PDA

View Full Version : A question for soldiers



shrox
07-09-2007, 05:41 PM
Something I have been wondering about. Why do I see soldiers bunching up when attacking closed buildings and rooms in Iraq? I had thought it was best not to bunch up, as it is easier for an enemy to shoot or blast a group than a string of soldiers spaced apart. I understand the swarming tactic, but that seems more like a police maneuver than a military maneuver. It makes me cringe when I see a group of soldiers waiting outside a closed door, with no idea what waits on the other side.

Steamthrower
07-09-2007, 07:21 PM
It's probably more psychology than anything else. Psychology isn't always logical though. People probably feel secure near others. If everyone was spread out a couple of yards from each other they'd feel pretty vulnerable.

Of course this is merely conjecture. I haven't ever been on the battlefield.

mattclary
07-09-2007, 07:53 PM
but that seems more like a police maneuver than a military maneuver.

Odds are the police have adopted a military maneuver, not the other way around. If you look closely, you will see law enforcement becomes more and more military like all the time.

SplineGod
07-09-2007, 07:57 PM
I think its because they dont want the other guy hogging all the action for himself :)

GandB
07-09-2007, 08:09 PM
We just got done with a bit of that type of training (I believe the acronym is MOUT). There are a number of reasons you see them clustered up like this, and it has to do with clearing the room as quickly as possible. There are a number of techniques you would use, depending on the makeup of the room (is the door in the middle of a room, or next to a wall, etc.).

In the situation of entering a room where the door is next to a wall on the right, the lead man (the guy on point) would enter with his weapon at a ready position and "button-hook" around the doorframe to his left....covering the left corner immediately (while scanning the middle to the left at the same time). He would continue to move all the way to the left, until he reaches a wall; the man who follows him would do the same (except he would cover the middle left)....and so on. The last man will cover the hallway/alley/etc., until he hears an "all clear" from the room; then he will take up position inside the doorway (for cover), and continue securing the hallway/street/etc.

If the room is too small to allow the rest of your team in, the point man would yell out "Short room"! That tells the others not to follow, and to continue to secure the hallway/alley/street/etc. Once the room is cleared one of the last guys (usually the first one that is still outside) will take up point, and continue on to the next objective/room.

Of course it is sometimes impossible to tell the rooms configuration, which is why these guys are trained to use terms like "center flood", etc.; which describes in an instant what configuration your team goes in as. This all happens within seconds...if that.

-Keith

GandB
07-09-2007, 08:15 PM
One of the other reasons for being bunched up like that is so that you know where your buddies are at all times; weapon muzzle control is crucial in close-quarters combat. Before entering a room, the point man will reach back and tap the guy's leg/butt behind him, and it will be passed all the way back...then come back up to the point man. This tells the point man that the squad is ready to go, whenever he starts in (note that the pat on the way back up doesn't mean to go that instant).

-Keith

tfrank
07-09-2007, 08:15 PM
If the "job" has been set up right, no one has had time to prepare for the entry of the soldiers on the other side. They hit hard and they hit fast. Each soldier has a specific action to do upon the entry. It's all very well rehearsed and planned before they even leave the FOB (forward operating base).

GandB
07-09-2007, 08:19 PM
That's right, Frank. The key is to take command once in the room....scream and yell at them; be intimidating, be predatory.

Many times we've had some of our guys rehearse this type of excersise by making "walls" and "rooms" out of Engineer Tape on the ground....when buildings aren't available.

prospector
07-09-2007, 08:25 PM
When I was in, it was "one grenade will get you all !"

Took 1 guy to clear a room...open door, lob grenade.

tfrank
07-09-2007, 08:45 PM
I got to see some of the training at Fort Bliss Texas that these soldiers went through before deployment. I was part of a "Employer Support for the Guard & Reserve group" that I eagerly pulled some favors to get into (being a part of the media finally paid off), as my son was one of those soldiers about to be deployed. I was amazed at the intensity of the training. Even the medics were put into almost dark buildings with a "wounded" soldier (actually a computerized dummy), with flash and bangs, smoke grenades to make seeing more difficult, people screaming, and blanks being fired extremely close by...with the medics goal of not only finding their patient, but diagnosing them, and treating them in complete chaos.

SplineGod
07-09-2007, 11:12 PM
Always make sure youre the guy in the middle ;)

Stooch
07-09-2007, 11:14 PM
I think its because they dont want the other guy hogging all the action for himself :)

HAHAHAHAAH ding ding ding.

i dont have any military experience but i play alot of realistic shooters and some paintball, the strategy for bunching up is to put down as much firepower as quickly as possible. if you have 4 guys spraying lead through a door as they rush in, it will end the resistance much faster. which will allow less of a time window for your buddies to get shot.

also typically there are lots of invisible fire lines that you have to keep in mind when walking around, occluded spaces are usually constrained by the surrounding topography so you dont really have a choice, just get behind cover and make sure that no one gets exposed unless absolutely necessary :)

after being on gun ranges and firing various guns, i would not want to engage in combat. i have plenty of experience spraying lead so i have a very heatly appreciation (and fear) of being on the receiving end. its also extremely loud and hard on your ears.

do combat troops usually have ear protection or would that impede communications too much?

GandB
07-10-2007, 06:08 AM
We don't wear ear protection in those cases, for the reason you stated, Stooch. I went to Iraq in the Spring/Summer of 2003, with an Engineer Unit (Bridgelayers). During our training at Ft. Campbell, we conducted half a day's training on this....that's all. They told us that we'd never be clearing buildings, and not to worry too much about it (it was a "check the box" excercise to them). The day we rolled into Al Kut, Iraq; one of the Platoon Sergeants walked up to a group of us (I went on another convoy instead) and said: "You remember when I said we'll never be clearing buildings? Well get your sh*# together cause we're going to be going into town with some Marines (who we were attached to) and doing just that".

Talk about a reality check.

Fortunately none of our guys (or the Marines) were killed or wounded; apparently there was some Iranian causing problems in town, and they were searching for him/them.

It looks cool in movies, but it's not fun; trust me.

-Keith

oDDity
07-10-2007, 06:18 AM
Simple. It's the same reason that herd animals bunch up when threatened. If you are in a pack, there is less chance that you are the one who gets whacked. As soon as you're on your own, you become a specific target.

GandB
07-10-2007, 06:24 AM
Nice analogy, although incorrect.

cresshead
07-10-2007, 09:27 AM
so happy i nerver, ever thought of being in the army!...
playing doom is enough stress for me!
I was in ministry of defence [supply of rations and NBc suits etc..warehouse work..] during the iraq war [1st one] and just wearing the chemical suits etc out in the desert would have been enough nevermind shooting a gun or being fired at!

prospector
07-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Nice analogy, although incorrect.
Actually it is correct.

Which is why when a ship sinks, crew are taught to bunch up.
your chances of being eaten is very small compared to 1 guy by himself, dogpaddeling to stay afloat.

But I don't think I could 'join the pack' to enter a building. I could set 1 tripwire and take down the whole wall and take out everyone bunching up outside.

I enjoyed lobbing grenades :thumbsup:

Stooch
07-10-2007, 11:11 AM
there is a difference between pure survival and combat. very different things, when you are a sailor stuck at sea you dont have to worry about being shot or accomplishing a mission. so no i dont think that analogy is accurate at all. infact it would be suicidal to just bunch up and sit there, hoping that you "dont make a specific target"

GandB
07-10-2007, 01:56 PM
Actually it is correct.
Actually no, it's not. Do you have any combat experience in clearing buildings in recent years?

I guaruntee you'll run out of grenades before you run out of rooms to clear. We're not talking about 1 room hooches here; most of the buildings we ran into were anything from a couple of room single home, to a multi-level complex. There's nothing regular about the shape of the rooms either; lobbing a grenade in the room doesn't mean you'll get the guy huddled behind some cover in a closet. Oh, and by the way, contrary to popular belief we do care about not blowing up innocent civilians. Just because a few of the enemy have decided to hole up in a building does not autmatically make the entire building hostile; otherwise we wouldn't bother with clearing it, we'd just demo the whole thing.

Then of course, the mission dictates how we take a building; if it's a hospital (as was the case in one instance), you've got to be real careful when going room to room. If your convoy gets hit, and you've got to take up a position in a nearby building (and hold it); you would tend to be "less concerned" about clearing it by the book.

-Keith

prospector
07-10-2007, 05:28 PM
Recent? No.
I was in service from 69 to 73. And we did have hooches.
But now we can put newer equipment like the (don't remember exact normaclature) but it's like a tank the fires grenades that they can time to go off at a specific range, so one of those putting a grenade in every window could clear a building rather quickly. Now everyone inside would not get hit as you suggested, but a volly of fire and our guys going right in, whoever was in ther would be in no condition to fight for a few min.

What I was getting at was, If I were the one in charge of a 'held' building and I knew that those that would come to get the building grouped up like they do, I would have set trip wires connected to whatever rounds they use for IEDs along the walls. As soon as the door was opened, the complete wall would be blown out thereby taking care of any attacking group.
Which is why I don't like the group way of fighting.
If I can think of ways to negate them, I'm sure others can too.

