Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the Americans are loosing in Iraq

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The Britishers seemed to eventually be able to conquer the Boers, who could appear and dissapear at will. Hell the Boers out on commando were more mobile than the british columns, but the brits were able to stop them, supress them, and build a nation.

The boers where farmers that got supplied by the germans with some of the latest tech.
We used.....dirty tactics to beat them....didnt we use concentration camps there?
The boers had the advantage of knowing the land....our troops didnt, we won by size and training.


Of course it required burning all the homesteads and putting the civilian population into concentration camps in the meantime. But Brother Boer wasn't playing fair!

Ah....thats my earlier question answered...
Isnt it beatiful what the "defender of freedom" used to do?




posted on May, 10 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Billy

Good post (from someone who clearly knows more about the military than many on here). I've heard this too from people who've been out there.

US troops are over-equipped, badly trained, ill-educated and very, very badly led.

They're causing problems for themselves, UK & other troops etc via their p*ss poor tactics & lack of basic soldiering skills and recruiting terrorists by the score via their arrogant attitude and disdain for all non-US life.

Anyone who has to go anywhere near them has my deepest sympathies.

Then again after Vietnam we knew what to expect didn't we?



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
CTID56092,

I'd rather have the yanks with us than most countries....thats the best your getting out of me...



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
Billy

Good post (from someone who clearly knows more about the military than many on here). I've heard this too from people who've been out there.

US troops are over-equipped, badly trained, ill-educated and very, very badly led.

They're causing problems for themselves, UK & other troops etc via their p*ss poor tactics & lack of basic soldiering skills and recruiting terrorists by the score via their arrogant attitude and disdain for all non-US life.

Anyone who has to go anywhere near them has my deepest sympathies.

Then again after Vietnam we knew what to expect didn't we?



dats wat Saddam thought
during 91 Gulf War, remember Vietnam help America see the weaknesses that exists, use of the new stealth technology, use of special operations, use of new guided bombs. Iraq is helping America see its weaknesses and we are just learning baby.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

dats wat Saddam thought
during 91 Gulf War, remember Vietnam help America see the weaknesses that exists, use of the new stealth technology, use of special operations, use of new guided bombs. Iraq is helping America see its weaknesses and we are just learning baby.


Hmm in Vietnam you lost a war - remember?
You spent Billions of dollars and were defeated by a peasant area. You spent millions on a 'people sniffer' the NVA/VC defeated it within weeks using buffalo dung.
You invented LGB's, they built bridges under water. At every turn they out-thought, out fought and out-smarted you.

By the end of your involvement at least 10% of your frontline troops were addicted to heroin and 90% using cannabis. Your army fell apart, fragging officers, combat refusals, Black panther ghettos in Army camps - hardly your finest hour.

Devilwasp think you'll find we're not 'with them' - we have our own area and avoid them like the plague as they shoot first at anyone JIC they might be insurgents (although they turn out to be Bulgarian soldiers, Italian secret agents etc etc).

They may have fanatastic technology but it's the guy with his finger on the trigger who's the weak link (Tornado 0 - Patriot 2, bombing John Simpson although the ANG weren't trained in air-to-ground etc etc)





[edit on 10-5-2005 by CTID56092]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092

Originally posted by deltaboy


dats wat Saddam thought
during 91 Gulf War, remember Vietnam help America see the weaknesses that exists, use of the new stealth technology, use of special operations, use of new guided bombs. Iraq is helping America see its weaknesses and we are just learning baby.


Hmm in Vietnam you lost a war - remember?
You spent Billions of dollars and were defeated by a peasant area. You spent millions on a 'people sniffer' the NVA/VC defeated it within weeks using buffalo dung.
You invented LGB's, they built bridges under water. At every turn they out-thought, out fought and out-smarted you.

By the end of your involvement at least 10% of your frontline troops were addicted to heroin and 90% using cannabis. Your army fell apart, fragging officers, combat refusals, Black panther ghettos in Army camps - hardly your finest hour.

Devilwasp think you'll find we're not 'with them' - we have our own area and avoid them like the plague as they shoot first at anyone JIC they might be insurgents (although they turn out to be Bulgarian soldiers, Italian secret agents etc etc).

They may have fanatastic technology but it's the guy with his finger on the trigger who's the weak link (Tornado 0 - Patriot 2, bombing John Simpson although the ANG weren't trained in air-to-ground etc etc)





we beat the crap out the Iraqi Army back in 91 hmmmm. i wonder why. must had somthin to do with Vietnam. we should thank the insurgents in Iraq, they helpin us learn from the weaknesses. had they not use IEDs and car bombs we may have to learn it in the future instead of right now.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
You "beat the crap out of the iraqi army" in 91 , not by yourselfs....dont try and take all the credit.
Second, we are technically "with them" , since we cant fight outside a co-alition, the scary part is that it says this in the 2004 fleet review.....
was my answer to reading that. Any way, look at the free gear we get off them every decade or so...I mean come on the yanks gave our guys more stuff than hoon the loon did....


