Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

With rough love and inappropriately placed foreign objects?

And with that the mods will surely delete this thread. Nicely done everyone .

My comment wasn't the one that got moderated.

Back On Topic...Has anyone been following the Fallujah story? Has it been retaken?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.

I don't think he's claiming soldiers aren't human beings, but even on this forum, we've had obvious signs of regarding a military person to a caliber higher than a civilian counterpart in a very Heinlein-esque fashion.

Monster Rain wrote:As someone who participated in conquering Iraq for the Emperor the deterioration of the situation over there is truly depressing. The majority of the people over there were great.

I played soccer with kids while I was on patrol. My squad shared a bottle of gin with some locals in Sadr City (they made a point that they tasted it first to show it wasn't poison). I learned enough Arabic talking to people over there to tell them that I was only a Lance Corporal so I couldn't give them clearance to cross battle lines. Everyone I spoke to was happy that Saddam was gone.

I also saw men throw rocks at young women for speaking to Americans. And, well, it was a war. Fill in those blanks.

My main lesson from my time spent in Iraq was that the world is a far less black and white place than I ever thought, and that even the best intentions can have disastrous consequences.

Very good and truthful post. I'm greatly impressed with the number of young Marines that have come out of the service with a greatly enlightened worldview.

Bromsy wrote:We should have just occupied them for another 50-60 years. It worked with Germans, they haven't tried to take over Europe again and are all pretty good at speaking English. Sure, things would have been rough for a while, but a generation in their kids would be using apple devices, sipping starbucks lattes, wearing skinny jeans and listening to whatever boy bands are to be popular at the time.

Oh, also worked pretty good in Japan.

Also South Korea.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You could go old school Roman and “Depopulate” Iraq, then bring in new settlers, but we kind of don’t do that sort of thing in a democracy.

Um, Frazz.... how to put this...

Spoiler:

Depopulation and new settlers from the "home country" seems to be the only way to actually, permanently convert a region. It's not something Americans typically accept as being morally acceptable anymore.

Did anyone really expect Iraq to be remotely stable after American "intervention"? The War on Terror was flawed from the start. It is debatable as to whether or not the objectives were achieved or even if quality of life in Iraq has been improved.

And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.

My God you are completely getting wrong what I said. Also I don't fault people for having a flawed sub culture, I come from a different flawed subculture, hell I even said civilian culture was flawed.

I don't think he's claiming soldiers aren't human beings, but even on this forum, we've had obvious signs of regarding a military person to a caliber higher than a civilian counterpart in a very Heinlein-esque fashion.

Well first thank you for the support and I'm frankly tired of the superiority complex I sometimes get from some of these guys. Here's an example I had a conversation with a Veteran of the Iraq War, we were talking about leaked footage that's all over YouTube showing some of the less than pleasant sights of the war. His comment was "people think war is like call of duty", my comment was I've never played call of duty. I have heard the "CALL OF DUTY" insult directed at "civs" MANY TIMES. Hell I remember on Yahoo news their was a trial of a marine sergeant and you had Marines threatening to track down, break the jaws, or even kill people who were posting negative comments about them. One of more ridiculous comments was "none of you noncombats have a right to comment here GET OFF." When someone commented that Americas a democracy and he has a right to comment and have an opinion of where his money goes to this brilliant marine answered that "so get a better job so you can pay your taxes". He also posted about a page of military lingo that I didn't bother to read. Oh and just to add the bar scene around bases is another problem.

God how much longer will this thread last?

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.

My God you are completely getting wrong what I said. Also I don't fault people for having a flawed sub culture, I come from a different flawed subculture, hell I even said civilian culture was flawed.

I don't think he's claiming soldiers aren't human beings, but even on this forum, we've had obvious signs of regarding a military person to a caliber higher than a civilian counterpart in a very Heinlein-esque fashion.