GandB
07-10-2007, 05:51 PM
I agree that there are many instances that sticking in a group like that is unfavorable. One of the things they neglect to put into the training, is the fact that those 7.62 rounds can in fact go through walls. There were many days I was frustrated with the training when I would pose a question, and the response was the usual "because that's the way the book says to do it". The book is supposed to be viewed as a guidline, not the gospel.


What I was getting at was, If I were the one in charge of a 'held' building and I knew that those that would come to get the building grouped up like they do, I would have set trip wires connected to whatever rounds they use for IEDs along the walls. As soon as the door was opened, the complete wall would be blown out thereby taking care of any attacking group.
I understand where you're coming from. It's always a good idea to think about where you would set a booby trap.


Now everyone inside would not get hit as you suggested, but a volly of fire and our guys going right in, whoever was in ther would be in no condition to fight for a few min.
Even though we take precautions to minimize civilian casualties; I think you and I can both agree that our men come first. I only hope that neither myself, nor anyone I know has to walk into a room cleared with a frag...only to find dead/injured civilians, especially kids.

I stopped throwing candy on convoys when I heard a little kid got ran over when the candy blew back in the path of the following vehicle. Don't need that in my dreams.

-Keith

AbnRanger
07-10-2007, 08:35 PM
Urban operations call for different techniques than standard woodland terrain or open desert. In general, when on patrol, you do want at least 5 -10 meters distance...the more open the environment, the more distance.
Clearing rooms necessitates this sort of grouping for the previously mentioned reasons (just because instant reaction is demanded...one man just can't scan a room alone in the time it takes an assailant to draw a bead and fire). If you tried to spread out in this situation, you'd take far more casualties than otherwise.
If you know a building is heavily infested, that is the situation where AT4's, tank or Helicopter gunship support can suppress that portion of the building...or all of it with a 500lb'er, if necessary (many times if it's known to be heavily booby-trapped, or if it's known that civilians have cleared the area).

GandB
07-11-2007, 06:24 AM
I was hoping you'd chime in Abn Rngr. :)

*Pete*
07-11-2007, 06:39 AM
Simple. It's the same reason that herd animals bunch up when threatened. If you are in a pack, there is less chance that you are the one who gets whacked. As soon as you're on your own, you become a specific target.


almost correct...but its more the opposite.

military is always spread out and covering a large landmass when on defensive.

this is to avoid getting enemy artillery to wipe out hundreds of soldiers with a single hit, and to be able to move soldiers around while only a part of it are holding back the advancing enemy.

so, when threatened, they are spread out.

the attacker however, is in the need to be able to deliver a strong punch at a weak point..massing large numbers of soldiers in a small place will provide superior firepower, locally.

the risk is that if the larger, attacking force, gets held back for too long time, they will get artillery on them, resulting large losses.

it is considered that if the attacker does not have atleast 3 on 1 in numbers, they should not attack at all.


the same tactic goes for small 10 man units as well as for the large divisions and so on...


as a animal analogy you could say...lions attack in groups becouse they are more sure of getting a kill, than if every lion in the pack would hunt for themselfs.

mattclary
07-11-2007, 11:40 AM
Actually it is correct.

Which is why when a ship sinks, crew are taught to bunch up.
your chances of being eaten is very small compared to 1 guy by himself, dogpaddeling to stay afloat.

But I don't think I could 'join the pack' to enter a building. I could set 1 tripwire and take down the whole wall and take out everyone bunching up outside.

I enjoyed lobbing grenades :thumbsup:

Herds work because predators prefer to single out individuals. In combat, a crowd makes an easy target for a burst of automatic weapon fire, a shotgun, or a grenade. Humans prefer their victims in nice little clusters if said human is properly armed.

oDDity
07-11-2007, 01:06 PM
Doesn't matter, if you're in a group, even under machine gun or sniper or grenade attack, the chances are someone will take the bullet or shrapnel instead of you.
Your buddies, if nothing else, are useful moving shields.

pete, you sound like someone who's been playing too many RTS army games.
Armchair generals love to talk logical tactics, but the real blood and sweat battleground is a different place. Instinct often overrides any amount of training or logic.

GandB
07-11-2007, 01:09 PM
I'm not sure if you guys are separating actual combat manuvers with room/building clearing techniques. In no way is it a good idea to do a bounding overwatch (for example) while moving down a street....bunched up in a group.

We're talking specifically about clearing rooms/buildings effectively and quickly.

GandB
07-11-2007, 01:15 PM
Instinct often overrides any amount of training or logic.
That happens on occasion, but the training is what gets you through. It's a combination of all 3; and even then you've got to throw in a good measure of luck.

Logically a street may look fine (people moving about their daily business). But when you see a cable running down an electric pole, and into the ground (secured with fresh duct tape); and the opposite end seem to be going into a window....odds are that there's an IED there.

When you go down the same street and see no such signs, but the locals seem to walk around (or altogether avoid) a certain area in the road; instinctively, you're going have your "spider senses" tingling.

oDDity
07-11-2007, 01:16 PM
I'm not sure its a good idea for people to be shooting at each other in the first place.
Anyway, you yanks tend to just nuke everything within a 100 yard radius instead of sending specially trained troops in for precision kills.

GandB
07-11-2007, 01:25 PM
Anyway, you yanks tend to just nuke everything within a 100 yard radius instead of sending specially trained troops in for precision kills.
That's pretty funny. I suppose you get that from the news?


I'm not sure its a good idea for people to be shooting at each other in the first place.
I completely agree.

JohnMarchant
07-11-2007, 01:27 PM
Its part of CQB (Close Quarters Battle). Low to high slice the pie. In other words lots of people trying to get into a room through a small entrance.If you are inside and a threat you are more likely to be aiming at roughly body height at the door. You never frame a door as it tends to be lighter outside the door so anyone coming in is automatically a target. Having said that if there is also a window you will use that as a distraction, throw in some flashbangs and go in as quickly as possible diagonally. It works but it also means there can be collateral damage.

jasonwestmas
07-11-2007, 01:28 PM
I'm not sure its a good idea for people to be shooting at each other in the first place.
Anyway, you yanks tend to just nuke everything within a 100 yard radius instead of sending specially trained troops in for precision kills.

Heh, precision is what many lack, that's for sure. I dream of the day when we can intelligently kill the murderous bad guy, but first, one has to find him or her.

GandB
07-11-2007, 01:33 PM
The thing is, is that unless you're bringing Santa's endless sack with you; you're probably going to run out of grenades long before you're done clearing. Good points though, John.

JohnMarchant
07-11-2007, 01:36 PM
Precision in house clearance is very hard if not impossible. No room for snipers here, unless you are fortunate enough to be able to see through a window. but most houses close curtains to keep down the heat levels if they have no AC or fan. Having done it on numerous occasions its planning and a good measure of luck. You can predict what you and the team will do but not on the targets actions

oDDity
07-11-2007, 01:43 PM
That's pretty funny. I suppose you get that from the news?


I completely agree.

No, from the high number of civilian casualties in any American warzones.
The American soldier's motto is that his life is more important than any women or children that happen to be in the zone, and therefore it's not worth any risk to himself.
Nuke it is then.
I certainly believe news reports before I'd believe Hollywood movies about the heroic and selfless American soldier.
Too much tech these days, you don't have to look people in the eye before causing their death. Makes it way too easy.

GandB
07-11-2007, 02:18 PM
No, from the high number of civilian casualties in any American warzones.
I'm willing to bet that you'd see similar numbers from other countrie's armies...if they had the same numbers of troops in theatre as we do.


The American soldier's motto is that his life is more important than any women or children that happen to be in the zone, and therefore it's not worth any risk to himself.
Now there's the type of comment I expected from you; however flipant it may be.:D Of course you would know, what with your vast military experience and all.


I certainly believe news reports before I'd believe Hollywood movies about the heroic and selfless American soldier.
That tells me a lot right there.


Too much tech these days, you don't have to look people in the eye before causing their death. Makes it way too easy.
Speaking of tech these days; isn't it great how people can make remarks on subjects that they in fact have no clue about; without fear of reciprocity?:thumbsup:

It's pretty much what I expect from you anyways, Rod. I'm afraid you need:help:

*Pete*
07-11-2007, 02:21 PM
Doesn't matter, if you're in a group, even under machine gun or sniper or grenade attack, the chances are someone will take the bullet or shrapnel instead of you.
Your buddies, if nothing else, are useful moving shields.

pete, you sound like someone who's been playing too many RTS army games.
Armchair generals love to talk logical tactics, but the real blood and sweat battleground is a different place. Instinct often overrides any amount of training or logic.


heheh..i may sound like im playing games, but i dont waste time on them, at all..i dont even have a TV at home.

i use internet a little, LW a lot..the rest is "real life" tasks and they take my whole day.

i have, as most of us europeans (not you english/irish), been in the military.

the one thing taught early on in the military is "a group is an atractive target, dont be part of one"

bullets go through people, and modern weaponry spit out hundreds of rounds per minute...i wouldnt feel safe in a group, id rather hide behind a rock and not let anyone come close, friend or foe :)

there is situations groups are needed, it has been explained earlier on in the thread.

JohnMarchant
07-11-2007, 02:34 PM
Hey Pete, some of us in the UK/Ireland have been in the military (me for 25 years). Were you by any chance a conscript.

