User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:03:44 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That gif perfectly sum up this Administrations handling of Iraq. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That gif perfectly sum up this Administrations handling of Iraq. It sums up their handling of anything and everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:08:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Biggest problem is that we really don't have a clue how to work this sort of thing. We really don't.
The Brits do, now--Take the various colonial forces they set up, and how they went about doing it. Whether you're talking the Jordanian Arab Legion, the Gurkhas, or the Sikhs, the Brits knew how to co-opt and build excellent indigenous forces. There are a number of reasons why they were successful, but part of it is that they selected potential candidates from "warrior" minority groups, and then went from there. Part of the reason Iraq is so fucked up? The warrior sect that the British selected there were the Sunni tribes, who they put in charge because the other ethnic groups in Iraq were a bunch of fuck-up primitives at the time. Legacy of that is that the Iraqi Shia still can't put together a decent organized force to this day. They may not be capable of it--Look at how screwed up the Iranian Shia are, when it comes to military matters. Truthfully, I think we ought to be subcontracting out this sort of thing to the Brits, and then follow along to see how they do it. We never did this shit very well, and every time we tried in the past, we blew it. I think that South Korea may be our only successful try at it, and that's not really accurate, either--The ROK Army has a deeper foundation under it than the one we built, namely that of the Imperial Japanese Army. Where do you think all the brutality in ROK ranks came from, anyway? They sure didn't get that shit from our pussy-ass Doolittle Board-neutered Task Force Smith Army of that era. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:09:38 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Biggest problem is that we really don't have a clue how to work this sort of thing. We really don't. The Brits do, now--Take the various colonial forces they set up, and how they went about doing it. Whether you're talking the Jordanian Arab Legion, the Gurkhas, or the Sikhs, the Brits knew how to co-opt and build excellent indigenous forces. There are a number of reasons why they were successful, but part of it is that they selected potential candidates from "warrior" minority groups, and then went from there. Part of the reason Iraq is so fucked up? The warrior sect that the British selected there were the Sunni tribes, who they put in charge because the other ethnic groups in Iraq were a bunch of fuck-up primitives at the time. Legacy of that is that the Iraqi Shia still can't put together a decent organized force to this day. They may not be capable of it--Look at how screwed up the Iranian Shia are, when it comes to military matters. Truthfully, I think we ought to be subcontracting out this sort of thing to the Brits, and then follow along to see how they do it. We never did this shit very well, and every time we tried in the past, we blew it. I think that South Korea may be our only successful try at it, and that's not really accurate, either--The ROK Army has a deeper foundation under it than the one we built, namely that of the Imperial Japanese Army. Where do you think all the brutality in ROK ranks came from, anyway? They sure didn't get that shit from our pussy-ass Doolittle Board-neutered Task Force Smith Army of that era. You get double points for referencing the Doolittle Board. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:17:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps it is time to accept that fact that America creates young men and women willing to step up to do what is right, and that our freedom loving gun, clinging culture perhaps does create something intangible that is superior to other nations. Clapping clapping love this quote ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:18:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Like the fucking Russians are any better at it! http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/10/staggering-failure-us-trained--2014101593541838433.html As ISIL fighters continue to gain ground in Iraq, expanding the borders of their self-proclaimed caliphate, even with the US-led coalition's aerial bombardment underway, the question pundits ought to be asking is what the Pentagon has to show for the vast amounts of money it has spent towards "training" foreign troops. Let's face it: for an army that has received at least $26 billion - or up to $40 billion if Russian estimates are to be believed - worth of training by the US, the Iraqi army turned out to be totally unprepared when confronted with the ISIL onslaught. In June, around 800 to 1,000 ISIL fighters entered Iraq from Syria, sending tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers running for their lives in the west of the country, leaving their hardware and even small arms behind. That's a pretty damning image of an army that had been trained by the best of the best - the mighty US armed forces - at considerable cost to US taxpayers. There are not going to fight for a country that they don't believe in or even if its care is real. They are Muslims first, Then type of Muslim, Then tribe Then family Countyry is irrelevant to them. Ukess its whay Mohammad, or (insert some other rag head) says it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:28:48 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Biggest problem is that we really don't have a clue how to work this sort of thing. We really don't. The Brits do, now--Take the various colonial forces they set up, and how they went about doing it. Whether you're talking the Jordanian Arab Legion, the Gurkhas, or