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I have slammed America's policies as much as anyone, but a couple of you 'Brits' (on ATS) need to get a little reality perspective, so:

Brits-
    No. Ireland -
    Even with the Police Act (hiding inquires and methods from disclosure), Terror Act (allowing government to do virtually anything they want including killing), Penal Acts (denying inheritance, ownership and other rights) an armed presence of thousands of troops, hundreds of years of occupation, hundreds of thousands starved and killed while maintaining a siege on much of the area, Britain still hasn't quelled the insurgency.
    external image



    British collusion
    Aegis Defense Services, the private security company run by controversial former British army officer Tim Spicer is this week in the crosshairs of the government agency is (sic) charge of reconstruction in Iraq.
    Same guy that was officer in charge of a squad that killed a teenager by shooting him in the back.

    South Africa-

    1899- Queen Victoria has recently celebrated her Diamond Jubilee. The British Empire is at its zenith in power and prestige. But the High Commissioner of Cape Colony in South Africa, Alfred Milner, wants more. He wants to gain for the Empire the economic power of the gold mines in the Dutch Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. He also wants to create a Cape-to-Cairo confederation of British colonies to dominate the African continent. And he wants to rule over it.
    To do this, Milner precipitates a war with the Boers. As in many of their colonial wars, they only win one battle - the last one.
    22,000 Brits lay down for 'Queen and Empire' (and the bankers)
    Through starvation and massacre the British kill off the Boers and conquer another country and people.

    Needing scape-goats to quell stories of indiscriminate killings the British Army executes some 'expendable' soldiers (Australians).


    Further public outcry in the colonies for their dead is dismissed.

    external image

    New Zealand dead.

    The use of 'colonials' for British forays is historical (America, India, South Africa, Gallipoli, Burma, Tobruk, Egypt, Palestine and etc.) as is the blame for failure.

In all of these places (and more) Britain has never maintained a peaceful presence. WW I and II were British wars that America, with its semi-trained national guard, saved Britain from certain defeat.

Some of the ATS postings make me wonder if America was not 'sucked in' once again by British financial interests. We all know that Bush is related to the Queen. We all also know that his families fortunes began with a British banking house in America.

And in Vietnam- America NEVER lost a battle. Not even the last one. We could just never win. The Vietnamese were implacable foes.

devilwasp, we give 'you' free gear- we took YOUR Empire away and have a guilt complex



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
I have slammed America's policies as much as anyone, but a couple of you 'Brits' (on ATS) need to get a little reality perspective, so:

Brits-
    No. Ireland -
    Even with the Police Act (hiding inquires and methods from disclosure), Terror Act (allowing government to do virtually anything they want including killing), Penal Acts (denying inheritance, ownership and other rights) an armed presence of thousands of troops, hundreds of years of occupation, hundreds of thousands starved and killed while maintaining a siege on much of the area, Britain still hasn't quelled the insurgency.
    external image



    British collusion
    Aegis Defense Services, the private security company run by controversial former British army officer Tim Spicer is this week in the crosshairs of the government agency is (sic) charge of reconstruction in Iraq.
    Same guy that was officer in charge of a squad that killed a teenager by shooting him in the back.

    South Africa-

    1899- Queen Victoria has recently celebrated her Diamond Jubilee. The British Empire is at its zenith in power and prestige. But the High Commissioner of Cape Colony in South Africa, Alfred Milner, wants more. He wants to gain for the Empire the economic power of the gold mines in the Dutch Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. He also wants to create a Cape-to-Cairo confederation of British colonies to dominate the African continent. And he wants to rule over it.
    To do this, Milner precipitates a war with the Boers. As in many of their colonial wars, they only win one battle - the last one.
    22,000 Brits lay down for 'Queen and Empire' (and the bankers)
    Through starvation and massacre the British kill off the Boers and conquer another country and people.

    Needing scape-goats to quell stories of indiscriminate killings the British Army executes some 'expendable' soldiers (Australians).


    Further public outcry in the colonies for their dead is dismissed.

    external image

    New Zealand dead.

    The use of 'colonials' for British forays is historical (America, India, South Africa, Gallipoli, Burma, Tobruk, Egypt, Palestine and etc.) as is the blame for failure.