JohnMarchant
07-11-2007, 02:39 PM
Of course a group is not the ideal solution in the open but when entering a building you sometimes do not have a choice. im sure that the Norwegians have a vast amount of experiance in Iraq and Afghanistan to draw on and could teach us in the UK alot about how to do it, NOT :):). I was in the Falklands in 82,Gulf 91,Sierra Leone in 99, how about you pete.

shrox
07-11-2007, 02:43 PM
I have no military experience, other than high school ROTC.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-11-2007, 03:44 PM
Maybe, just maybe, there would be less civilian casualties if the heroic militants did not use woman and children as human shields and/or fire from civilian areas.

The U.S. military strikes are downright surgical compared to the indiscriminate shelling civilian populaces suffered during other conflicts like the Iraq/Iran war. If the U.S. did not care about civilian casualties then Baghdad would probably barely be standing and there would be only fraction of U.S. soldiers currently K.I.A..

tfrank
07-11-2007, 04:01 PM
The American soldier's motto is that his life is more important than any women or children that happen to be in the zone, and therefore it's not worth any risk to himself.
Nuke it is then.
I certainly believe news reports before I'd believe Hollywood movies about the heroic and selfless American soldier.


Wow, this would be news to my son and his unit...who apparently took needless casualties in their own group by failing to use the "nuke it" option.

jameswillmott
07-11-2007, 04:03 PM
I'm not sure its a good idea for people to be shooting at each other in the first place.
Anyway, you yanks tend to just nuke everything within a 100 yard radius instead of sending specially trained troops in for precision kills.

Precision guided bombs, just send one in through the window, doesn't risk any soldiers.

I agree though, shooting each other is a bad idea.

Mike_RB
07-11-2007, 04:39 PM
I was in the Airborne for 4 years. 4 man stack room clearing puts you at a massive disadvantage to anyone on the outside of the building. However, from inside you would be suicidal to go in one at a time, with a long interval between you. Say you have 2 bad guys in the room, if you entered one at a time you would face uneven odds on enemy turf, if your #2 man wasent right on your butt you would still be facing the same odds a second or two later or until #2 got in the room. The #1 man's job is dangerous enough with facing unknown odds by himself. That's why you pour people into the room as fast as possible (which means being all stacked up before you go in). The other advantage is that you can communicate with arm squeeze or even body leaning (you are stacked THAT close), so you can stay silent. Somthing like an aircraft hangar or bigger structure would have far more than just 4 men rush in, you would pour entire squads in so the odds we're possibly so badly stacked against the 1st couple of guys in.

The grenade or claymore on a stick solution fails if you are entering a room with possible non combatants. If you really are being indiscrete in your targeting by all means put a tank round into the room 1st. Room clear!

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 12:33 AM
Hey Pete, some of us in the UK/Ireland have been in the military (me for 25 years). Were you by any chance a conscript.


yes, i was..i didnt mean to say that you guys dont have an army, obviously you do and you been in more wars than any other european country to my knowledge.

what i mean that you do not have conscription, so there is only a few out of the population who goes to the army, but then again..those who do, are professionals.

sorry if i insulted you and your nation, it wasnt my intention.

it was simply a remark to oDDity, that its more than likely, that any european living in a country with conscription has been in the military, i just didnt know how to spell the word as english is not my native language.

i didnt like to be dismissed as a 12 year old boy who spends most of his time playing RTS games...otherwise id kept in the shadows and followed this thread from there...usually these threads bring up a lot of different opinions and theories, while the way the real military works is almost the same, everywhere in the world....heck, even the non-military al-quaida works the same...separated when not fighting or if running away, and as a group when they fight.

oDDity goes for the animal logic/instinct behavior here, as a reason why the military does certain things, while in reality the military goes far to replace animal insticts from the soldiers and replace it with proper, military tactics.




im not Norwegian btw, im Finnish..not that it matters though, either way i havent been in a war and hope i will not ever be either.

anyway, my apologies for any bad feelings caused by me.

JohnMarchant
07-12-2007, 02:01 AM
Hey pete,

No bad feelings here. I know that alot of european countries used conscription. We did for a few years after the war, it was needed as so many men were lost after WW2 that there was no stomach to fight and not to many to do it.

We have been involved i quite a few conflicts but dont forget we dont start them, polititions do, we just have to fight them. The military is an instrument of political policy.

To be honest there is always this bash the USA attitude, even my wife and she is French, hates anything to do with America, thinks everything that come from America is bad, she has a very biased approach to the USA.

I have quite a bit of experiance fighting with Americans and training them as well. Dont forget they as well as we do not chose our conflicts we just fight them rightly or wrongly and do as best we can with what we have. Urban pacification in a foreign country is on of the hardest things to do and get right.

The people you are fighting look, dress and act like the very people you are trying to avoid killing. Its the split second advantage they have over you that results in many American,British and others casulaties, you have to wait for them to make the first move which is never going to be in your favour.

The worst place i experianced it was in Sierra Leone, Foday Sankhoe and the RUF, went around Freetown tossing in grenades and shooting indiscriminatly into shops, houses. It was a real slaughter house when we got there. Its not to say this did not happen in Kuwait or Iraq in 91, it just seemed to hit home alot harder. Gulf War 1 was alot easier than 2 to be honest, you know who the enemy was in 1, in 2 its so much harder, even the so called freindlies are not.

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 03:51 AM
not everything that comes out of america is bad...let me list up a couple of examples.

1 Coca cola
2 Macdonalds
3 Lightwave


hmmm...well, 1 out of 3 is still not VERY bad result ;)

regarding Americans...they are humans, they too..no better or worse.

i met good and bad americans, i met good and bad somalians, finnish, norwegians..all kinds of nationalities, and believe me, the similiarities between them are far greater than the differences.

but we tend to focus on the differences...such is humanity.

ask yourself what is Islam about for example, and you think of things like "jihad, fatwa, not eating pigs, suicide bombers, ramada", right?

while in reality, its 95% the same as christianity, even the same GOD!!..different opinion on whether or not Jesus was the right guy or not, but they do have Jesus listed as a prophet...for example.

and no, im not religious.

oDDity
07-12-2007, 04:12 AM
With conscription, what you end up with is a bunch of idiots messing around, rather like the TA in the UK. They're not real soldiers at all.
It's a very small step up from paintballing.
It takes more than an assault course, a 20 mile hike, and some pretend fights to make a real soldier.


Maybe, just maybe, there would be less civilian casualties if the heroic militants did not use woman and children as human shields and/or fire from civilian areas.

The U.S. military strikes are downright surgical compared to the indiscriminate shelling civilian populaces suffered during other conflicts like the Iraq/Iran war. If the U.S. did not care about civilian casualties then Baghdad would probably barely be standing and there would be only fraction of U.S. soldiers currently K.I.A..

The world's a different place these days and the US has the world media keeping a beady eye on them, and they're already in the sh!t for being the world's self-appointed fascist thought-police
It's not like the good old days when they could literally nuke a couple of cities and get away with it, or napalm an entire village.

colkai
07-12-2007, 04:54 AM
Now there's the type of comment I expected from you; however flipant it may be.:D Of course you would know, what with your vast military experience and all.
Hey, cut the guy some slack, as long as he's pi$$ing someone off, his day is complete. :devil:

Just because he expects others to know what they are on about doesn't mean he has too. After all, you forget his opinion is the only one worth a goramn thing.

Of course, the rest of us repsect those of you putting your life on the line.

It's easy to be a flippant twit when you're safely esconced away from danger.
I'd wager stick these folks in harms way and they'd be crying like babies for your protection. Even if you are a war mongering gung-ho Yankee devil! ;) :p

He's kinda like I guy I onced worked with...
To paraphrase...
"I don't like the Americans, I saw a picture of them on the news once".

Mind you, his should be more "I don't like anything not about me...I prefer to gaze at my reflection".

oDDity
07-12-2007, 07:56 AM
Putting their life on the line, my dick. There's been no need for any American aggression since WW2, and ironically, they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into that one, now they can't wait to go and slap some inferior enemy with their multi million dollar technology (and they still make a balls of it every time due to their inferior training and total reliance on technology)
As for me, I was in the UDR, as was my sister. My bother, brother-in-law and his 2 brothers are all formerly or currently in the British army.
OF course, I wasn't off murdering women and children in their beds in some foreign land so my superiors could have their oil, I was actually protecting civilians here at home.

GandB
07-12-2007, 09:26 AM
Putting their life on the line, my dick. There's been no need for any American aggression since WW2, and ironically, they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into that one, now they can't wait to go and slap some inferior enemy with their multi million dollar technology (and they still make a balls of it every time due to their inferior training and total reliance on technology)
As for me, I was in the UDR, as was my sister. My bother, brother-in-law and his 2 brothers are all formerly or currently in the British army.
OF course, I wasn't off murdering women and children in their beds in some foreign land so my superiors could have their oil, I was actually protecting civilians here at home.

Sounds like somebody needs a hug.:screwy:

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 09:39 AM
The military is an instrument of political policy.

Sorry for singling this out... but this it probably one of the biggest problems.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 09:40 AM
With conscription, what you end up with is a bunch of idiots messing around, rather like the TA in the UK.
It depends on the reasoning behind it. One thing it does is tie the military closer with the civilian population, making a military state within a state a lot less likely (one of the reasons we still have it here in Germany, and regarding our history a wise move I think).