the Sikhs, the Brits knew how to co-opt and build excellent indigenous forces. There are a number of reasons why they were successful, but part of it is that they selected potential candidates from "warrior" minority groups, and then went from there. Part of the reason Iraq is so fucked up? The warrior sect that the British selected there were the Sunni tribes, who they put in charge because the other ethnic groups in Iraq were a bunch of fuck-up primitives at the time. Legacy of that is that the Iraqi Shia still can't put together a decent organized force to this day. They may not be capable of it--Look at how screwed up the Iranian Shia are, when it comes to military matters. Truthfully, I think we ought to be subcontracting out this sort of thing to the Brits, and then follow along to see how they do it. We never did this shit very well, and every time we tried in the past, we blew it. I think that South Korea may be our only successful try at it, and that's not really accurate, either--The ROK Army has a deeper foundation under it than the one we built, namely that of the Imperial Japanese Army. Where do you think all the brutality in ROK ranks came from, anyway? They sure didn't get that shit from our pussy-ass Doolittle Board-neutered Task Force Smith Army of that era. You fail at actual history. The British trained colonial forces were good because they had British officers and NCOs to start with. During WW2 the British found, to their amazement, that the "non-martial" castes/tribes/races of India produced soldiers that were nearly as good as the Sikhs and Rajputs - the minor differences in performance is easily attributable to the fact that the new units had little tradition and collective experience to fall back upon. The secret to the British success was forming the initial units with actual British NCOs and Officers, and then selecting the most able (note: NOT the most politically connected) natives to become NCOs and, eventually officers. You will note, this process takes a LOT longer to build an Army than just picking the meanest tribe and giving them rifles. Also note that the British never trained a particularly large colonial army, especially in relation to the size of their Empire. Hint: How many Indian divisions served in WW2, from a population much larger than the USSR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:03:50 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You fail at actual history. The British trained colonial forces were good because they had British officers and NCOs to start with. During WW2 the British found, to their amazement, that the "non-martial" castes/tribes/races of India produced soldiers that were nearly as good as the Sikhs and Rajputs - the minor differences in performance is easily attributable to the fact that the new units had little tradition and collective experience to fall back upon. The secret to the British success was forming the initial units with actual British NCOs and Officers, and then selecting the most able (note: NOT the most politically connected) natives to become NCOs and, eventually officers. You will note, this process takes a LOT longer to build an Army than just picking the meanest tribe and giving them rifles. Also note that the British never trained a particularly large colonial army, especially in relation to the size of their Empire. Hint: How many Indian divisions served in WW2, from a population much larger than the USSR? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Biggest problem is that we really don't have a clue how to work this sort of thing. We really don't. The Brits do, now--Take the various colonial forces they set up, and how they went about doing it. Whether you're talking the Jordanian Arab Legion, the Gurkhas, or the Sikhs, the Brits knew how to co-opt and build excellent indigenous forces. There are a number of reasons why they were successful, but part of it is that they selected potential candidates from "warrior" minority groups, and then went from there. Part of the reason Iraq is so fucked up? The warrior sect that the British selected there were the Sunni tribes, who they put in charge because the other ethnic groups in Iraq were a bunch of fuck-up primitives at the time. Legacy of that is that the Iraqi Shia still can't put together a decent organized force to this day. They may not be capable of it--Look at how screwed up the Iranian Shia are, when it comes to military matters. Truthfully, I think we ought to be subcontracting out this sort of thing to the Brits, and then follow along to see how they do it. We never did this shit very well, and every time we tried in the past, we blew it. I think that South Korea may be our only successful try at it, and that's not really accurate, either--The ROK Army has a deeper foundation under it than the one we built, namely that of the Imperial Japanese Army. Where do you think all the brutality in ROK ranks came from, anyway? They sure didn't get that shit from our pussy-ass Doolittle Board-neutered Task Force Smith Army of that era. You fail at actual history. The British trained colonial forces were good because they had British officers and NCOs to start with. During WW2 the British found, to their amazement, that the "non-martial" castes/tribes/races of India produced soldiers that were nearly as good as the Sikhs and Rajputs - the minor differences in performance is easily attributable to the fact that the new units had little tradition and collective experience to fall back upon. The secret to the British success was forming the initial units with actual British NCOs and Officers, and then selecting the most able (note: NOT the most politically connected) natives to become NCOs and, eventually officers. You will note, this process takes a LOT longer to build an Army than just picking the meanest tribe and giving them rifles. Also note that the British never trained a particularly large colonial army, especially in relation to the size