In all of these places (and more) Britain has never maintained a peaceful presence. WW I and II were British wars that America, with its semi-trained national guard, saved Britain from certain defeat.

Some of the ATS postings make me wonder if America was not 'sucked in' once again by British financial interests. We all know that Bush is related to the Queen. We all also know that his families fortunes began with a British banking house in America.

And in Vietnam- America NEVER lost a battle. Not even the last one. We could just never win. The Vietnamese were implacable foes.

devilwasp, we give 'you' free gear- we took YOUR Empire away and have a guilt complex


Joe - not sure where you went to school but I'd apply for a refund!

I was going to address your post point by point but it's so riddled with inaccuracies it'd be a waste of my time and you wouldn't get it anyway. But to give you a flavour.

Northern Ireland - we 'convinced' (via 7.62) the IRA they weren't going to win. They're now on 'ceasefire' (apparently) so I'd call that a victory.

Gallipoli - the UK took the vast bulk of casualties in that campaign.

SA we beat the Boers (using dirty tactics - no excuse) BUT we intergrated them into our army (Smuts), adopted their tactics and secured our empire.

WW1 was a major conflict, your contribution (beyond the psycological) was frankly minimal. You lost a lot of troops but that's down to Pershing and his supreme arroagnce that 'Kansas tactics' would work - they didn't and your lads paid the price.

WW2 was a Global conflict, you stayed out of it while we fought alone. With a few notable exceptions (Ed Murrow RIP) you ignored it, used it as a way to bankrupt us and only got involved when you had to. We are grateful for your contribution but without us you'd had been facing a V2+ attack and contemplating a cross-Atlantic invasion. But for us you'd be speaking German!

Bush is related to the Queen! RATFLMAO. Are you for real? It's true they're inbred and have a weak gene pool but it's not that weak.

He was bankrolled by the Bin Laden family as we all know

You lost in Vietnam because your army (top to bottom) were the wrong troops , in the wong place, fighting the wrong enemy for the wrong reasons (read the Bright Shining Lie) - accept it you lost. You can use all the sophistry at your disposal but you lost. You were defeated. You left your ally in the #.

I'm not anti-America, just this America



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   


1/ Very few have any form of previous combat experience in a counter insurgency situation.

2/ Large numbers come across as being very arrogant and very dumb.

3/ There appears to be very little leadership or supervision at squad/team level.

4/ An attitude of "I want to kill someone before I leave Iraq" is prevalent.


6/ Without their vehicles they appear to be unable to operate in any capacity what so ever.


9/ There is no desire to try to understand the customs or indeed the people of Iraq.

10/ Many come from National Guard units, who simply are not up to the job out here.

11/ None of them appear to be aware of any plan to bring stability to the country.




You have voted BillyTheCat for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month

Thanks for giving ATS a healthy dose of reality.


Billy you cant blame the average GI for a failuare in leadership thats the only thing I would point out.

You can find my point of view on why the americans are failing in Iraq here. I am the author of the email.

1.. In terms of technology the US military is the most advance force in the world. However the US military has fallen into the trap of believing that technology wins wars by itself. Technology is useless without people this can be seen in the fact that Humvees in Iraq lack amour to protect the troops. Lets assume that the Humvees have latest senses to find insurgents the technology is useless unless the vehicle is equipped with amour. The union of technology-people wins wars.

2.. Hearts and minds is the most important aspect of guerrilla warfare in effect you have to convince the local population that you have there best interests at heart. Despite the memories of Vietnam the hearts and minds battle can be won.
www.megafortress.com...

[edit on 10-5-2005 by xpert11]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
Joe - not sure where you went to school but I'd apply for a refund!

And well you should. After reading your history fantasy The school should gladly oblige.

Pershing- 'Kansas tactics' I'm not sure what this refers to so I'll hazard a guess based upon what you wrote.*(see below)

I have never been a big Pershing fan. He couldn't catch Pancho Villa!

Best thing Pershing did in WW I was refuse to allow Americans to 'flesh-out' British and French forces.

Let's look at a few WW I stats though ( Spartacus UK these from a UK source so we know they are good:up


Countries- - - Total Mobilized- - - Died - - - Wounded - - - Prisoners& Missing - - - Casualties - - % of Mobilized
British Empire - - 8,904,467 - - 908,371 - - -2,090,212 - - - - - 191,652 - - - - - - - -3,190,235 - - - - --35.8

United States - -4,355,000 - - - 126,000 - - -234,300 - - - - - - - 4,500 - - - - - - - - - 364,800 - - - - - - -8.2

Of these about 2 million Americans were 'over there.'

