incredibly necessary, obviously. Not to forget the obvious security risk it poses when compared to conventional mail. It's sloppy, to say the least.

And I'd be sincerely surprised if you are a military brat.

It certainly does say a lot though doesn't it?

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..

-re-edit-

Wow Steph yet another bash on America. :shock: Who would have thought? :roll:

This is one time you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. A "real" ground war, what the hell is that? Soldiers and civilians died in Viet Nam. Brace yourself. Soldiers and civilians died here as well.

They could have taken the approach of shoot first and ask questions later but then I guess you would have screamed about that.

I am now starting to expect that from you. America does the wrong thing. "Wow they suck" America does the right thing. "Wow they suck"

Turn down the prejudice button and try and evaluate a few things.

Making an observation that the American army is not what I expected, or as strong as I expected is hardly "American bashing" Sure the Americans could just carpet bomb every thing in sight.. but not without breaching some pretty important Geneva & Hague Conventions.. If the Americans fight according to the rules and laws of war.. then fine, if they don't, then they're no better then the people they purport to be fighting and that's a fact!

Hmmm . . . so if America follows the conventions and the enemy doesn't it's America's weakness that you note? Interesting logic. Nice and round.

:shock:

Is it not the whole point that we don't expect the other side to really follow the rules of war? Do we not expect more from the Americans? Is it not what they have certainly tried to have us believe? That the Americans don't play per se "dirty" or the Americans are the beacon of fairness and freedom? I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just saying that is certainly what they would like you to believe if you listen to the American government. Do the Geneva and Hague Conventions get broken by both sides? I think you can bet your life on it. I think any one who is truly honest who has been to war will admit that. At least that has been my experience whenever I have talked to any one who's been to war. I've talked to many .. my Grandfather for one when he was still alive.. War crimes are committed by both sides, always have been always will be.. the side that wins just never has to answer for them, while the side that doesn't is portrayed as monsters.

I guess I was just trying to make a point.. I am certainly no expert on military operations.. I'm a political science student, not a military expert. I freely admit that. I really just wanted to see what people would say. The response was more or less what I expected.

Now get back to work and stop wasting tax payer's money, bleeding army grunts live a life of luxury these days...

They do? Wow! I must of missed the news bit about pool parties and banquets in Iraq?

And free internet access, at the expense of the taxpayer. Hell of a lot better than you or I get, and so incredibly necessary, obviously. Not to forget the obvious security risk it poses when compared to conventional mail. It's sloppy, to say the least.

And I'd be sincerely surprised if you are a military brat.

How about "was"

Dad was regular army. I was almost born in Korea.

I am a little older then most here. Back then the Net, was called ARPAnet and we did not have access! ;)

Oddly, Fox hasn't got a story on it. I think I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and they don't update as often as other agencies.

Funny that I first heard about it early this morning on "Fox and Friends"

Now get back to work and stop wasting tax payer's money, bleeding army grunts live a life of luxury these days...

They do? Wow! I must of missed the news bit about pool parties and banquets in Iraq?

And free internet access, at the expense of the taxpayer. Hell of a lot better than you or I get, and so incredibly necessary, obviously. Not to forget the obvious security risk it poses when compared to conventional mail. It's sloppy, to say the least.

And I'd be sincerely surprised if you are a military brat.

How about "was"

Dad was regular army. I was almost born in Korea.

I am a little older then most here. Back then the Net, was called ARPAnet and we did not have access! ;)

Oh fer crying out loud..and just how often can a soldier coming in off a miserable patrol hit the internet?...granted..the Marine Corps exchange was selling laptops by the bushel just prior to both my son's deployments there..with those..satellite cards?...the things that make them run without a telephone cord?...But most have to wait long lines to use it, and at best zip off an email or see if they got one..I well remember the weeks it took for mail to hit me in Vietnam....ughhh...so let's not begrudge them this eh?

Actually, the Americans certainly could take a page out of the play book from Israel on this subject, I agree. The Israeli's certainly seem to have targeting a person with amazing accuracy with low collateral damage down to a fine art. Perhaps the Israeli's could help the Americans improve their tactics. I certainly think it would help them.
Wow Steph, is that you talking? :shock: Kinda different from the views you normally express around here :wink:

Now get back to work and stop wasting tax payer's money, bleeding army grunts live a life of luxury these days...