of their Empire. Hint: How many Indian divisions served in WW2, from a population much larger than the USSR? You miss the point, and your history is wrong. The British built those units, and quite often did it off the basis of the martial race's original armed forces--Take a look at where the various regiments in the Indian Army actually got started: Many were co-opted elements of the various statelets that were taken over by the East India Company, and then the Empire. As well, the point you make about the "non-martial races" pretty much goes to show that the British have a better handle on building forces from the indigenous population than we do. And, that it takes time, and a commitment to long-term effort, something we were not willing to do in either South Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. We'd probably do better if we acknowledged that we need what amounts to a neo-colonial effort in these countries, and committed ourselves to a multi-generational effort. Because, that's about the only way it's going to work. You will note that the first step the Brits took in just about every colony they set up was to find the local "martial race", and then co-opt them. This gave them time to build the institutions they needed elsewhere in the society. It's probably not a good thing, overall, that the Europeans blew themselves up in WWI. The world would probably be a much different place, had colonialism lasted longer, and been ended cleanly. Well, at least for anyone who was colonized by the Brits, that is. I'm sure the French and Belgian colonies would likely still be shitholes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:56:27 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: El Salvador. I'd argue Taiwan to date. Thailand. The Philippines. The successful ones don't make the papers....whoa...think about that dynamic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The U.S. has had no successful foreign "adventure" since WW2. Our foreign policy is a joke and has left anything it touches a mess. El Salvador. I'd argue Taiwan to date. Thailand. The Philippines. The successful ones don't make the papers....whoa...think about that dynamic. lolno |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 5:14:19 AM EDT
[#9]
When was the last time Iraq won a war?
... ... ... ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 5:34:34 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the most profoundly derpy statement in GD yet today. Congratulations. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Note: anyone using the acronym ISIL is almost certainly lying. That is the most profoundly derpy statement in GD yet today. Congratulations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 6:00:14 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When was the last time Iraq won a war? ... ... ... ... Reminds me of the AR/AK/Mosin Nagant comparison. "Your rifle has fought against itself and won every time." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 6:02:20 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Last time I checked, the Russian trained Arab armies haven't done so hot either....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YGB-378V74Great video .Thanks for posting. First Gulf War Veteran here. I watched the Syrians and the Egyptians first hand. I was not impressed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 6:37:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reminds me of the AR/AK/Mosin Nagant comparison. "Your rifle has fought against itself and won every time." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When was the last time Iraq won a war? ... ... ... ... Reminds me of the AR/AK/Mosin Nagant comparison. "Your rifle has fought against itself and won every time." The most modern fighter a MiG-29 has killed is a MiG-29. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 6:40:44 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
- The most modern fighter a MiG-29 has killed is a MiG-29. They're like 0-4 against the ground at airshows, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:10:28 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't train out what culture has instilled in them. I agree with this US military training has been designed and fine tuned over the years to work with the raw material that we in the US have. The background , education , culture and values all play into this When you go half way around the world where the raw material is radically different it is a wonder it works at all even for a short period of time under direct supervision and support . To expect things to work well after that direct supervision and support is withdrawn is downright silly. Don't get me wrong . I am not making a case to continue dumping lives and dollars down that sinkhole that is the middle east , just pointing out that our expectations from the start were flawed . We went in with good intentions hoping for a better situation but the outcome has been none too good . One wonders how things would be going now if we had stood back a bit , supported Israel and paid someone to kill sadam and Osama and left it at that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:24:05 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF are you talking about? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Note: anyone using the acronym ISIL is almost certainly lying. That is the most profoundly derpy statement in GD yet today. Congratulations. No. It's a name coined by slime that can't face reality. No-one outside of people that are ordered to use it do so. If they can't use an organizations own name because they find it politically incorrect can not be trusted to speak the truth. WTF are you talking about? I think he's talking about the White House. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:27:23 AM EDT
[#17]
The fact is that Shia Iraqi troops are surrendering without even fighting to Sunni terrorists.