Cheers,
Mike

colkai
07-12-2007, 10:03 AM
Hmm, not putting their life on the line then eh?
So, tell that to the families of the American AND BRITISH soliders who have died in wars, including Iraq.

I'd bet they'd be relieved to find out their sons haven't put their life on the line after all and the talk of their deaths is just misinformation.

Gawd oDD, you really outdo yourself sometimes... and that really IS saying something.

It's not like Ireland is exactly squeaky clean when it comes to the murdering of innocent people sunshine. Or Mayhap you've forgotten all the bloodshed done in your country that had feck all to do with Americans.

Or once again, is it different because it's about your situation. Whoo boy, you really are a piece of work.

GandB
07-12-2007, 10:38 AM
Or once again, is it different because it's about your situation. Whoo boy, you really are a piece of work.
It's hard to reason with somebody who's a legend in their own mind.;D

AbnRanger
07-12-2007, 11:40 AM
Maybe, just maybe, there would be less civilian casualties if the heroic militants did not use woman and children as human shields and/or fire from civilian areas.

The U.S. military strikes are downright surgical compared to the indiscriminate shelling civilian populaces suffered during other conflicts like the Iraq/Iran war. If the U.S. did not care about civilian casualties then Baghdad would probably barely be standing and there would be only fraction of U.S. soldiers currently K.I.A..You hit the nail squarely on the head!
Funny how the "Hate America" crowd gets it backwards...almost sounding like an Imam (sp?) preaching in a Mosque.
oDDity, man...with all due respect, stick to what you do best...modeling. THAT is something you have some authority to speak about. You're out of your element here, and it's quite obvious.

oDDity
07-12-2007, 12:07 PM
Hmm, not putting their life on the line then eh?
So, tell that to the families of the American AND BRITISH soliders who have died in wars, including Iraq.

They put their lives on the line, but needlessly, and certainly not for 'us'. They do what they're told by their superiors, whatever the reason, and if their superiors had a clue. or cared, it wouldn't come to conflict in the first place.




It's not like Ireland is exactly squeaky clean when it comes to the murdering of innocent people sunshine. Or Mayhap you've forgotten all the bloodshed done in your country that had feck all to do with Americans.

No, that was the English. Before the yanks, you were the No.1 culprits in the world when it came to throwing your weight around and ******* everyone over for your own gain, from you neighbours to indigenous populations on the other side of the planet, and now you're reduced to standing behind the yanks while they do the bullying, and you occasionally step out and shake your fists.
The situaiton in Ireland was created entirely by you.
Read a book.

Sil3
07-12-2007, 12:33 PM
This thread is raising a lot of very touchy subjects...be carefull with what you guys say to each other... war and politics SUCKS, but lets not let them do the same to our "friendship" and free talking and thinking.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 01:32 PM
while in reality, its 95% the same as christianity, even the same GOD!!..different opinion on whether or not Jesus was the right guy or not, but they do have Jesus listed as a prophet...for example.

and no, im not religious.

I am not even vaguely religious but I also do not think it takes a scholar to observe that the 5% difference is apparently pretty volatile. ANY violence in the name of ANY religion is shameful. Is violence in the name of freedom similarly shameful? I am not sure.

I believe in democracy and I believe that every person should be able to live in unoppressed societies with freedom and dignity. The U.S. should not have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the manner that they did, but I also believe that those people were FAR from living is a free society. Why shouldn't ALL people be able to say and believe what they want without being intimidated or coherced or killed? I firmly believe that if the suicide bombs and slaughter of infidels had not started, both Afghanistan and Iraq would be better off than they were before.

The U.S. looks evil largely because of our free society and because our free press make us accountable for our mistakes, which are far from few. But that is the beauty of a free society...that we are ultimately responsible for our own ugliness, whether it be an idle sex scandal or those sinister abuses by our soldiers in Iraq.

The internet suddenly has eyes on some formerly closed, clandestine countries. If the mainstream media in those countries had the access and the liberty to condemn like they do in secular societies, I dare say the U.S. would suddenly not seem so monstrous.

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 01:35 PM
With conscription, what you end up with is a bunch of idiots messing around, rather like the TA in the UK. They're not real soldiers at all.
It's a very small step up from paintballing.
It takes more than an assault course, a 20 mile hike, and some pretend fights to make a real soldier.



nonsence.

the training of conscripted soldiers is the same as for professional soldiers.

how long time you need to spend in the military to be called, for example, a us marine?
how long time takes to finish the training in a conscript army?..the same amount of time.

you think everyone who is in a volunteer army is a navy seal?, or worse..a Rambo!

nations with conscription also keeps a number of professional soldiers, they are people who volunteer for becoming full time soldiers AFTER they are done with conscription.

the one thing conscription does better than a volunteer only system, is to give the nation a huge resource of already trained soldiers that can be used in a war after a few weeks of "bringing up to shape" training.

small finland has a population of 5 million, a conscript army of 30.000 and a smaller amount of full time professional soldiers (dont know how many), but in case of a war it can bring up 500.000 fully equipped and trained soldiers to the battlefield within a very short time.

not bad for a nation with 5 million people...

you say useless fools?...well, i say that 500.000 soldiers with some training will do far better than the same amount with NO training.


also..one of the reasons we have conscript armies is the same as Lightwolf mentioned.

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 01:41 PM
Is violence in the name of freedom similarly shameful? I am not sure.


It is.

only exception is, defence of your OWN freedom.

cresshead
07-12-2007, 01:46 PM
unlike some places we're actually encouraged to voice our opinions...
try that elsewhere and you may have an 'accident' or your children may go missing...

we have alot to thank for being 'citizens' from those before us who struggled
and fought those opposed such things in the world wars where many millions died for our freedom that many 'take for granted' and even some who curse it thesedays...

:cat:

mattclary
07-12-2007, 01:47 PM
No, that was the English. Before the yanks, you were the No.1 culprits in the world when it came to throwing your weight around and ******* everyone over for your own gain, from you neighbours to indigenous populations on the other side of the planet, and now you're reduced to standing behind the yanks while they do the bullying, and you occasionally step out and shake your fists. The situaiton in Ireland was created entirely by you.
Read a book.

So, murdering women and children is OK as long as you perceive that YOU are the good guy?

I'm really disappointed in you Oddity. I thought I had seen an improvement in your temperament since your return. I was really hoping having a decent monitor to lessen your eye strain would make you happier.

I am not happy with the path my country has taken of late, but your comments are really starting to cross a line... As a former member of the U.S. Armed forces (Air Force), I take exception with much of what you have said.

I'm not going to get into a big pi55ing match and call you names or whatever, I just want you to know that what you have said saddens me.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 01:49 PM
It is.

only exception is, defence of your OWN freedom.

Again, I am not sure. I am honestly torn.

But in states where woman are legally inferior and people are not allowed to practice their own religion or follow their own sexual persuasion without literally being sentenced to death...I can't help but feel, as fellow human beings, those oppressed people deserve better and that their freedom is worth fighting for.

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 01:52 PM
I am not even vaguely religious but I also do not think it takes a scholar to observe that the 5% difference is apparently pretty volatile. ANY violence in the name of ANY religion is shameful.

Hah..perfect example, i mention Islam and you DO think of suicide bombers lol

suicide bombers, Jihad, beheadings...all that are acts of war or crime, political reasons stronger than religious ones.

how many people are muslims, how many muslim countries exists??..all of them violent?..not so.

and those that ARE violent have something in common...either they are occupied (afganistan, iraq, palestina) or they have inner conflicts with different groups wanting more political power or indepedence (checnya..and..i forgot the others).

turkey is muslim, wonderfull place to have a vacation i have heard..eqypt also.

sure..suicide bombings happen in eqypt against tourists, but its al-queda who does it...for the same reason as they brought down the twin towers.


the 5% difference between the jewish, muslim and christian religions has nothing to do with violence.

and violence has nothing to do with religion.


did you know that german soldiers had "god is with us" written on there belts...but we arent calling ww2 a religious war, even if everyone except the sovjets were reliqious.

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 01:56 PM
Allright, I'm jumping in again ;)

Is violence in the name of freedom similarly shameful?
Does the end justify the means? Or, to put it differently, in which situation is violence actually justified?


Why shouldn't ALL people be able to say and believe what they want without being intimidated or coherced or killed?
I don't think that is the question, but it starts getting tricker when you start killing innocent by-standers (civilian casualties have been taken into account).
There is also the question of what happens if what the people want doesn't align with what the people who "liberate" them want. Democracy can be dangerous in the wrong hands ;)

I firmly believe that if the suicide bombs and slaughter of infidels had not started, both Afghanistan and Iraq would be better off than they were before.
Which incidents are you referring to? 9/11 or the current situation? I either case, if there was no 9/11, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq would have been invaded, which in turn would not have provoked a reaction against the invading forces (and their allies).
Are you basically saying that both countried would be better off if no invasions had taken place?


The U.S. looks evil largely because of our free society and because our free press make us accountable for our mistakes, which are far from few.
I wouldn't say it looks evil, even from a middle eastern perspective. However, from the outside the US doesn't walk the walk - it just talks the talk if you know what I mean.
The current perspective is pretty much: Hey, they preach democracy and freedom, but install our Governments and kill our civilians.

