The media should not be allowed into the war zone or if they are they cannot be showing pics of dead bodies people would be better off if they did not open their TV and see people getting killed or mothers seeing their sons/daughters dead or in danger most people cant handle war is not pretty but it makes it even worse when you are a soldier and there are cameras recording your every move.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The media should not be allowed into the war zone or if they are they cannot be showing pics of dead bodies people would be better off if they did not open their TV and see people getting killed or mothers seeing their sons/daughters dead or in danger most people cant handle war is not pretty but it makes it even worse when you are a soldier and there are cameras recording your every move.

I totally disagree.. There are many people sitting in their nice soft chairs while there are people on both sides dieing... Why hide the public away from what is happening? People are dieing, it is not like in the movies. There is a reality to the war that people need to understand. Americans are coddled too much when it comes to the real effects of war. Let`s just make everyone a number and put no face to it. You need a reality check. BTW: I am an American and did my time in the military. But, facts are facts.

Maybe if people saw the REAL effects of war for 24 hours straight, maybe then we could make this world a better place. As it is, they can still turn off the NEWS and tune into their latest Reality TV shows that are nothing compared to the reality in Iraq right now. It should be mandatory for people to turn on their TVs. The poor innocent people in Iraq have it at their front doors, the kids and many many innocent people are dying. They do not need cameras as it happens right in front of them.
They also do not get the luxury of turning off their TV sets and denying it is happening.

We can talk tactics all you want, but is is the people DIEING that is the problem. Death is all there is in war. When you see it ouside of the TV and see it in person, your life will change alot, unless you are heartless. Remember.... and I cannot stress it enough at real life DEATHS occur, not just the name or a pawn in a game named Lt. Smith was killed. A life was taken that had a family, friends, loved ones. This goes for both sides in this war.

Think of this too.... DEAD BODIES ARE WAR.... That is all it is. Kill enough of the enemy to win.
Everyone needs to wake up to the REALITY of war.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by JCMinJapan]

It makes me angry that people think they know what war is and that many would try to prevent people from knowing it.

Then again, ignorance is bliss, right?

So if the US gets attacked no one wants to go to war because they know that they will die or that war is ugly what we are going to become some scared little...every one knows war is bad but why do you have to publics it on the evening news if your so curious what war is like then join the military but I think there should be restrictions to what the public can see.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
but I think there should be restrictions to what the public can see.

No offense but thats BS! If the people want to see give them the option of whether or not to see. Ok well I anyone wants to discuss that further I'll post it in the mud pit. Anywho lets just give people the option of whether they want to join the armed forces or not. Then we could have not only more money for training/equipment but a least the soldiers would be willing to be there (Another reason we lost it in Vietnam).

Originally posted by JCMinJapan

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The media should not be allowed into the war zone or if they are they cannot be showing pics of dead bodies people would be better off if they did not open their TV and see people getting killed or mothers seeing their sons/daughters dead or in danger most people cant handle war is not pretty but it makes it even worse when you are a soldier and there are cameras recording your every move.

I totally disagree.. There are many people sitting in their nice soft chairs while there are people on both sides dieing... Why hide the public away from what is happening? People are dieing, it is not like in the movies. There is a reality to the war that people need to understand. Americans are coddled too much when it comes to the real effects of war. Let`s just make everyone a number and put no face to it. You need a reality check. BTW: I am an American and did my time in the military. But, facts are facts.

Maybe if people saw the REAL effects of war for 24 hours straight, maybe then we could make this world a better place. As it is, they can still turn off the NEWS and tune into their latest Reality TV shows that are nothing compared to the reality in Iraq right now. It should be mandatory for people to turn on their TVs. The poor innocent people in Iraq have it at their front doors, the kids and many many innocent people are dying. They do not need cameras as it happens right in front of them.
They also do not get the luxury of turning off their TV sets and denying it is happening.

We can talk tactics all you want, but is is the people DIEING that is the problem. Death is all there is in war. When you see it ouside of the TV and see it in person, your life will change alot, unless you are heartless. Remember.... and I cannot stress it enough at real life DEATHS occur, not just the name or a pawn in a game named Lt. Smith was killed. A life was taken that had a family, friends, loved ones. This goes for both sides in this war.