Martrydoom > actually fighting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:44:52 AM EDT
[#18]
The shot of the IAF jet coming in to attack the runway with the jet taking off was pretty good..............I wonder if the Israeli pilot came back around and smoked him?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Loved your video. Especially loved the stupid dancing Arabs, followed by General Moshe Dayan looking up at 27 seconds, with a "Watch this" look on his face. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Last time I checked, the Russian trained Arab armies haven't done so hot either.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YGB-378V74Loved your video. Especially loved the stupid dancing Arabs, followed by General Moshe Dayan looking up at 27 seconds, with a "Watch this" look on his face.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:08:24 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, raw materials play a huge part in the end product. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can't train out what culture has instilled in them. This. The Latin Americans we trained under the old School Of The Americas program during the Cold War managed to get the job done. El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Argentina, Chile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:11:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Vietnam similarities? The ARVN actually did pretty well once they had a few years to train without LBJ and Robert McNamera sabotaging their efforts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:12:37 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Japan has one of the biggest navies out there Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Koreans are our big success. Our only big success. However, I think Vietnam would have been a success had not the Democrat controlled Congress and a few weak minded Republicans defunded all the support to their military before they were ready. Germany, Japan? We effectively had won at the end on vietnam public opinion lost us that one  Germany and Japan are occupation success, not stand alone military success. Neither one of them are really capable of providing for their own security nowadays. Japan has one of the biggest navies out there Japan has been on American military welfare ever since the occupation, just like Germany. One of the reasons we have such a large Pacific fleet is because we bear part of the price to protect Japan and many other countries. Japan and most other countries in the world under our sphere of influence are unable to provide for their own security. Even the French and the Brits were unable to carry out the attack against Libya without US help when the oil fields were threaten. Of all the countries we have poured massive amounts of money into their military or spent tons of money protecting them the only one that seems to be able to stand on their own is Korea but we still have 20K troops stationed over there. Military aid for these foreign countries is nothing more than welfare for the most part. Go to the CIA Factbook and look up some figures (military expenditures divided by population) and you will see that there is no country that we give military aid to where the per capita amount of money spent on the military is as much as the US. For instance, the average American spends about $2K on the military while the average Israeli only spends about $1.2K and the average Korean $1K but yet we subsidize their military. For Japan it was ridiculously low like $100 a person. Why should we give any military money to a country where the people are unwilling to bear a per capital military cost on par with the American people? That is just stupid welfare and we have $18 trillion in debt to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:13:10 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Japan has one of the biggest navies out there Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Germany and Japan are occupation success, not stand alone military success. Neither one of them are really capable of providing for their own security nowadays. Japan has one of the biggest navies out there Top-notch quality gear and training too, from what I understand. Quoted:
Japan has been on American military welfare ever since the occupation, just like Germany. One of the reasons we have such a large Pacific fleet is because we bear part of the price to protect Japan and many other countries. From what I understand, the JMSDF are more than capable of carrying their own weight in the Pacific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:14:38 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote Historylooks like my sons tiger cub den......They are 7-8 years old! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:16:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Iraq" is not something like the U.S., or Canada, or the UK, or Germany, or.... Iraq is a forced conglomeration of people that hate each other. Not exacly the basis for a solid fighting force. There is no ideal to bind them together. Only one. and that ALLAH. sort of... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:23:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. has had no successful foreign "adventure" since WW2. Our foreign policy is a joke and has left anything it touches a mess. El Salvador. I'd argue Taiwan to date. Thailand. The Philippines. The successful ones don't make the papers....whoa...think about that dynamic. lolno El Salvadoran 2014 Elections Presidential elections were held in El Salvador on February 2, 2014,[3] with a second round held on March 9 since no candidate won an outright majority.[4] The primary candidates were Vice-President Salvador Sánchez Cerén of the FMLN, San Salvador Mayor Norman Quijano of the ARENA, and Former President Antonio "Tony" Saca of PCN.[1] Saca represented GANA, the National Conciliation Party, and the Christian Democratic Party in the UNIDAD coalition. Incumbent President Mauricio Funes is ineligible to run for a consecutive second term.[5] Sánchez Cerén and Quijano emerged as the contestants in the runoff held on March 9 in which Sánchez Cerén was declared the victor despite Quijano's charges of irregularities.[6]
Results: ARENA: 49.89%, FMLN: 50.11% So two decades of prosperous and stable rule and the ARENA Party - the political wing set up by our SOA trained surrogates - still pulls +49% of the vote, even in the face of widespread intimidation. BTW, if the FMLN hadn't known that the Obama Administration was there to run interference, ARENA would have won that election. And you call that a 'failure'?
Hardly a 'failure' (at least on the Salvadoran's part  ). If anything it shows that we pulled back too soon on the leash in the late-80s/early-90s.