Then you also have a lot of people in Europe that are just disappointed, because they feel that America is betraying its own values - which ends in the realisation that freedom may be a common word, but is in the end not a common a value as thought because it is interpreted quite differently.

Cheers,
Mike

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 01:58 PM
Again, I am not sure. I am honestly torn.

But in states where woman are legally inferior and people are not allowed to practice their own religion or follow their own sexual persuasion without literally being sentenced to death...I can't help but feel, as fellow human beings, those oppressed people deserve better and that their freedom is worth fighting for.

well......lets put it like this.

most of the european countries have a superior social system, very few, if any, homeless and the differences between poor and rich is not as large as in USA.

does it entitle EU to wage war against USA, to grant the US citizens better rights and more freedoms (altough, higher taxes too).??

where do you draw the line? as when you can enter with violence to "help" the people and when you cant?

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 01:59 PM
also..one of the reasons we have conscript armies is the same as Lightwolf mentioned.
...and I still refused conscription and did community service instead (out of consiencious reasons - especially since a mate of mine fought in Desert Storm - as part of the British Forces).

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
07-12-2007, 01:59 PM
**pete***>>and violence has nothing to do with religion<<

i do not agree with that at all.
wars/violence over the history of mankind were on most/nr all occasions started for religious reasons or in the 'name' of a religious
passage in a book or writings/interpretations or leader using it as a reason for conquest....

steve g

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 02:01 PM
Which incidents are you referring to? 9/11 or the current situation? I either case, if there was no 9/11, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq would have been invaded, which in turn would not have provoked a reaction against the invading forces (and their allies).
Are you basically saying that both countried would be better off if no invasions had taken place?


:thumbsup:

perfect post, i agree with all that you wrote and specially the quoted part!

JohnMarchant
07-12-2007, 02:02 PM
Someone kill this thread please, its getting a little out of hand now

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 02:02 PM
Hah..perfect example, i mention Islam and you DO think of suicide bombers lol

suicide bombers, Jihad, beheadings...all that are acts of war or crime, political reasons stronger than religious ones.

Exactly. The problem is that Islam is perceived by extremists not as a religion but as an all-encompassing political system.

How often do we hear of militant christians justifying violence with passages from the Bible?

How often do we hear of militant Muslims justifying violence with passages from the Koran?

At the moment there seems to be no really coherent ideological defense against extremists because the extremists are citing unambiguous passages within the Koran itself that substantiate all sorts of nastiness. I imagine it must be tough being a moderate muslim.

People should possibly be persuaded to be virtuous but should they be coerced? I don't think so.

Governments should be persuaded to allow their citizens fundamental freedoms but should they be coerced? Again, I am not sure.

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 02:05 PM
But in states where woman are legally inferior and people are not allowed to practice their own religion or follow their own sexual persuasion without literally being sentenced to death...I can't help but feel, as fellow human beings, those oppressed people deserve better and that their freedom is worth fighting for.
That is being done on a daily basis though, just not by using cluster bombs. And there are plenty of countries left on the map.
Then again, some may even say that death sentences themselves should be illegal in a civilized country, and I can think of a lot of people disagreeing with that.
We (the "western" countries) might be more advanced in some of these issues, but sometimes less so than we actually think.

Cheers,
Mike

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 02:07 PM
[QUOTE=cressheadi do not agree with that at all.
wars/violence over the history of mankind were on most/nr all occasions started for religious reasons or in the 'name' of a religious
passage in a book or writings/interpretations or leader using it as a reason for conquest....

[/QUOTE]


depends how you want to look at it.

yes..religion has been used to get the people to fight...true.

but religion was rarely the reason.

did you know that the reason between the crusades was actually economical??..to control the spice trade!!

religion is a handy tool, but not the reason.

it would have been harder to get people to fight by saying "lets go steal what ever they have (spice = crusades, oil = gw2).

sure..religion itself might have started unrest, violence or even war, at some point in the history of mankind, but most of the time it has just been a handy tool, and the real reasons economical or political.

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 02:09 PM
**pete***>>and violence has nothing to do with religion<<

i do not agree with that at all.
wars/violence over the history of mankind were on most/nr all occasions started for religious reasons or in the 'name' of a religious
passage in a book or writings/interpretations or leader using it as a reason for conquest....

I actually think you're both right ;) Religion should not have anything to do with violence, but it keeps being dragged in.
Hey, a bunch of people that "believe" are easier to persuade than more sceptical natures. ;)
(and just to make it clear, "believing" does not apply to religion only).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 02:13 PM
I imagine it must be tough being a moderate muslim.
It is. Probably a lot like being part of the civil rights movement in KKK country in the 50ies ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 02:14 PM
That is being done on a daily basis though, just not by using cluster bombs. And there are plenty of countries left on the map.
Then again, some may even say that death sentences themselves should be illegal in a civilized country, and I can think of a lot of people disagreeing with that.
We (the "western" countries) might be more advanced in some of these issues, but sometimes less so than we actually think.

Cheers,
Mike

Well said Mike. I agree. I suppose "saving the world" takes more patience than many in the West are capable of...

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 02:14 PM
Exactly. The problem is that Islam is perceived by extremists not as a religion but as an all-encompassing political system.


Exactly. The problem is that Christianity is perceived by extremists not as a religion but as an all-encompassing political system.

examples: jehovas witnesses, mormones (how to spell that??..i hope you know who i mean), and others.

Wars tend to increase extremism...


sorry for copy & pasting, just couldnt resist ;)

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 02:21 PM
Exactly. The problem is that Christianity is perceived by extremists not as a religion but as an all-encompassing political system.

examples: jehovas witnesses, mormones (how to spell that??..i hope you who i mean), and others.

Wars tend to increase extremism...


sorry for copy & pasting, just couldnt resist ;)

No worries. All in good fun. Honestly, I don' take any of this stuff personally. I engage in these discussion to learn and I have learned something from you and Mike today!

All I would point out is, again, when is the last time you have heard of "jehovas witnesses, mormones (how to spell that??..i hope you who i mean), and others" committing violence in the name of their religion? The worst Jehovas witnesses annoy and pester by handing out pamphlets to pedastrains (like that classic scene in Airplane with the pilot is strutting through the airport idly knocking out any Jehovas who approach him :)).


The propensity toward violence in MODERN societies seems unique to Islam, does it not?

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 02:33 PM
Geez. My apologies. Above I was asking whether you think that the propensity toward violence in MODERN societies, among the faithful pressing their religion on other people, seems unique to Islam.

There is of course plenty of violence to go around in any and ALL modern societies...and certainly not just in the name of religion!

Lightwolf
07-12-2007, 02:34 PM
I engage in these discussion to learn and I have learned something from you and Mike today!
Thanks :) I think that is the point of discussions. You can't expect to change somebodies mind, but you can at least show another (more or less) viable point of view.


The worst Jehovas witnesses annoy and pester by handing out pamphlets to pedastrains (seen that classic scene in Airplane with the pilot strutting through the airport idly knocking out any Jehovas who approach him :))

The propensity toward violence in MODERN societies seems unique to Islam, does it not?
Violence, yes (unless you count smaller religious occuracnes, i.e. small militant christian organizations - which I'd put into the same category as a lot of other "small" militant organizations).
However, Jehova's witnesses for example do not believe in any government and are only loyal to "God's Country" which they take literal (and no, they don't mean the U.S. ;) ).
So you do have religious sects that more or less openly either ignore or oppose some of the current political structures.

On the other side... if we had the same social/political situation in a christian nation, I believe we'd be discussing christian violence instead ;) As Pete mentioned, religion is the excuse, not the cause.

Cheers,
Mike

tfrank
07-12-2007, 02:34 PM
The propensity toward violence in MODERN societies seems unique to Islam, does it not?

Unfortunately no. Let's not forget the anti-abortion folks in the U.S. who killed people through various means with their hand on a bible. And some folks from my own back yard, (they have since moved on due to a population that was fed up with them and fought back through the courts) imitation Nazis who latched onto fundamentalist Christian views then twisted them for own needs, who stood on a pulpit with bible in hand justifying their extreme views about the races and other religions.

Sande
07-12-2007, 02:38 PM
Wow, war in Iraq, religion, Oddity and politics - and somehow this thread hasn't gotten any worse? C'mon people - even the iPhone-thread is more hostile! ;)

*Pete*
07-12-2007, 02:42 PM
since we already are way into offtopic here.

how many of you knew, that the Mafia (italian mafia atleast) is highly christian!!

you wouldnt want to call organiced crime something unique to christianity lol

but, in the view of a muslim, it could have a point...we are the ones stealing oil and spice from the, and not vice versa! lol

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 02:43 PM
Wow, war in Iraq, religion, Oddity and politics - and somehow this thread hasn't gotten any worse? C'mon people - even the iPhone-thread is more hostile! ;)

I for one appreciate all of you sharing your candid views on this subect without getting angry or shrill. I sincerely hope I have not insulted anyone.

I am dissapointed I have to take off as I am pretty sure this thread will be shut down before I return. Take care all.

GandB
07-12-2007, 03:14 PM
Personally, I thought going to Iraq was a mistake from the beginning; I felt that they should have sent us all to Afghanistan to finish what was going on there (now Bin Laden and his pals seem to have re-grouped en-masse). I never voted for our current CINC, nor do I support most of his policies; in fact this is the first time I have thought about voting straight-ticket....ever. Usually I actually do my homework on each candidate.