Well first thank you for the support and I'm frankly tired of the superiority complex I sometimes get from some of these guys. Here's an example I had a conversation with a Veteran of the Iraq War, we were talking about leaked footage that's all over YouTube showing some of the less than pleasant sights of the war. His comment was "people think war is like call of duty", my comment was I've never played call of duty. I have heard the "CALL OF DUTY" insult directed at "civs" MANY TIMES. Hell I remember on Yahoo news their was a trial of a marine sergeant and you had Marines threatening to track down, break the jaws, or even kill people who were posting negative comments about them. One of more ridiculous comments was "none of you noncombats have a right to comment here GET OFF." When someone commented that Americas a democracy and he has a right to comment and have an opinion of where his money goes to this brilliant marine answered that "so get a better job so you can pay your taxes". He also posted about a page of military lingo that I didn't bother to read. Oh and just to add the bar scene around bases is another problem.

God how much longer will this thread last?

As to the Marine posts you saw... well, they're not exactly the brightest light bulb in the store, are they? While I will never personally use the "Call of Duty" insult, I have personally seen idiots actually make that comparison... As in, in all seriousness say, "ohh, I'm good at Call of Duty, so I'd make a great soldier" or some such thing. I'm not trying to imply that your comment put you in that category, but I felt that there was some miscommunication, or something to where we didn't see each other's point of view properly. Then again, I'm no grunt, realize what exactly I fought for, and feel that if you have a differing opinion, and speak it in a respectful manner, then I'm more apt to listen to it, and consider it's merits (goes for basically all conversations).

Let's not turn this into a battle of military vs civies you two. Back off and articulate better. Someone goat rope the intro about soldiers mentality. No thrown gauntlet on ground so no need to pick it up.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
Well first thank you for the support and I'm frankly tired of the superiority complex I sometimes get from some of these guys. Here's an example I had a conversation with a Veteran of the Iraq War, we were talking about leaked footage that's all over YouTube showing some of the less than pleasant sights of the war.

Careful with that gak. An awful lot of the "leaked footage" is taken wildly out of context and presented to (and by) people who don't know how to interpret it. "Collateral Murder" from Wikileaks, for example.

His comment was "people think war is like call of duty", my comment was I've never played call of duty. I have heard the "CALL OF DUTY" insult directed at "civs" MANY TIMES. Hell I remember on Yahoo news their was a trial of a marine sergeant and you had Marines threatening to track down, break the jaws, or even kill people who were posting negative comments about them. One of more ridiculous comments was "none of you noncombats have a right to comment here GET OFF." When someone commented that Americas a democracy and he has a right to comment and have an opinion of where his money goes to this brilliant marine answered that "so get a better job so you can pay your taxes".

Sounds legit. I bet they were all the Commandant, or at the very least FORECON Ranger SEALs.

And for what it's worth, I've had people on this very forum tell me that they could totally land on a carrier at night, because it couldn't possibly be that hard. When someone with absolutely zero experience tries to tell someone with years of it something that the latter person knows to be false, sometimes it's simply more cathartic to tell them to go feth themselves than write out a couple paragraphs that will get ignored in favor of retaining a myopic, ill-informed view.

He also posted about a page of military lingo that I didn't bother to read. Oh and just to add the bar scene around bases is another problem.

The bar scene around bases is a problem. There are never enough good bars.

God how much longer will this thread last?

Until people stop posting in it, or it gets locked.

FORECON Ranger SEALs

They need another acronym instead of rangers to be really cool

derp mindfart, not anagram...well done me. Good thing I'm not helping people out by editing journal papers, oh wait...

There are never enough good bars.

Seriously......

There are never enough good drinking and stripper bars.

Fixed it for you. Also in the military if you have a "Alcohol Related Incident" of any type......your Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo Echo Delta...(<--pass for creativity to bypass language filter?)

we should have just let the soviets take the middle east ... The rebels would have probably won with out our help anyway , or at least by now theyd be free and not as US hatin as they've become.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the attempt to combat communism has lead to many needless wars and spawn of enemies

Putin taking over the Middle East.....
1. No more Iran...
2. Putin milking the cash cow of oil
3. US is down sizing our military so why build up again to deal with the Soviets.
*Budget cut
*Sequester
*Very few units combat effective
*Do we really want another stupid "Red Line" comment to be made by Obama
4. Europe closer to the area
5. I actually think Israel get along quite well with Putin.
6. I can see the fee for the Suez Canal going much higher.
7. NATO will not interfere unless Turkey is attacked.
8. ME country requesting UN for help
9. UN asking the US to lead....not a ice cube chance in Hell...
10. Not our issue since the US really isn't all that dependent on oil.
11. Putin get smart and lease the land US military bases on newly acquired property.
12. If France wants to be in charge of the shindig?
13. US stays out and not adding extra to 17 billion and counting