Think of this too.... DEAD BODIES ARE WAR.... That is all it is. Kill enough of the enemy to win.
Everyone needs to wake up to the REALITY of war.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by JCMinJapan]

There`s another thread on hear showing an Iraqi being shot.People don`t need to see these images it is counter productive.War although bad is a necessary tool.

I agree with weirdo because the public sees the images of enemy soldiers getting shot and killed then they want our troops out of there and the humanitarian BS begins so the commanders have to worry about looking nice on camera when they should be focusing on winning the war no matter how ugly it gets!

You know sweatmonicaIdo, you sound just like me, going into the Marine Corps to become a Marine officer, then you want to program videogames or something afterwards, I almost fell down when I read that in another post, as those are my EXACT plans too.

Anyways though, one tip, you mention about confidence; you need to act as if you are West Point material while in whatever school you're going to (to yourself, not others); that is the mindset of the officer.

General Patton, one of the greatest generals ever, if not possibly the greatest, attended West Point and graduated at like the lowest in his class, and he had to stay an extra year for math. But he still worked very hard. Math just wasn't his thing. He was a brilliant tactician, though, and he knew all the classical works of literature. He was a great leader too, and a real athlete, competing in the Olympics and finishing with a very respectable position.

And another thing; only so many Marine officers can lead platoons like that in the infantry, at least from what I have read. You'd better make sure you are confident and a leader-type, and Johnny-on-the-spot while at The Basic School, otherwise, if your degree in college is like in electrical engineering technology, you may end up fixing radios for the Marine Corps.

Not trying to sound critical, but just thought I'd mention these things since my plans are the same as yours (this is stuff I have researched and read up on).

I too plan to be an infantry officer, or ground intelligence officer (one of the two), since I am hoping to go Force Recon a little later.

I hear there are itching for officers in the Marine Corps. these days though, so work hard and be the absolute best you can be. Get into that mindset.

I always liked George C. Scott's speech in the beginning of the movie "Patton," when he's like:

"You know, by god, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against, by god I do! We're not just going to shoot the bastards; we're going to cut out their living guts, and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hunn bastards, by the bushim!"

"Now, there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages that we're 'holding our position.' We're not holding anything....let the Hunn do that. We are advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy! We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're gonna kick 'em in the ass. We're gonna kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're gonna go through him like crap through a goose!!"

I always laugh with that speech, cuz imagine the uproar if a current general gave a speech like that with the words "raghead" or whatever, in place of Hunn, in regards to the Iraqi insurgents right now!!

Patton was very politically incorrect though. It is believed he was assassinated cuz he kept saying the U.S. should have advanced into the Soviet Union and crushed them before they could build any power; he said, "Don't trust the Russians." Washington didn't like this though, plus of course the country was tired warfare-wise very much, so.....of course, though, what happened right after the war? The Cold War.

I wonder how history would have judged this is the U.S. HAD listened to Patton, and went into the Soviet Union and managed to crush any power they could make.....then there'd probably be lots of history books saying how the Soviet Union never would have posed a threat, blah blah blah, interesting how history turns out.

By the way, I don't fully agree with Patton's speech like that, in regards to the Iraqis right now, cuz they aren't a force trying to take over the planet the way the "Hunns" were, but in reference to the situation then, I think it was very cool.

Oh yeah, the intelligence effort has been really amazing so far. (Anyone got a dart board).....It could do with funding to improve, but you still need boots on the ground and you just dont have enough to go around.

16 million.....a bit obssessive....how about three of four million instead of the current two (?) million. With a bit more realism in the training and the indoctrination....."You are not here to impress girls/men, qualify for a better civilian job, a funded college position or a foot up the rung in the corporate ladder!....You are here to serve the military, learn to be a soldier or officer, and follow (sometimes #dumb ones from the politicians) orders OR YOU WILL GET THE TOE CAP OF MY BOOT UP YOUR ARSE!"......sorry flash back to a couple of Regular Army RSMs Ive had over my six years.

I do recall an Article in "The Navy" the journal of the Naval League of Australia about the post Reagan decline of the US Navy stating that the current fleet had briefly declined for a time to less than 290 vessels ( with projected growth in the Amphib and Sealift forces). but it also stated it peaked in the late 80s at over 500 vessels....relatively an ace of target....first.