That, and the need for our own ARENA party to keep Obama and his ilk out of power. Physician, heal thyself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:36:22 AM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:00:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ARVN actually did pretty well once they had a few years to train without LBJ and Robert McNamera sabotaging their efforts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Vietnam similarities? The ARVN actually did pretty well once they had a few years to train without LBJ and Robert McNamera sabotaging their efforts. The 1975 collapse can largely be blamed on 2 people: Hoang's absurdly incompetent leadership of I Corps during the Easter Offensive 3 years prior and President Thieu having not clue 1 what to do. Unfortunately,the ARVN tried following their orders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:05:20 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lawrence had plenty of issues with Arabs being Arabs too. "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:06:51 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's amazing what you can accomplish when you actually figure out how to utilize an asset, as opposed to check a block. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Last time I checked, the Russian trained Arab armies haven't done so hot either.... I don't recall any French or British trained ones doing very well either. It has been awhile; but the British have had a few good runs http://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/lawrence__130430091627.jpeg It's amazing what you can accomplish when you actually figure out how to utilize an asset, as opposed to check a block. IIRC, the British were fairly successful training competent forces in Jordan and Oman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:10:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't train out what culture has instilled in them. Bears quoting again and again. used to burn my brain trying to motiviate those guys |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:11:46 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Top-notch quality gear and training too, from what I understand. From what I understand, the JMSDF are more than capable of carrying their own weight in the Pacific. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Germany and Japan are occupation success, not stand alone military success. Neither one of them are really capable of providing for their own security nowadays. Japan has one of the biggest navies out there Top-notch quality gear and training too, from what I understand. Quoted:
Japan has been on American military welfare ever since the occupation, just like Germany. One of the reasons we have such a large Pacific fleet is because we bear part of the price to protect Japan and many other countries. From what I understand, the JMSDF are more than capable of carrying their own weight in the Pacific. Then why in the hell do we have such a large Pacific fleet? One of the justifications for having such a large fleet is to protect countries like Japan. We have been providing military welfare for the entire Pacific Ocean for the last 70 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:17:28 AM EDT
[#32]
pig ear into silk purse is impossible
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:17:50 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryI wonder what actual effect that preptalk had? The sceptic in me suspects none of those Shia policemen heard a single word he said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:20:27 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Loyalty is family, tribe, sect, Islam and then then maybe their own small unit of the Iraqi Army. There is very little in the way of Iraqi national identify. They will fight if they have Americans leading them. The problem is that their officer corps is corrupt, lazy and stupid. Any Iraqi who can speak English and has the smarts and/or money to get out of Iraqi has done so. I had an Iraqi soldier tell me "That the Americans must not leave, because without us there would be no justice" Basically it takes a tyrant strong man or a foreign power to act babysitter for Iraq. Either play arbiter or be a brutal dictator amongs the hundreds of factions in the "land between the rivers". I post this a lot in these threads and encourage everyone to read this: Why Arabs Lose Wars ETA: It isn't that ISIS is bad ass. If anything they are probally less tactically and technically proficient than Iraqi force. But they are motivated. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. I have a client who was a PMC in Iraq and what he told me goes along with that assessment. He said that if you simply asked an Iraqi to do something, they wouldn't do it. But got in their face and yelled at them, they'd do anything you told them. He said that basically they only respond to force and the threat of force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:22:06 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a client who was a PMC in Iraq and what he told me goes along with that assessment. He said that if you simply asked an Iraqi to do something, they wouldn't do it. But got in their face and yelled at them, they'd do anything you told them. He said that basically they only respond to force and the threat of force. So.... like GD then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:28:55 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And Diem wasn't a fucking fool Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Koreans are our big success. Our only big success. However, I think Vietnam would have been a success had not the Democrat controlled Congress and a few weak minded Republicans defunded all the support to their military before they were ready. And Diem wasn't a fucking fool Diem was removed in 1963, during the Kennedy Administration. He was a fool, but I can't lay much of the blame at his feet, considering all that came after him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:41:57 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Japan has been on American military welfare ever since the occupation, just like Germany. One of the reasons we have such a large Pacific fleet is because we bear part of the price to protect Japan and many other countries. The Japanese pay about $2 billion USD a year in basing costs, as well as bear disproportionate burden in financing some key US R&D efforts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:44:08 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 1975 collapse can largely be blamed on 2 people: Hoang's absurdly incompetent leadership of I Corps during the Easter Offensive 3 years prior and President Thieu having not clue 1 what to do. Unfortunately,the ARVN tried following their orders. You mean Teddy Kennedy for sabotaging any effort at supporting the South Vietnamese with air strikes or logistics support, right? There was no magic the ARVN could have done in the face of completely spent logistics base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:37:38 AM EDT
[#39]
One of the best quotes I've heard came from the show "Homeland" when the character Saul says that we haven't fought a 13 year war, but a 1 year war 13 times over.