Brits lost about 36%, Americans a little over 8%

The Brits lost more in the Somme alone by a factor of 3:1 than the Americans lost total. Keeping time frames relative and all.

*Kansas tactics- Haig must have been using? 'bloody good' tactics?


IRA ceasefire- I read about that from time to time. Makes for good local news, eh what?

Gallipolli- more than 1/3 of the casualties were 'colonials' ANZAC beach and all.



WW2 was a Global conflict, you stayed out of it while we fought alone. With a few notable exceptions (Ed Murrow RIP) you ignored it, used it as a way to bankrupt us and only got involved when you had to. We are grateful for your contribution but without us you'd had been facing a V2+ attack and contemplating a cross-Atlantic invasion. But for us you'd be speaking German!

It was YOUR war! 'grateful'- that's a 50+plus year understatement. We also took on Japan, saving who knows who.

Roosevelt was ingenious- he used Britain to break up her own Empire. One of the most fantastic events of the last 100 years.



Bush is related to the Queen! RATFLMAO. Are you for real? It's true they're inbred and have a weak gene pool but it's not that weak.

I know- I felt the same. I held Bush in low esteem, this explained things. I often wondered why his dad looked so much like Charles.



You lost in Vietnam because your army (top to bottom) were the wrong troops , in the wong place, fighting the wrong enemy for the wrong reasons (read the Bright Shining Lie) - accept it you lost. You can use all the sophistry at your disposal but you lost. You were defeated. You left your ally in the s&%#.

We were not beaten militarily. Like it or not, that is fact. The troops were superb for much of the war.

Wrong reason- yes.
Wrong place- yes.

Face it, neither nation (UK or US) has a sterling history. Neither has been able to develop a winning combination of invasion and occupation. Both have left places- tail between legs.

The American troops gaining all the negative notoriety are not regular Army or Marine. They are Guardsmen and Reservists clearly in need of some leavening. Let us remember though, that their forerunners went to Europe twice and the South Pacific in times of need just as unskilled and prevailed.

Back to Iraq- the Brits have the best of the place, no doubt. Shia majority, and a seaport- Crete? or Dunkirk 2?






posted on May, 11 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Just a quick response.

'Kansas tactics' - the AEF advanced guard trained and fought with the Brits and appreciated that after 3 years of warfare we'd developed an all-arms weapon system that was the only way to defeat a well-trained enemy in prepared positions.
Pershing was under orders to operate independently of the Brits and ignored the advice of the Brits, and his own officers with more experience, and used the same tactics they'd trained with - mass frontal assault (as used at the Somme in '16) with the same tragic results for those doing the assaulting.

The British army defeated the germans in '18 - it's true the germans were deeply worried about your resources and strength and that this was a major factor in their morale disintergrating in the final stages but we were, finally, the best army in the field and we beat them.

On Vietnam it's true you won the battles but as mostly you captured empty jungle they were hollow victories - as the enemy were guerillas they were very unlikely to engage in formal battles in the first place. You had the opportunity to use correct CT tactics and some in your military saw the true picture (Phillip Vann etc) but were shouted down by those who wanted a massive increase in the size of the army, R&D budgets etc etc as they saw Vietnam as an opportunity to get what they wanted. Hence 000's of troops attacking empty jungle. Again it was the grunts who suffered (predominantly african-american / hispanic, poorly-educated, half-trained guys led by inadequates like Caley) while your generals got promoted & sat in air-con palaces.

As you say neither UK or US has a sterling reputation but AFAIK we didn't bankrupt you, force you to give up your empire so we could develop our own in its place. If you were honest about this it'd be better but the US has imposed its own version of history and apparently our empire was 100% evil and yours is 100% benign - neither of these statements can be true!


Not anti-America, just this America



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
On Vietnam it's true you won the battles but as mostly you captured empty jungle they were hollow victories - as the enemy were guerillas they were very unlikely to engage in formal battles in the first place. You had the opportunity to use correct CT tactics and some in your military saw the true picture (Phillip Vann etc) but were shouted down by those who wanted a massive increase in the size of the army, R&D budgets etc etc as they saw Vietnam as an opportunity to get what they wanted. Hence 000's of troops attacking empty jungle. Again it was the grunts who suffered (predominantly african-american / hispanic, poorly-educated, half-trained guys led by inadequates like Caley) while your generals got promoted & sat in air-con palaces.

As you say neither UK or US has a sterling reputation but AFAIK we didn't bankrupt you, force you to give up your empire so we could develop our own in its place. If you were honest about this it'd be better but the US has imposed its own version of history and apparently our empire was 100% evil and yours is 100% benign - neither of these statements can be true!