Unfortunately I recently gave my collection of late 90s quarterly issues to fill a few gaps in the 60 year old collection of the Maritime Museum I volunteer at, So I can't check the exact figure....It did indicate it was over 500.

Maybe if the Army and Marines went back to some of it's basics tech wise, and the Air Force and Navy made do with less expensive new items and cut the civilian and military beauracracy a bit you could reasonably fund it with some increases in the budget.

Australia has the same problem.

I also agree with those pointing the PLA is not reducing because it can't compete. Its re-organising with better formations and equipment and training, getting rid of dead wood. It is still bloody large though (when you only have a standing army of 24,000 everyone else in your region seems bloody large by comparison).

Some people may note with China's amazing year to year economic growth, her defence budget is in double digit annual growth and is a double digit percentage of its GNP. Unlike Australia's which has declined from 3% to 1.6% of GNP since 1983, despite a doubling of the defence budget since then, and a growth of our GNP from $360 AUD billion pa to $860 AUD billion pa. Budgets for domestic programes in Australia have almost doubled in many cases over the years, while our defence budget has experienced something like only 15% real growth.

I have seen these figures in various publications and so I think I am trying to be conservative here recalling them.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by craigandrew]

Here's my opinion of the subject, I think the tech were building is going to be more efficent, but cost a lot less. So I think if some of that extra money goes to defense, we should downsize, and focus the money on training and weapon systems. The more effiecent the soldiers you have, the less you need. I do know we need troops for certain hot spots like North Korea, and for guarding embassy's, but still I think in the terms of fighting if you have better fighters you don't need as much and you can spend more on other goverment programs.

But we don't want to rely on machines to much, electronics can be screwed with, human soldiers can't.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by blue cell]

Originally posted by blue cell
But we don't want to rely on machines to much, electronics can be screwed with, huan soldiers can't.

they are humans too... they are just cloned humans hehehe... they are cloned humans in armor hehehe... no machines... it's the best army out there...

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Patton was very politically incorrect though. It is believed he was assassinated cuz he kept saying the U.S. should have advanced into the Soviet Union and crushed them before they could build any power; he said, "Don't trust the Russians." Washington didn't like this though, plus of course the country was tired warfare-wise very much, so.....of course, though, what happened right after the war? The Cold War.

To a question whether the Nazis were just a political party, like the democrats and republicans, Patton answered "yes". He also thought the jews were responsible for what the Nazis did to them as he considered them inferior. So you're correct that he was pretty politically incorrect, but he wasn't assassinated, just had a traffic incident (his car somehow managed to get under a train if not mistaking).

On the issue of the US military not being big enough: with thousands of troops occupying Europe even after the Soviet threat is gone for over a decade, I find that assertion pretty amusing. It is also evidence that the US is NOT going to leave Iraq even if all terrorists around the globe are somehow killed. Anyone who believes that the US will go home if the Iraqis get their gear together, that the US is not imperialist and that it wasn't about oil, is just plainly naive if you ask me.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Simon666]

Well i ain't so sure about it... The Finnish air-force has 112 combat prooven fighters, the USAAF has 3000+, and that was just one exaple...

Unless you're planning to go against the US, why would a comparison between the number of combat proven fighters between the Finnish and US airforce matter?

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Simon666]

Anyone who believes that the US will go home if the Iraqis get their gear together, that the US is not imperialist and that it wasn't about oil, is just plainly naive if you ask me.

The US is building permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course were going to have like 5000 troops and perhaps tanks, helicopters and air bases in Iraqi .It wont be anything like the 135K we have there now, as long as they don't get killed the public wont mind as we have thousands of troops stationed oversees every day.

Originally posted by Simon666
Unless you're planning to go against the US, why would a comparison between the number of combat proven fighters between the Finnish and US airforce matter?

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Simon666]

I'am just trying to prove that Finland who is the neighbour of "the great American enemy" Russia, manages well just with that little planes... And besides Finland has about 275 000 soldiers, america has over 1 000 000, I guess they'll manage just fine with the military that they have now...