US Wars are dependent upon US popular support. The US population is isolationists and weary of foreign entanglements. We're awesome at kicking ass, but the US just doesn't want to play colonial power and we shouldn't want to do that either. Get in, #$%@ shit up, and get out. Wash, Rinse, and Repeat as dangers present themselves. What we really need to learn is to kick ass immediately and stump the living crap out of threats when they first present themselves rather than waiting for them to build up. Nation building is for the birds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:48:10 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't recall any French or British trained ones doing very well either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Last time I checked, the Russian trained Arab armies haven't done so hot either.... I don't recall any French or British trained ones doing very well either. Jordan? Egypt? Lebanon? I'd be curious to know which did better, Army trained or Marine Corps trained. The Corps has always had a pretty good record training and inspiring indigs, ROKMC, Taiwan Marine Corps, Thai Marines, Philippine Marines, S Vietnamese Marines, and even the guys who fought in the Reawakening. I know there were a lot of hard chargers who worked with the Marines in Iraq (well, some). I saw Army training of the locals and they were so...academic. They need to mix it up, get out of the classroom/training field mentality and make the locals feel like they're part of a team. With leadership. I think that's where the Corps does better, more mentoring, adored big brother to little brother, and less teacher/student with us throwing ponderous tomes and sophisticated A/V tech at guys who could barely read. Not that the Army didn't do that, I just saw a lot more academic stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:57:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is the most profoundly derpy statement in GD yet today. Congratulations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Note: anyone using the acronym ISIL is almost certainly lying. That is the most profoundly derpy statement in GD yet today. Congratulations. LOL Still this? Unfortunately, Zero started using "ISIL" (the correct term) before we did so now anyone using it seems to be parroting that cunt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:57:56 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't recall any French or British trained ones doing very well either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Last time I checked, the Russian trained Arab armies haven't done so hot either.... I don't recall any French or British trained ones doing very well either. Jordan? Egypt? Lebanon? I'd be curious to know which did better, Army trained or Marine Corps trained. The Corps has always had a pretty good record training and inspiring indigs, ROKMC, Taiwan Marine Corps, Thai Marines, Philippine Marines, S Vietnamese Marines, and even the guys who fought in the Reawakening. I know there were a lot of hard chargers who worked with the Marines in Iraq (well, some). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:59:18 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get in, #$%@ shit up, and get out. Wash, Rinse, and Repeat as dangers present themselves. What we really need to learn is to kick ass immediately and stump the living crap out of threats when they first present themselves rather than waiting for them to build up. Nation building is for the birds. I'm all for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:01:19 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should be called Daesh. I've only read to here and this - IS/ISIL/ISIS is too nice... Daesh works well.... Iraq up and left because the "leaders" sold out - took money/gear and left. No reason for Pvt Ahmed to stand and fight when Gen Mohammed walked... I'll try to find a good interview on it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:01:20 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:03:04 PM EDT
[#46]
One of the big differences is ISIS/ISIL has people that are zealots that are true believers in their cause. I doubt most guys in the Iraqi military really give much of a fuck, plus they probably have terrible leadership for motivation and morale.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:05:20 PM EDT
[#47]
A lot of guys become soldiers solely as a means to feed their family. They have no loyalty to a puppet government. First sign of trouble, it's adios amigos!
We failed to learn this from years of supporting the Nationalist Chinese (OK, they weren't puppets) when they were fighting the Japanese on mainland China. Rinse 'n repeat in South Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:09:13 PM EDT
[#48]
The whole exercise of trying to train the Iraqis might end up having value if its failure is noted by historians and used to inform future U.S. policy makers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:10:58 PM EDT
[#49]
The only way massive amounts of money would've significantly improved their defense is if we baled it up and made walls out of it, then guarded those walls ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:11:23 PM EDT
[#50]
But the northern part of Iraq was chock full of Kurds that would have fought tooth and nail for a country of their own if we would have just told fucking Turkey to go fuck itself and gave it to them.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