 Jihadin wrote:
Putin taking over the Middle East.....
1. No more Iran...
2. Putin milking the cash cow of oil
3. US is down sizing our military so why build up again to deal with the Soviets.
*Budget cut
*Sequester
*Very few units combat effective
*Do we really want another stupid "Red Line" comment to be made by Obama
4. Europe closer to the area
5. I actually think Israel get along quite well with Putin.
6. I can see the fee for the Suez Canal going much higher.
7. NATO will not interfere unless Turkey is attacked.
8. ME country requesting UN for help
9. UN asking the US to lead....not a ice cube chance in Hell...
10. Not our issue since the US really isn't all that dependent on oil.
11. Putin get smart and lease the land US military bases on newly acquired property.
12. If France wants to be in charge of the shindig?
13. US stays out and not adding extra to 17 billion and counting

Wishful thinking...

If Russia's sphere of influence was extended over the Middle East, pacifying Islam and removing Islamic extremism as a threat to US Security...The US would never downsize and cut spending on its military and relax. The War Hawks running Washington would simply portray Russia as the next enemy to world peace and lobby to maintain the status quo if not increase spending even further.

War is big business. Its not going to stop just because the current enemy has been neutralised.

The US would never downsize and cut spending on its military and relax.

Your a bit behind on current news regarding the US Military.

Well I am British, not American...

The American military has been downsizing for at least a couple of years. IIRC 4-5...It isn't exactly news.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


War is big business. Its not going to stop just because the current enemy has been neutralised.

I think the real question is who is next on the agenda in 10 years time?

Middle East more likely.
South China Sea
Taiwan
Japan hence the return of the Emperor
Israel taking out Iran
Russia reclaiming lost property.
Drug Cartels (find this more likely)

 Seaward wrote:

Careful with that gak. An awful lot of the "leaked footage" is taken wildly out of context and presented to (and by) people who don't know how to interpret it. "Collateral Murder" from Wikileaks, for example.

Collateral Murder was presented out of context by folks who knew how to interpret it and how to present it to make their statement and elicit a desired response.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
BUT we ended up sticking around, attempting to do things we'd never really done, never really been set up to do, which is reestablish a new government, rebuild infrastructure, build schools and improve the education system, etc.

This part is not entirely true...The US military actually has something of a track record for helping rebuild the countries that it just finished kicking nine shades of hell out of. For various and sundry reasons. The difference is this time it was not planned out in advance.

I do see focus shifting to Asia in the next ten. There's a LOT of potential there for a hot war between various parties atm. Sadly, I suspect that there will be significant casualties if it does. The terrain tends to nullify a lot of the advantages the US military traditionally enjoys. If you hated insurgents in the desert, wait till you see what they're like in the forest.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The terrain tends to nullify a lot of the advantages the US military traditionally enjoys. If you hated insurgents in the desert, wait till you see what they're like in the forest.

We sort of already have.... from about 1965-1977 or so.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The terrain tends to nullify a lot of the advantages the US military traditionally enjoys. If you hated insurgents in the desert, wait till you see what they're like in the forest.

We sort of already have.... from about 1965-1977 or so.

And in Central and South America

And in the Philippines


And some other places.

One factor....difference in mind set.

 CptJake wrote:


And in Central and South America

And in the Philippines


And some other places.

Yeah, that was in the past. Tell me, do you have the US Army from 1972? Or do you have the US army of 2014? They are very different beasts with different training, different equipment, and a different mindset.

God help the poor bastards that go.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


And in Central and South America

And in the Philippines


And some other places.

Yeah, that was in the past. Tell me, do you have the US Army from 1972? Or do you have the US army of 2014? They are very different beasts with different training, different equipment, and a different mindset.

God help the poor bastards that go.

Actually, I got off active duty in 2000 (but have worked for the Army ever since) and the places I mentioned are a lot more recent than 1972. Some are ongoing today.

 CptJake wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


And in Central and South America

And in the Philippines


And some other places.