On Vietnam- what you 'propose' was not the case. The guerillas you refer to were VC stooges (good killers sometimes) held in place by the NVA.

In the end, yes it went that way. By 1970 any enthusiasm was gone from the troops. The NVA hadn't beat us, we had. It wasn't the peaceniks either as many proclaim, it was us- in the field we just wanted to survive and rotate home. I come from a small place- in 1965/66 I attended six funerals of people I had gone to school with. By '68 I had lost count of the number from the letters I received.

The minorities you cite, again not the case until after '68. Always the poor or non-college kids though. Deferments became a game.

Tet '68 was not empty jungles.

Even though Calley was '68, it (Pinkville) was not the norm. The NVA were a powerful, committed and fully equipped/trained army as the Chinese found out later.

The NVA never beat the US in a major battle including Hue. However, the NVA can truly claim to have never lost a war!

By '69 the troops changed- their attitudes started down. Way down.

The Vann you cite I am unaware of- the one I remember:

Lt. Col. John Paul Vann, one of America's leading practitioners in Vietnam, put it, "Guerilla warfare requires the utmost discrimination in killing. Every time we killed an innocent person we lost ground in our battle to win the people."


By '70 we were losing a lot of ground. There were many, many people that thought the same way. The ones that made the headlines are (sadly) the other ones.

In '73 we left. The war was 'at a lull.'


We shamefully did not live up to the terms of the peace agreement. Even though the NVA did not either, it gives us no excuse.

Now to history of evil and benign-

We (US) have not been beneficial to others. The American Indians, Philippines, Vietnam, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama- the list goes on and on.

We are no better than the British as empire builders. We just (luckily so far) didn't have the public backing. The Brits raped every country they went into as we have likewise done. The Brits claimed it was for 'empire,' we claim democracy.

The bankruptcy that hit Britain has come across 'the pond.' We know it and are doing the same thing- wringing our hands.

The true sinister culprit in all this is a cabal of bankers- London/New York.

Both nations have a lot of fine people in them, the leaders almost always seem lacking. Maybe we get what we deserve after all.

The first national bank in the US was formed by the British to pay the Revolutionary War debt!

- - -
As to Pershing, I'll remember that 'Kansas tactics.' Like I said, he was not one of my favorites.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
JoeDoaks,

America took away our empire?
**looks under box to see gibralter still there** nope still there.....honuestly not tangenting away from the other like 1/4 of the world colonies we lost.....


Also america has a guilt complex??
Can I qoute you on this??


Regards from your "mighty" allies across the pond.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Also america has a guilt complex??
Can I qoute you on this??

Sure- it is true and fact. The sad thing is that 'we' don't know which complex to have on any given day

After WW II it began-
    exuberance at escaping destruction
    being on the winning side (soon to be replaced with being 'the winner' syndrome)
    shift from war to peace-time economy that worked
    new toys and consumer goods
    feelings of self-righteousness

America was on a roll.

Korea put a major dent in all these good feelings. A shocking reminder that the world was still a truly violent place.

After Korea, America grew so fast and so easily economically that we embarrassed ourselves.

Look at our houses and cars (automobiles):
3 bedroom, 2 bath, front and back yard,



Chrome everywhere.

We had to be right because everyone owed us money


Somewhere in the late '50's reality set in. (the beginning of guilt) We were like a drunk being made to go to church, we felt bad about waking up.



First published in 1958, The Ugly American
became a runaway national bestseller for its slashing exposé of American arrogance, incompetence, and corruption in Southeast Asia.

The Eisenhower presidency had shielded us.

1960-
Kennedy and Nixon woke us up. Cuba, Berlin, French Indochina (no Vietnam on most maps), the Soviets (not Russians anymore), De Gaulle, Martin Luther King- and more.

Kennedy informed us that the world did not lay before us, he awakened and inspired us then disappeared. The Cuban Missile Crises had been more like a bad movie, Kennedy's assassination was so shocking it was beyond comprehension. When we landed on the moon the visionary was absent.

We were back to being just a big country and geography started to matter again.

James Bond became our venture into the future. Movies changed from the 'all is wonderful' to 'danger exists.'

It went on. A growing feeling of being naked crept upon us and we realized we didn't live in la-la land (Camelot) and the world did not love us.

So we have gone since. The Republicans scare us and the Democrats embarrass us. The world does not love us and we don't know why


De Gaulle had more impact on a larger section of Americans than anyone other than Kennedy. We couldn't understand him. He 'owed' us. He wouldn't follow orders!

Enough of this. I am sure the 'bore' has set in


The troops in Iraq-





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join