It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have you heard what's been happening to the US military?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Now, Now. Easy Boy - if you are going to carry all the burden on your shoulders only, you are going to break your back! I really like it when running out of Arguments, you quickly turn to the good old "we saved you in the WW2" speech. Like US soldiers were the ONLY ones to Sacrifice their lives in this War.


Good grief! Do you actually read what others post or do you just skim the text and fill in the blanks with your agenda?

I simply said that the count of 2,000 soldiers lost is a far cry from the thousands lost in WW II when people let the evil get out of hand before taking it on. No one (Except you) claimed that the US carried the world on it's back. I clearly stated that the number lost was a little over 400,000 and that the number was even far greater when all countries fatalities were counted.

Let me spell it out more clearly. You are harping about the 2,000 mark as if you are comparing it to the number of fatalaties from unicycle accidents. My point was to pull up an actual benchmark and take note what a real war will cost you if evil and tyranny is not kept in check. Although great, the sacrafice is a far cry from what we would face if we let things run their course, and left dictators in charge because it's all happening "over there".


*Disclamer. No attempt was made in this or any post to suggest that the US carried any battle, fight, or skirmish alone. It is not even suggested that a US marine can load a gun, or tie his shoes without allied help.




posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Good grief! Do you actually read what others post or do you just skim the text and fill in the blanks with your agenda?

I might Misunderstood your post.

My Bad.



I simply said that the count of 2,000 soldiers lost is a far cry from the thousands lost in WW II when people let the evil get out of hand before taking it on. No one (Except you) claimed that the US carried the world on it's back. I clearly stated that the number lost was a little over 400,000 and that the number was even far greater when all countries fatalities were counted.

Well trust me - it happens all the time on this Board, that the pro-war crowd starts to bring out the guns with the "we-saved-your-butt-in-ww2" speech, and that if it wasn't for the US we would all speak German.

You have to Understand that WW2 was a WorldWide Conflict, and that War in Iraq is a limited one. Again, the Ultimate price is being payed by the Civilans casualties, which nobody counts anyway.

Why not?

When Headlines arrive in the News saying, "100 Insurgents Killed", and then when you read the entire article, you realize, it was 100 SUSPECTED Insurgents killed - meaning that it could be 80 Civilans or more. Still, nobody cares. If you ask me, the American Public is too Narrowminded, and just looks at the cost of War that the US soldiers pay - and quickly forget, that Iraq is home to the Iraqi people, they live there, they die there and they pay the PRICE for this War.

Is it the Price of Democracy?

Or Price of Greed?



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Soljah , how many sides are in your version of the iraq war?

The US and insurgents?
The US alone?
The Coalition?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Soljah , how many sides are in your version of the iraq war?

The US and insurgents?
The US alone?
The Coalition?

There are TWO sides in every War:

- the Attackers or the Occupying Army
- the Defenders or the Rebel Army



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I'd say that there are far more than two sides in the Iraq war.

There is the Coalition (the US, allies, and cooperating Iraqi's - mostly Shia and Kurds), the Ba'athists, the Sunni Islamists, the Shia "Mehdi Army", and dozens of smaller subgroups.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
There are TWO sides in every War:

- the Attackers or the Occupying Army
- the Defenders or the Rebel Army

But you yourself have said that alquida doesnt exist except in the CIA minds...so therefore the war on terror against them is against the CIA?

So the CIA is fighting itself?

There are always more than 2 sides...think about it...just because two sides agree on thing doesnt mean they are on the side.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Well trust me - it happens all the time on this Board, that the pro-war crowd starts to bring out the guns with the "we-saved-your-butt-in-ww2" speech, and that if it wasn't for the US we would all speak German.


LOL, without the US's help, you would certainly be speaking German. After all the US was the arsenal of democracy - without that Europe would have been under the yoke of the Nazi's. You can't dispute that unless you ignore the facts.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, without the US's help, you would certainly be speaking German. After all the US was the arsenal of democracy - without that Europe would have been under the yoke of the Nazi's. You can't dispute that unless you ignore the facts.

Hmmm... I think the Soviet Union was pretty close to Defeating the Germany Army all by themselves, and if you ask me, they are the REAL Liberators of the Larger part of Europe. But it is only Natural for Every American to think, that without USA Help we would all speak German here - your EGO lets you do that.



The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II, and indeed has little parallel in the history of human conflict. It involved more land combat than all other World War II fronts combined. The Red Army and other forces of the USSR inflicted about 80% of losses suffered by German land forces (Germany's strongest armed force comprised of the Heer and the Waffen-SS) in World War II or about 3 million soldiers. The USSR, for its part, lost as many as 25 million lives.