What I usually do see, is that many other countries seem to have a problem in distinguishing between the American people, and our government; which is sad. But when someone needs our help, it seems to be a different story.

Sure, we're run primarily by corporations (though they all aren't American Corporations); I don't see that changing anytime soon. I just don't like to see people berating us for trying to do our jobs. When we enlist, we aren't given a run-down of every War the US has planned through our enlistment; we signed up to do a job, hoping that each engagement is justified.

I'd just like the people that give us the 3rd degree to show what they would actually do to make things better (besides whining about it, and blaming us).

-Keith

archijam
07-12-2007, 04:37 PM
I must admit as an Australian who was ashamed of our country (which commited to the war in Iraq days BEFORE the US had even announced it would take place), and I was full of respect for France and Germany for taking a simple stand against a war in which established enemies (Saddam + Al Quaida) were lumped with a group title 'Terror'.

Of course 'freedom fries' was not the only retaliation, France and Germany were denied (at least initially) the right by the US to have contracts to rebuild Iraq. I have to agree with Pete on this ... it's clear that politicians and military strategists use whatever is at hand, whether a common misconception (the Terror team) or religion itself to their own agenda.

It makes little point to say who does 'the worst' things when both sides do not exactly have their hands clean.

Has anyone seen this graphic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/baghdad_navigator/) .. ? Pretty horrible, regardless of who one's own opinion is ...

j.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 04:41 PM
how many of you knew, that the Mafia (italian mafia atleast) is highly christian!!

you wouldnt want to call organiced crime something unique to christianity lol

but, in the view of a muslim, it could have a point...we are the ones stealing oil and spice from the, and not vice versa! lol

I invite any evidence that militant Christians, including any “Mafia” and “anti-abortionists” and "[oil thieves]," in modern societies are actively and universally using the doctrine of their preferred faith to advocate the killing or subjugation of non-Christians.

I don't think anyone can argue that violence by Muslims in the name of Islam is not dramatically more prevalent than violence committed by Christians in the name of Christianity. Why is that?

tfrank
07-12-2007, 05:00 PM
I invite any evidence that militant Christians, including any “Mafia” and “anti-abortionists” and "[oil thieves]," in modern societies are actively and universally using the doctrine of their preferred faith to advocate the killing or subjugation of non-Christians.

I don't think anyone can argue that violence by Muslims in the name of Islam is not dramatically more prevalent than violence committed by Christians in the name of Christianity. Why is that?

Try this site:

http://www.aryan-nations.org/

Chris S. (Fez)
07-12-2007, 05:26 PM
Try this site:

http://www.aryan-nations.org/

That seems to be a white-supremacist page. Islam is a religion, not a race.

Forgive me for not having the stomach to surf that site. Do they actually cite particular passages from the Bible to justify their beliefs, hideous as they are?

jameswillmott
07-12-2007, 05:29 PM
Is that a parody site? I can't believe it takes itself seriously...

Mike_RB
07-12-2007, 05:29 PM
There is a book that I would recommend at this point in the discussion that I finished recently. Excellent book and gives you a lot to think about. "God is not great: how religion poisons everything" By Christopher Hitchens. He's a well traveled journalist who has been to all the places you guys are talking about. Good read even if you disagree with him.

shrox
07-12-2007, 06:54 PM
Before anyone posts again, my original post had nothing to do with religon, beliefs, or personal opinons. I was just wondering about the wisdom of soldiers clustering up in a group as opposed to spreading out in a line.

cresshead
07-12-2007, 07:16 PM
....hey we've got back on topic!

cool!

GandB
07-12-2007, 08:55 PM
I was just wondering about the wisdom of soldiers clustering up in a group as opposed to spreading out in a line.
In that case (in the context you were originally referring to), I believe your question has been answered by those that actually know.:thumbsup:

-Keith

Stooch
07-12-2007, 11:30 PM
With conscription, what you end up with is a bunch of idiots messing around, rather like the TA in the UK. They're not real soldiers at all.
It's a very small step up from paintballing.
It takes more than an assault course, a 20 mile hike, and some pretend fights to make a real soldier.



The world's a different place these days and the US has the world media keeping a beady eye on them, and they're already in the sh!t for being the world's self-appointed fascist thought-police
It's not like the good old days when they could literally nuke a couple of cities and get away with it, or napalm an entire village.

gee odd you sound like a battle hardened soldier. all those opinions. have you had any experience or are you just blowing hot air as always?

some of the best soldiers are conscripts. for example the israeli military and finnish military. conscription is something that has to be done when a country is too small population wise to field an effective volunteer fighting force.

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 02:31 AM
yep...and even in conscription armies you have a number of volunteered, professional soldiers.

conscription is simply a tool to beef up the national army strenght to a useable level.

the training i received in the military was tough.

for example.

*5 days/nights without sleep and on the move all the time (profesional armies do the same, civilians dont)

*60 km movement during the night (long northen nights) carrying 50+ kg on your back, by foot.

*50 km bicycle ride (worse than it sounds..it was during a snowstorm and in 30 cm deep snow, of 110 men, 50+ didnt make it, but they didnt simply give up..they tried untill they dropped down, unconsious)

..and thats just the physical part.

i was in a mortar unit, we always assembled our mortars in less than 60 seconds, from being in a truck to untill we were set to fire aimed grenades at distances to up to 10 km, takes less than 60 seconds...professionals do it in the same time, civilians??..well, i dont know.


the point is, that the training for the conscript and the volunteer is exactly the same, only that the volunteer becomes professional soldier after he has the military as his profession.

same as the rest of us become professional carpenters, painters or lw artists.

oDDity
07-13-2007, 02:38 AM
That was my point. The experience is the most important part of it. Until your men have been shot at for real, or shot someone for real, you don't know what kind of soldiers you have.
The running 50 km and doing assault courses is just messing around.
Ask any commander what kind of men they want, and they'll say 'experienced ones'. Worth 10 of any average Joe who's done his subscription training.

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 03:33 AM
That was my point. The experience is the most important part of it. Until your men have been shot at for real, or shot someone for real, you don't know what kind of soldiers you have.
The running 50 km and doing assault courses is just messing around.
Ask any commander what kind of men they want, and they'll say 'experienced ones'. Worth 10 of any average Joe who's done his subscription training.

but experience you get only in a war, dont you? ;)

I do agree with you, that an experienced soldier is worth 10 times more than the non experienced one, and hundreds of times more worth than a civilian.

so far, we both agree to agree :)

but the argument started when you mentioned that my knowlegde is based on computer games, i responded that its based on my personal training in the military...i may not be the experienced soldier, but atleast i received some information on how to act like one in case of a real war.

you have not received such information as you havent been in the military, so your opinion about why soldiers group up before attacking versus spread out, is based on information that you have received elsewhere, such as the Animal planet channel on TV or..ahem, computer games :D

oDDity
07-13-2007, 07:45 AM
No, it's based on knowledge of instinctual animal behaviour, and we are animals.
Your 'training' as a temporary conscript, all relied on there being perfect text book scenarios with absolutely no pressure, which is not how it happens in reality.
In other words, you were playing war games for fun, not much different from playing a computer RTS, or paintballing.

tfrank
07-13-2007, 07:49 AM
Is that a parody site? I can't believe it takes itself seriously...

Not to hi-jack this thread any further...they are very serious. I only posted it up to reinforce that wackos are not limited to any one religion, race, or ethnic group.

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 08:10 AM
No, it's based on knowledge of instinctual animal behaviour, and we are animals.
Your 'training' as a temporary conscript, all relied on there being perfect text book scenarios with absolutely no pressure, which is not how it happens in reality.
In other words, you were playing war games for fun, not much different from playing a computer RTS, or paintballing.


true, we are animals, and true..i didnt risk my life when training in the military.

and, in a way..its not too much different from games or paintball, but you see...while computer games focus way more on fun, than on reality, the military tries its best, to prepare you for the real deal, but without injuring you for life.

you would be suprised over how you do get an adrenaline rush (and how afraid you actually can become, even in a "game") when you are practising night fighting with all included, artillery shaking the ground even if its far away, tanks driving past you in high speeds and tracers of real bullets flying everywhere and bouncing to all directions when they hit stones or other hard things.

but anyway, cant compare it with the real deal, as nobody is shooting back at you.

but why in this case go through all these "war games" in the military?...what is the purpose??

ill answer it my self.

1: to prepare you for what your task will be, in a war.
2: to kill off the animal instinct, by getting you used to it.



you know..in the napoleonic wars, not only men charged into certain death ignoring all animal instincts.

horses did the same thing..rushing against cannonfire and muskets, smoke and fire.. they were even trained to kick and bite the enemy.

horses you see today, lets call them "civilian horses"..they are afraid of EVERYTHING!!..dogs, cars, bicycles..they wouldnt be usefull in a cavalry charge, becouse they didnt get the "war games" training to be able to.

animal instincts come into play when a soldier, or a group of soldiers break down...as long the soldier is not broken, he can act after orders or own logical conclusions, training will increase the stress he can take, before breaking down and following the animal behaviour..or shall we say, running away.

oDDity
07-13-2007, 08:16 AM
I actually think you're both right ;) Religion should not have anything to do with violence, but it keeps being dragged in.