They do? Wow! I must of missed the news bit about pool parties and banquets in Iraq?

And free internet access, at the expense of the taxpayer. Hell of a lot better than you or I get, and so incredibly necessary, obviously. Not to forget the obvious security risk it poses when compared to conventional mail. It's sloppy, to say the least.

And I'd be sincerely surprised if you are a military brat.

How about "was"

Dad was regular army. I was almost born in Korea.

I am a little older then most here. Back then the Net, was called ARPAnet and we did not have access! ;)

The Americans may have the best air force in the world.. but they certainly don't have the best ground force. I suspect it's from years of being the fat cat. Americans haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam.. and it shows. They're behind the times. They only know conventional war in context of WWII. War will probably never be fought like that again, I wouldn't suspect. It's very interesting that the mighty American army can't even take control of one city in Iraq. Perhaps they just aren't all that after all. Interesting..

First of all, Steph, the types of war are not the same because the theaters are not the same. It is an unfair assesment to say the US ground forces are "behind the times" and "haven't fought a real ground war since Vietnam" because they elected not to pacify "one city in Iraq" with overwhelming force in order to possibly save lives on both sides. Second, you've kind of got them both coming and going with this reasoning. They're wrong if they go in because lots of people will die, but they're weak if they work to find a diplomatic solution like the one they did. Not really a fair critique of the situation. I think by now it's safe to say most people know my own feelings on war in general, but I have to say it's not constructive to criticize the forces when they successfully pull off a peaceful solution to a subsituation in the greater catastrophe.

Ultimately, the United States military is among the best in the world, rivaled only by the fighting forces of the United Kingdom and both are closely followed by the ever growing army of China. It smacks of immaturity and desperation to use "Well, My Dad Says You're Not So Tough" attacks and it's beneath you.


Making an observation that the American army is not what I expected, or as strong as I expected is hardly "American bashing" Sure the Americans could just carpet bomb every thing in sight.. but not without breaching some pretty important Geneva & Hague Conventions.. If the Americans fight according to the rules and laws of war.. then fine, if they don't, then they're no better then the people they purport to be fighting and that's a fact!

True, but it's about tone as well as content. Your description of the American military was certainly derisive, even if you merely wished to point out that you had expected them to be more competent. And you are correct that if we don't obey the Geneva and Hague Conventions then we are no better than those we are fighting, but no one seems very interested in arguing this from the other side, that those we are fighting are now and have in the past completely ignored international rules of war, up to the point of taking hostages and killing them. I am not advocating war in any way, shape or form. However, rules must apply across the board, even if one side breaks them, and no one seems interested when anyone other than the US breaks them.


Is it not the whole point that we don't expect the other side to really follow the rules of war? Do we not expect more from the Americans? Is it not what they have certainly tried to have us believe?
That the Americans don't play per se "dirty" or the Americans are the beacon of fairness and freedom? I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just saying that is certainly what they would like you to believe if you listen to the American government.

This again is an unfair argument. Every side runs with this propaganda in every war. No one wants to voluntarily be "the bad guy." To say that this is a failing of the American propoganda machine may be true, but it's just as much a failure of the UK, China, Russia or any governemental entity that has ever waged war on this planet. Yes, we want the world to believe we're in the right. Are we? Probably not, but to single out and call this a sole failing of the United States alone is to turn a blind eye to a world-wide history or truth suppression in order to take an unfair pot-shot.


Do the Geneva and Hague Conventions get broken by both sides? I think you can bet your life on it. I think any one who is truly honest who has been to war will admit that. At least that has been my experience whenever I have talked to any one who's been to war. I've talked to many .. my Grandfather for one when he was still alive.. War crimes are committed by both sides, always have been always will be.. the side that wins just never has to answer for them, while the side that doesn't is portrayed as monsters.

This is true. History is written by the victors and I'm sure when a soldier is in the trenches fighting for his life, the last thing he's thinking about is Chapter 4, Article 7 of the Geneva Convention.


I guess I was just trying to make a point.. I am certainly no expert on military operations.. I'm a political science student, not a military expert. I freely admit that. I really just wanted to see what people would say. The response was more or less what I expected.

Well, I'm happy we either lived up to your expections or sad that we proved your fears, depending. :D