The Eastern Front was unparalleled for its high intensity, ferocity, and brutality. The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front. It was by far the deadliest single front in World War II, with over 4 million deaths on the Axis Forces, Soviet battle deaths were about 7 to 8 million, and civilian deaths were about 14 million.

en.wikipedia.org...

Looks to me, like the Red Army Destroyed more then 3/4 of the German Army?

And I don't mean Bombing Raids, like that of Dresden.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, without the US's help, you would certainly be speaking German. After all the US was the arsenal of democracy - without that Europe would have been under the yoke of the Nazi's. You can't dispute that unless you ignore the facts.


And with out the european allies you wouldnt of had a base to take europe...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, without the US's help, you would certainly be speaking German. After all the US was the arsenal of democracy - without that Europe would have been under the yoke of the Nazi's. You can't dispute that unless you ignore the facts.


And with out the european allies you wouldnt of had a base to take europe...


LOL, European allies ? I thought only one European country stood alone in 1941 - Great Britain - well several I guess, but Wales and Scotland were piddly.
Hell the Soviets ( with US supplies ) were largely responsible for taking on the Germans, not the West
Europe would never have been taken if the Soviets weren't involved. The West contributed less than 20% to the German defeat.

Anyway if the US had to start from nothing we'd probab;y be calling the EU the USE - United States of Europe.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, without the US's help, you would certainly be speaking German. After all the US was the arsenal of democracy - without that Europe would have been under the yoke of the Nazi's. You can't dispute that unless you ignore the facts.

Hmmm... I think the Soviet Union was pretty close to Defeating the Germany Army all by themselves, and if you ask me, they are the REAL Liberators of the Larger part of Europe. But it is only Natural for Every American to think, that without USA Help we would all speak German here - your EGO lets you do that.


Gee, what a surprise, once more a complete lack of knowlege. The US supplied the Soviets with an enourmous amount of supplies, without which the Soviets would have been on their knees. Look up US Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union.
For instance if you knew about this you'd nkow that the US supplied the Soviets with almost all of their trucks around 400 000 Studebakers, without which the Soviet Army wouldn't have been mobile. they supplied water proof telegraph cable, something which the Soviets couldn't ,make themselves etc. Not to mention millions of tonnes of essential war supplies and strategic commodities.
So yes, without US lend lease aid, the Soviets would have been beaten.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, European allies ? I thought only one European country stood alone in 1941 - Great Britain - well several I guess, but Wales and Scotland were piddly.

Piddly?
You might want to ask the argylls if they felt...piddly.



Hell the Soviets ( with US supplies ) were largely responsible for taking on the Germans, not the West
Europe would never have been taken if the Soviets weren't involved. The West contributed less than 20% to the German defeat.

That is true, the soviets did do most of the work, but without the UK as a staging base the western front and the liberation of france , etc would never of happened.


Anyway if the US had to start from nothing we'd probab;y be calling the EU the USE - United States of Europe.

Nope, german U-boats most likely would have sunk the fleet and the german lufftwaffe would have laid siege to the fleet..
Unless your trying to say that the US carrier fleet alone had more aircraft than the german lufftewaffe...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Pointless argument here. Why do you think they were called the Allies? It was a team effort with everyone contributing as best as they could. Russians contributed more men, and some countries contributed more supplies. You're just dragging this off topic.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Nope, german U-boats most likely would have sunk the fleet and the german lufftwaffe would have laid siege to the fleet..
Unless your trying to say that the US carrier fleet alone had more aircraft than the german lufftewaffe...


Well, I wouldn't expect the US to invade england directly. I would expect an Operation Torch style landing in North Africa. A place where they could build up forces. Also the US thought GB was going to capitulate so that's why they ordered the massive B-36 bomber.

IMO, I think the US would have just written Europe off and forged ties with the new master of Europe
Actually I'm sure they would of, especially with some key americans having major investments in Germany.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I guess we have gone WAY off topic with the WW2 chit-chat there.

SO,

What do you people have to say regarding that...

”...sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths’ need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.”?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Im somewhat confused as to what the topic actually is?

Is it the legitimacy of the Iraq war coming into question?

Is it whats happening to the US Military?

Is it how USA helped Russia be a "key player" in WW2?



Only speaking from my standpoint, if I take these in their respective parts I would have to say:


Iraq War - MY Interpretation
Bush: We're Fighting to Eliminate the Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Experts: Umm, George Dubya, we didnt find any
Bush: Err ok, Im sorry I meant we're fighting to liberate Iraq from it's hostile regime!
The People: Our Men and Women have to die for that when the only vested interest is oil?
Bush: Drat the luck, Ok people we're fighting in Iraq the Global War on Terror!! (There! no one can dispute that this COULD be a reality!!
)



The US Military - My Interpretation
They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do


How USA helped Russia be a "key player" in WW2 - My Interpretation
Could you repeat the question please?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Actually the number of recruits from lower income brackets seems to be decreasing. Recent results actually show that more upper and middle class citizens are joining the military. The overall dispersion seems to mirror the general US population at this time, but there has been an obvious drop-off in the poor neighborhoods enlistment numbers since 9/11.


Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11 - Center for Data Analysis
We found that recruits tend to come from mid­dle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income dis­tribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population.
external image


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by dbates]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well, I wouldn't expect the US to invade england directly. I would expect an Operation Torch style landing in North Africa. A place where they could build up forces. Also the US thought GB was going to capitulate so that's why they ordered the massive B-36 bomber.

IMO, I think the US would have just written Europe off and forged ties with the new master of Europe
Actually I'm sure they would of, especially with some key americans having major investments in Germany.

And leave the rest of the UK? Fair enough mate, I'm A ok with that plan (sorry lads but you dont get offers like that often..) anyhow yea hI think we have gone a bit off topic..



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
So,
What about these Articles:


Washington Post

Youths in Rural U.S. Are Drawn To Military
More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent).

Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Counterpunch

Insurgency Increases; US Military Recruits Fall
The U.S. Army has missed its recruiting goals for the last three months. On Friday, May 20 they stopped recruiting to retrain recruiters who were misleading and threatening potential recruits. At the same time the resistance in Iraq is growing. Is the U.S. military more successful in recruiting for the resistance than it is for the U.S. Army?


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Guardian

US lowers standards in army numbers crisis
The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was "a matter of great concern" in an army at war. It told officers: "We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3,000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations."

The latest controversy comes amid a growing recruitment and retention crisis in the US military. Last month the army announced that it was 6,659 soldiers short of its recruitment targets for the year so far. On Wednesday, the department of defence withheld the latest figures, a move seen by most commentators as heralding more bad news.

The military's target is 80,000 new recruits this year, but the army only managed 73% of its target in February, 68% in March and 57% in April, forcing the expansion of a pilot programme offering 15-month active duty enlistments, rather than the usual four years.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Washington Post

Steady Drop in Black Army Recruits

The percentage of new Army recruits who are black has slipped dramatically over the past five years, reflecting a lack of support among African Americans for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as an economy that is providing more enticing options at home, according to Army studies, military experts and recruiters.

Since fiscal 2000, when African Americans made up 23.5 percent of Army recruits, their numbers have fallen steadily to less than 14 percent in this fiscal year, officials said. A similar trend has reduced the number of female Army recruits, who have dropped from 22 percent in 2000 to about 17 percent of this year's new soldiers.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Common Dreams

U.S. Army Struggles to Coax Recruits Amid Iraq War
WASHINGTON - Staff Sgt. Richard Guzman is on the front lines of one of the U.S. Army's toughest battles in years, and he's not in Iraq.

He's an Army recruiter trying to coax young men and women into volunteering to serve at a time when U.S. ground forces are engaged in a bloody guerrilla war halfway around the world.

"To me, recruiting used to be easy. Right now, you really have to hunt for those ones who really want to do it (Army service)," said Guzman, who recruits in New York City's Harlem section.

Nearly two years into an Iraq war that has left more than 1,500 U.S. troops dead and another 11,200 wounded, recruiters like Guzman are having to work hard as the Army strives to sign up 80,000 recruits this year to replace soldiers leaving the service.

The Army in February, for the first time in nearly five years, failed to achieve its monthly recruiting goal. It is in danger of missing its annual recruiting target for the first time since 1999.

Recruiting for the Army's reserve component -- the National Guard and Army Reserve -- is suffering even more as the Pentagon relies heavily on these part-time soldiers to maintain troop levels in Iraq. The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10 percent behind, and the Guard is 26 percent short.

The Marine Corps, the other service providing ground forces in Iraq, has its own difficulties.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

And here is the Latest one, from 11th November:


UPI

U.S. 'can't maintain Iraq troop levels'
nless the Bush administration significantly cuts American troop levels in Iraq next year, the U.S. military's roughly 140,000-strong presence there will become a detriment to America's national security, according to a report released this week.

In the latest instance of foreign policy experts calling for the Bush administration to set a timetable for U.S. troop reductions in Iraq, the Center for American Progress, a think tank .ed by President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, Wednesday said the future of America's military hangs in the balance.

"It has become clear that if we still have 140,000 ground troops in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer army," said the a report written by the center's Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. Korb served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.

The United States must reduce troop levels in Iraq, ideally with 80,000 leaving the country in 2006 and most of the rest leaving by the end of 2007, to avoid losing a broader "struggle against violent extremists" that goes beyond Iraq, the report says.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


All of them Signs, that US Military is in Trouble in Keeping the Soldiers on the Front as the Pentagon Demands.

[edit on 15/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
There is never enough troops for what you want.
Thats the one fact that never changes in war.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join