Of course religion is inherently violent.
The basic principal of any religion, and certainly monotheistic religions, is the idea of inclusivity. God is on our side. We are the chosen. We are right, and therefore, everyone else must be wrong.
What that means is that you have a (literally) god-given right to do anything it takes to make everyone else agree with you.
What that means is that outsiders and non-believers are in dander of ruining your immortal soul, by enticing you off the righteous path.
Religions on the whole have become less militant and fervent and over the centuries. It's not so long ago that you would be tortured and killed for confessing atheism in Europe. Religion has had to adapt to the changing nature of society, but even so, religion is dying out in Europe, and Northern Europe specifically, and has become nothing but a quaint tradition which some people adhere to.
The problem with Islam is that it's prevalent in societies that have not evolved as rapidly as Europe, and therefore, we're still seeing certain elements as a snapshot of what Christianity was like only a few hundred years ago.

GandB
07-13-2007, 08:20 AM
No, it's based on knowledge of instinctual animal behaviour, and we are animals.
If you mean that military training is based off of our animal instincts in order to overcome them, then you are partially correct. Training is what enables you to perform a proper functions check when your weapon jams in combat; animal instinct comes into play in making sure you get that weapon back up and working as quickly as possible (self-preservation).

A soldier's instinctive aggression towards an enemy is there, with or without the training; the training makes his aggression focused and effective.

Without training, a soldier in the battlefield would have a greater chance of getting himself and/or his buddies killed. Just look at the kill ratios in various wars, compared to the training given each army's troops (I'm talking about actual bullet-to-bullet combat, without the precision bombs).

-Keith

Lightwolf
07-13-2007, 08:21 AM
Of course religion is inherently violent.
The basic principal of any religion, and certainly monotheistic religions, is the idea of inclusivity. God is on our side. We are the chosen. We are right, and therefore, everyone else must be wrong.
So basically, theistic religion is inherently violent? Fine by me, the only atheist religion I know of is not violent at all, and hasn't been either.

But then again, by your logic, nationalism leads to agression as well. Hm, looking at my countries and your countries history I'd probably agree to that as well, come to think of it ;)

Cheers,
Mike

GandB
07-13-2007, 08:23 AM
Of course religion is inherently violent.
The basic principal of any religion, and certainly monotheistic religions, is the idea of inclusivity. God is on our side. We are the chosen. We are right, and therefore, everyone else must be wrong.
What that means is that you have a (literally) god-given right to do anything it takes to make everyone else agree with you.
What that means is that outsiders and non-believers are in dander of ruining your immortal soul, by enticing you off the righteous path.
Religions on the whole have become less militant and fervent and over the centuries. It's not so long ago that you would be tortured and killed for confessing atheism in Europe. Religion has had to adapt to the changing nature of society, but even so, religion is dying out in Europe, and Northern Europe specifically, and has become nothing but a quaint tradition which some people adhere to.
The problem with Islam is that it's prevalent in societies that have not evolved as rapidly as Europe, and therefore, we're still seeing certain elements as a snapshot of what Christianity was like only a few hundred years ago.
I agree with this.

oDDity
07-13-2007, 08:24 AM
Yes, I know that soldiers in earlier wars had not been effectively trained to kill. Most of the killing was done by 'naturals' i.e people with psychopathic tendencies.
How exactly do you train a normal man to shoot someone when ordered, with no emotion or hesitation?

GandB
07-13-2007, 08:29 AM
How exactly do you train a normal man to shoot someone when ordered, with no emotion or hesitation?
Why do you think the targets we use to zero our weapons, and then qualify....have no faces; they are barely shaped like the upper torso of a human (which is pretty much the form you'll see at a sufficient distance).

That's why shooting someone from 50 meters away (or more) is different than sticking someone with your knife. It's less personal.

Most of us "normal" soldiers realize that if we don't shoot the enemy, that ourselves and our comerades may be taken out.


Yes, I know that soldiers in earlier wars had not been effectively trained to kill.
Of course they were effectively trained; which Wars are you talking about in particular?


Most of the killing was done by 'naturals' i.e people with psychopathic tendencies.
Where do you get these "statistics" from?

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 08:31 AM
Just look at the kill ratios in various wars, compared to the training given each army's troops (I'm talking about actual bullet-to-bullet combat, without the precision bombs).

-Keith

10 to 1, favouring Finland vs Sovjet in the winterwar (1939)
(poorly armed, but well trained finnish troops were superior soldiers against the ill led, badly trained but well armed sovjets.)

Both parts didnt see any wars since ww1 (finland had a civilwar 1914), so neither of the countries had battle hardened soldiers .

spec24
07-13-2007, 08:33 AM
Wow, this would be news to my son and his unit...who apparently took needless casualties in their own group by failing to use the "nuke it" option.

Yes - "genius" has apparetly been listening to too much Air America.

America has lost more soldiers due to the BS politically correct warfare that we have decided is in our best interest. It's not. Wars cannot be won this way.

Thank god we had so many "idiots" messing around during the American Revolution, WWI and WWII. I wonder if their grave markers read: "here lies an idiot," or maybe their tombstones have a smug picture of themselves in a white t-shirt.

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 08:35 AM
in ww2 it was a large portion of soldiers, specially among the americans and brittish, who deliberately missed when shooting at the enemy.

less so among the germans and the russians, germans had better training and russians were highly motivated (revenge).

oDDity is correct...just i dont know how to find sources to support that on the net.

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 08:39 AM
America has lost more soldiers due to the BS politically correct warfare that we have decided is in our best interest. It's not. Wars cannot be won this way.


WHAT???

you already WON the war!!..mission accomplished! :thumbsup:

you just failed to pacify the occupied territory, and its not too sure you would be able to do so even if you "took the gloves off"

just ask the french how they lost Algeria to the natives in the 50's (or 60's??)

oDDity
07-13-2007, 08:42 AM
Why do you think the targets we use to zero our weapons, and then qualify....have no faces; they are barely shaped like the upper torso of a human (which is pretty much the form you'll see at a sufficient distance).

That's why shooting someone from 50 meters away (or more) is different than sticking someone with your knife. It's less personal.

Most of us "normal" soldiers realize that if we don't shoot the enemy, that ourselves and our comerades may be taken out.


Of course they were effectively trained; which Wars are you talking about in particular?


Where do you get these "statistics" from?
I've seen documentaries about the first and second world wars which highlighted the problem that the majority of men were not shooting to kill, because they'd had no training. That's one of the problems with conscripts. You pull a normal man out of his normal job, stick a gun in his hand and expect him to be able to shoot other men in the head with it. It doesn't happen, and it's nothing to do with lack of marksmanship either. It's psychological.
What you end up with is a bunch of cannonfodder.
This is exacerbated in those wars by the problem that all the combatants looked alike. A German and Brit could have swapped uniforms and you wouldn't know the difference.
Some people are naturally psychopathic, from very mild levels to extreme psychopaths, and even the mild psychopaths have a much easier time shooting to kill an enemy, and these were the people who did most of the actual killing on the battlefield.
I know training methods have changed since then and the percentages of modern soldiers who shoot to kill is much higher, so I was wondering if you get any specific psychological training in this area.

Lightwolf
07-13-2007, 08:43 AM
you just failed to pacify the occupied territory, and its not too sure you would be able to do so even if you "took the gloves off"

Hey, they pacified us allright... more than they like to admit - and now they want us to fight again ;)

But, just one remark for spec24: Since warfare is currently seen by some countries as a political option, you shouldn't be surprised if it has more constrains.
Defend yourself and nobody complains about your choice of defense... attack somebody and you better be careful of what you do.

Cheers,
Mike

GandB
07-13-2007, 08:43 AM
in ww2 it was a large portion of soldiers, specially among the americans and brittish, who deliberately missed when shooting at the enemy.
Actually I do remember seeing that somewhere; with more soldiers willing to kill increasing over each period of War (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, GW, etc.). However you also had drafted members mixed in at those times as well; there wasn't much attention paid to "Conciencious Objectors", like there is now in the U.S. voluntary military (although there seems to be a bit of a "back-door draft" going on currently).

-Keith

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 08:47 AM
I know training methods have changed since then and the percentages of modern soldiers who shoot to kill is much higher, so I was wondering if you get any specific psychological training in this area.

it is very simple...human shaped targets instead of the old round cirle.

but to be honest, i think it adds nearly nothing to the soldiers will to kill, i believe movies and games add far more...also the lack of religion in people today can play a part.

GandB
07-13-2007, 08:50 AM
I know training methods have changed since then and the percentages of modern soldiers who shoot to kill is much higher, so I was wondering if you get any specific psychological training in this area.
We're trained to treat the enemy as an "objective", if you will. We are not told to think about the enemy's family while making the decision to pull the trigger or not. Realistically, many of us do think about the enemy's family; but we also think of our own, and how much we want to get back to them (well, most of us anyways).

We aren't trained to treat the enemy as inhuman, we're taught more about "detachment". If an enemy surrenders, he is no longer the enemy; as he does not want to continue his engagement against us anymore, for whatever reason.