Yeah, that was in the past. Tell me, do you have the US Army from 1972? Or do you have the US army of 2014? They are very different beasts with different training, different equipment, and a different mindset.

God help the poor bastards that go.

Actually, I got off active duty in 2000 (but have worked for the Army ever since) and the places I mentioned are a lot more recent than 1972. Some are ongoing today.

Not to mention, all of our past "expeditions" have formed the training that we get today... The lessons learned in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, etc. have all played a role in shaping the equipment, mindset and training that is received today.

 CptJake wrote:

Actually, I got off active duty in 2000 (but have worked for the Army ever since) and the places I mentioned are a lot more recent than 1972. Some are ongoing today.

Sorry, when you said the Philippines, I assumed you meant the Philippine Insurrection. Who's lessons about fighting in close combat in the jungle have been repeatedly forgotten. And I'm quite familiar with the several wars that America is honest not involved in, in Peru and Colombia. "Pardon, senora, donde estan los guerrilleros?"

Though in Colombia you want to ask for them by name, because on Tuesday it might be FARC, and on Wednesday it's the Shining Path coming over the boarder, with a sprinkling of random mortar fire and car bombs from the cartels, who may in fact be trying to whack each other, or the government, or some other party, or it's the Cocaine Import Association (Congress of Industrious donkey-caves, Center for Inept Analysis, Cover Industry of America, etc etc etc) playing whatever game they are this week.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Not to mention, all of our past "expeditions" have formed the training that we get today... The lessons learned in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, etc. have all played a role in shaping the equipment, mindset and training that is received today.

If that's true, why in the name of God are they still using the M16? I hate to point this out, but, no, what shapes the equipment, training, and so on, is the lessons that brass chose to learn, and then forgot all the other stuff. Thus, the US forgot the lessons of trench warfare they learned around Petersburg, and made all the same mistakes again in WW1. In Vietnam, they forgot all the lessons about modern insurgency tactics that they themselves helped perfect against Germany. Lessons that were forgotten again just in time to deal with asymmetrical warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan... after having taught those very tactics to the Afghans to help them fight the Russians.

I hate to say it I've read some of the 'history books' they hand out in the Navy. While, factually correct, many of them glossed over unpleasant truths and inconvenient facts, and this was all the history some of these fine young men got, at least a few of whom rose to decision making levels of command. Further, with the 'fail to the top' mentality in much of the US Military, even if you're fundamentally correct, means the worst officers to have in charge are the ones that are.

That's all pretty true... If you look at US involvement in just about any conflict, for the first 6 months to a year of our being there, the US military will take massive casualties... the guys who survive this initial period will take all the incoming "cherries" or "noobs" under their wing, and teach them up on the CURRENT war.... Sometimes, the problem arises when you get a WW1 vet trying to train new recruits getting ready to go into WW2. His experiences just aren't really all that relevant to the situation. The same goes for WW2 into Korea, and Korea into Vietnam, etc.



And I completely, whole heartedly agree with you on the M16 family of weapons... The politics of getting new equipment does, occasionally and in a damaging way, gets out of hand.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to say it I've read some of the 'history books' they hand out in the Navy.

Such as?

While, factually correct, many of them glossed over unpleasant truths and inconvenient facts, and this was all the history some of these fine young men got, at least a few of whom rose to decision making levels of command. Further, with the 'fail to the top' mentality in much of the US Military, even if you're fundamentally correct, means the worst officers to have in charge are the ones that are.

Such as?

As far as the who subject of the m16 family goes : I never got shot at by anything better than I was returning fire with.

But for the original topic:

I left the Marine Corps just before my unit deployed to Fallujah in 2006. Two men who would have been in my platoon were killed. I regret my decision every year when that day comes around and I think I always will.

I know that we sign up and it is a Marine's job to go into harms way. But when in the moment, I will be completely honest and say I wouldn't trade one of my men for any number of them. Myself sure. But not one of my Marines.

Fireguy. I understand where your at. Its no survivor guilt caliber or anything of that nature. Its your battle buddies went to war and you didn't. You did not get "closure" because you were not there when they were opted out. Do what I did. Get two six packs and you in one field chair and your buddy in the other in memory. Like the young female who might have been wife/fiance/GF and spent the day at his grave site.

Baron take my advice....step back, regroup, and try a new shot group.