Instincts are powerful, but it's usually one's instinct to run away from danger, not toward it. That's where training, and trust in your buddies comes into play.

mattclary
07-13-2007, 09:22 AM
it is very simple...human shaped targets instead of the old round cirle.

but to be honest, i think it adds nearly nothing to the soldiers will to kill, i believe movies and games add far more...also the lack of religion in people today can play a part.

I agree with this, but would also point out that the way we fight wars nowadays makes this an apples and oranges comparison. The death tolls are much lower in every conflict we have. How long have we been in Iraq now? What was the death toll in Vietnam for a similar time frame?

mattclary
07-13-2007, 09:29 AM
A fine example of us "nuking" the enemy...



As the Americans fired back, U.S. warplanes struck in front of the police position, without hitting it directly, "to prevent further escalation" of the battle, it said. There were no casualties among the U.S. troops, but seven gunmen and six of the policemen firing on the Americans were killed, the statement said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070713/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070711194935;_ylt=AmncyyCYzmWX_G7p3x.fbLkE1vA I

bluerider
07-13-2007, 09:30 AM
They put their lives on the line, but needlessly, and certainly not for 'us'. They do what they're told by their superiors, whatever the reason, and if their superiors had a clue. or cared, it wouldn't come to conflict in the first place.



No, that was the English. Before the yanks, you were the No.1 culprits in the world when it came to throwing your weight around and ******* everyone over for your own gain, from you neighbours to indigenous populations on the other side of the planet, and now you're reduced to standing behind the yanks while they do the bullying, and you occasionally step out and shake your fists.
The situaiton in Ireland was created entirely by you.
Read a book.

Mmmmmm, for the demographic breakdown of who killed who in the recent troubles; peace and conflict studies, Coleraine Unniversity have a good concise list of who and what organisations contributed to the "most murders" in Northern Ireland. Surprisingly for some, it wasn't the "English" although a famous Australian movie star I'm sure would disagree with the "historical facts".

Who you regard as the catalyst for starting the troubles is quite another issue.

Anyway, for more accurate statistics I recommend Coleraines Unniversities research papers on concise demongraphic breakdown of who did what etc etc.

I hope this helps :)

mattclary
07-13-2007, 09:36 AM
Mmmmmm, for the demographic breakdown of who killed who in the recent troubles; peace and conflict studies, Coleraine Unniversity have a good concise list of who and what organisations contributed to the "most murders" in Northern Ireland. Surprisingly for some, it wasn't the "English" although a famous Australian movie star I'm sure would disagree with the "historical facts".

Who you regard as the catalyst for starting the troubles is quite another issue.

Anyway, for more accurate statistics I recommend Coleraines Unniversities research papers on concise demongraphic breakdown of who did what etc etc.

I hope this helps :)

Any links available?

oDDity
07-13-2007, 09:51 AM
I never implied that most of the killing in the latest conflict was done by the British Army.
As for who 'started' it, which is what I was talking about, you only have to look at the long list of meddling over the centuries by England for a long term historical answer to that question.
Still, we're all friends again now, so there's no point dragging all that up.

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 09:54 AM
I agree with this, but would also point out that the way we fight wars nowadays makes this an apples and oranges comparison. The death tolls are much lower in every conflict we have. How long have we been in Iraq now? What was the death toll in Vietnam for a similar time frame?

the technology today, has made the war even more assymetrical...USA brings tanks, artillery, fighter planes, apache helicopters, guided missiles and satelite surveillance and well trained soldiers to the battlefield.

what does the opposition have?...nothing but small arms, bombs and mortars.


I often find the accusation "They use civilians as human shields" and "they hide among the civilians" very badly thought of.

would they go out in the open desert to face the whole might of what USA can bring to the field, it would be no difference if they would be armed with wooden sticks instead...they would have no chance at all.

the reasons for the low amount of casualties are medical technology advancements and personal protection gear (kevlar vests), look how many wounded US has suffered in Iraq, youll be shocked.

the enemy has none of this, not even hospitals, as showing up with combat wounds could get you reported and arrested..depending on how strong the goverment control is in that specific area.

In the Vietnam war, the warfare was not equally assymetric, and the opposition had more and better weaponry in use.

besides, you misread a little, as the topic (for now) is about the soldiers will to kill, and not casualties.

GandB
07-13-2007, 10:01 AM
What was the death toll in Vietnam for a similar time frame?
You can't really call that a valid comparison, since the amount of soldiers actually in the theatre are far less now than in Vietnam. If we had half a million soldiers in Iraq right now, I'm sure the amount of US dead would be much higher over time.

-Keith

Chris S. (Fez)
07-13-2007, 10:03 AM
I often find the accusation "They use civilians as human shields" and "they hide among the civilians" very badly thought of.

It is not an accusation. It is the truth.

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 10:09 AM
It is not an accusation. It is the truth.

Its more of an observation that an accusation.., they hide. thats why they still live to fight the next day ;)

point is, they hide in order to survive...as i wrote, would both fighting parts meet in the open, the better armed one (much better) would erase the other one from the planet in a split second.

GandB
07-13-2007, 10:17 AM
They also like to throw kids in front of moving convoys to get us to stop (happened to me in Nassariah). I know we wouldn't do that, even if the enemy was technologically superior to us.

tfrank
07-13-2007, 11:28 AM
They also like to throw kids in front of moving convoys to get us to stop (happened to me in Nassariah). I know we wouldn't do that, even if the enemy was technologically superior to us.
Happened to my kid in Kirkuk area in 2004 during a mounted patrol. Forcing the decision, do you speed up and barrel through as you do not have a physical exit, or do you stop and wait for an explosion. I never asked what the final decision was.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-13-2007, 11:36 AM
Its more of an observation that an accusation.., they hide. thats why they still live to fight the next day ;)

point is, they hide in order to survive...as i wrote, would both fighting parts meet in the open, the better armed one (much better) would erase the other one from the planet in a split second.

IMO, hiding behind woman and children for the sake of survival makes it no less despicable and cowardly.

By firing from civilian areas and hiding amongst civilian populations, the militants make ALL civilians targets. Yet the liberal media demonizes US and UN forces for civilian casualties at every opportunity.

Militants calculatingly fire from mosques and schools to draw American fire toward civilians and sacred places...and to draw the ire of the Arab media who reflexively blame the "occupation forces."

bluerider
07-13-2007, 11:46 AM
I never implied that most of the killing in the latest conflict was done by the British Army.
As for who 'started' it, which is what I was talking about, you only have to look at the long list of meddling over the centuries by England for a long term historical answer to that question.
Still, we're all friends again now, so there's no point dragging all that up.

Yes, its good to be friends.

and sometimes with friends who needs enemies. That comment is not nessaccarily related to Ireland of course.

The British Army constitutes not just English people of course, I'm sure there are probably a few Eskimos ( sorry I mean Inuit )

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 12:28 PM
as for throwing kids in front of convoys and other use of noncombattants for own purposes...its really sick.

im in no way defending such practise, im just trying to see it through the eyes of the people doing so.


there was once strong armies, fighting by the rules, silly as they were..and civilians were largely unaffected by the actions of these armies.

the greeks for example, they set the date and place for a battle when they got into disagreements.

then they went there with all troops they could gather, thousands, tens of thousands of them, they fought always in the same manner..same weapons, same tactics, no suprises and those "wars" were often over in one single day.

admirable, in my opinion.


but those were men wearing the same protection, same weapons..they had equal odds in winning the battle.


image that you were part of the insurgency in Iraq, youre a commander of, say...60 men, these are your personal friends, brothers and work colleques.

you feel that your nation is under occupation by someone who wants to remove everything that you believe in, your god, your way to live and the only economical resource your nation has, oil.

you have friends and family who already died fighting the americans, you are determined to do the same.

imagine that you're in a city, and suddenly the US army appears at the west end of the city...finally the chance to do your part for your nation, family and god.

what do you do?..knowing that the enemy has superior firepower, if the enemy knows that you are in a empty house, they will airstrike it.

will you:

A: arrange your men in a line, wait untill the enemy is close, kill a couple of them and loose your 60 men and your own life...you will get to paradise, but you dont take many with you.

B: hide, set bombs along the path they come, pretend to be civilian so that you can see when they are near the bomb?, your men doing similiar things...all to maximize own survivability and ability to fight another day.

C: throw kids in front of the trucks!!

D: your own idea..please tell.

shrox
07-13-2007, 01:24 PM
OK, we can end my thread now. No more posts.

GandB
07-13-2007, 01:51 PM
I will say that in my case I did slow down just a touch, and only briefly. Fortunately the kid had enough sense to scoot out of the way. Either way I had enough room to swerve slightly.


B: hide, set bombs along the path they come, pretend to be civilian so that you can see when they are near the bomb?, your men doing similiar things...all to maximize own survivability and ability to fight another day.
Actually this is the one I'd choose....without sitting amongst the population and urging the US to fire on me/us. We used Gorilla tactics in the revolutionary wars in early American history; but we didn't put women and children in front of us. That's the difference. Otherwise, I understand where you're coming from, Pete.

Sorry Shrox; I had to put one more down.:thumbsup:

-Keith

*Pete*
07-13-2007, 02:28 PM
We used Gorilla tactics:

-Keith


whats that??..poisoned bananas?:D

prospector
07-13-2007, 02:36 PM
I'm trying sooooo hard to stay out of this :D