United States Ground Forces

[DrainBamage]

Dunno. Ask them.

So when you're posting that the number of eligible recruits is dramatically shrinking, you don't actually know this to be true.

Why is this not surprising?

 

[Bleipriester]

Dunno. Ask them.

So when you're posting that the number of eligible recruits is dramatically shrinking, you don't actually know this to be true.

Why is this not surprising?

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Dunno. Ask them.

So when you're posting that the number of eligible recruits is dramatically shrinking, you don't actually know this to be true.

Why is this not surprising?

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Keep looking into the shiny, spinning object. You are getting sleepy, your eyes are getting heavy..........

 

[DrainBamage]

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Straw man. I never said America is perfect, I don't even live in America, and the army certainly isn't perfect.

What happened here is you cannot support what you said, so you're desperately trying to create something else to attack. You have failed.

 

[Bleipriester]

Dunno. Ask them.

So when you're posting that the number of eligible recruits is dramatically shrinking, you don't actually know this to be true.

Why is this not surprising?

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Keep looking into the shiny, spinning object. You are getting sleepy, your eyes are getting heavy..........

Ignored problems won´t be solved. Think about it.

 

[Bleipriester]

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Straw man. I never said America is perfect, I don't even live in America, and the army certainly isn't perfect.

What happened here is you cannot support what you said, so you're desperately trying to create something else to attack. You have failed.

That is a silly pov. Is it really anti-American to point out a lack of defense?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Dunno. Ask them.

So when you're posting that the number of eligible recruits is dramatically shrinking, you don't actually know this to be true.

Why is this not surprising?

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Keep looking into the shiny, spinning object. You are getting sleepy, your eyes are getting heavy..........

Ignored problems won´t be solved. Think about it.

Or making up problems where none exist won't cure any problems either. Our Military operates with fluctuations. It always has. But when the chips are down and it's give a clear and concise mission objective, there is no force on this earth or known universe that it can't defeat.

 

[Bleipriester]

Dunno. Ask them.

So when you're posting that the number of eligible recruits is dramatically shrinking, you don't actually know this to be true.

Why is this not surprising?

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Keep looking into the shiny, spinning object. You are getting sleepy, your eyes are getting heavy..........

Ignored problems won´t be solved. Think about it.

Or making up problems where none exist won't cure any problems either. Our Military operates with fluctuations. It always has. But when the chips are down and it's give a clear and concise mission objective, there is no force on this earth or known universe that it can't defeat.

That´s a problem:

It is not only military but also societal.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So when you're posting that the number of eligible recruits is dramatically shrinking, you don't actually know this to be true.

Why is this not surprising?

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Keep looking into the shiny, spinning object. You are getting sleepy, your eyes are getting heavy..........

Ignored problems won´t be solved. Think about it.

Or making up problems where none exist won't cure any problems either. Our Military operates with fluctuations. It always has. But when the chips are down and it's give a clear and concise mission objective, there is no force on this earth or known universe that it can't defeat.

That´s a problem:

It is not only military but also societal.

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

 

[Bleipriester]

There is no reason for doubts. Your point is simple: America is perfect, everything is perfect, the army is perfect.
But that´s not realism.

Keep looking into the shiny, spinning object. You are getting sleepy, your eyes are getting heavy..........

Ignored problems won´t be solved. Think about it.

Or making up problems where none exist won't cure any problems either. Our Military operates with fluctuations. It always has. But when the chips are down and it's give a clear and concise mission objective, there is no force on this earth or known universe that it can't defeat.

That´s a problem:

It is not only military but also societal.

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Keep looking into the shiny, spinning object. You are getting sleepy, your eyes are getting heavy..........

Ignored problems won´t be solved. Think about it.

Or making up problems where none exist won't cure any problems either. Our Military operates with fluctuations. It always has. But when the chips are down and it's give a clear and concise mission objective, there is no force on this earth or known universe that it can't defeat.

That´s a problem:

It is not only military but also societal.

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

 

[Bleipriester]

Ignored problems won´t be solved. Think about it.

Or making up problems where none exist won't cure any problems either. Our Military operates with fluctuations. It always has. But when the chips are down and it's give a clear and concise mission objective, there is no force on this earth or known universe that it can't defeat.

That´s a problem:

It is not only military but also societal.

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Or making up problems where none exist won't cure any problems either. Our Military operates with fluctuations. It always has. But when the chips are down and it's give a clear and concise mission objective, there is no force on this earth or known universe that it can't defeat.

That´s a problem:

It is not only military but also societal.

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

 

[Bleipriester]

That´s a problem:

It is not only military but also societal.

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).

CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia

 

[beagle9]

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).

CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia

Are you some sort of anti-American, and are you operating from American soil ?

If so, should it be that your anti-American rehtoric be investigated by Homeland security maybe ?? You used a CNN link, so are they a source for your anti-American interpreted material maybe ??? Your slant or lean just seems weird for you to be a patriotic American to me.

 

[Bleipriester]

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).

CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia

Are you some sort of anti-American, and are you operating from American soil ?

If so, should it be that your anti-American rehtoric be investigated by Homeland security maybe ?? You used a CNN link, so are they a source for your anti-American interpreted material maybe ??? Your slant or lean just seems weird for you to be a patriotic American to me.

Maybe, it is just about facts.

"In a squad of 10 men, on average fewer than three ever fired their weapons in combat."
Men Against Fire: How Many Soldiers Actually Fired Their Weapons at the Enemy During the Vietnam War | HistoryNet

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Only 1% need to be fit and able out of the population. That's all at this time. During a full out world war, that isn't the case but today, only 1% is needed. And according to your own chart, there are an excess of that to choose from. When it goes below 90K on the chart then there is a problem.

Again, you are creating a problem when none exists.

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).

CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia

You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.

 

[Bleipriester]

No. The chart says the army gets less selective. Additionally, when a big war starts in a couple of decades, a war for water and other resources maybe, you got few reservists. It will be too late, people will not be in a proper condition, physically and mentally.
This is not a particular American problem but it applies for the most of the western hemisphere. People don´t appreciate their wellbeing anymore.
Europe will have to look out for another source of security.

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).

CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia

You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.

Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.

 

[beagle9]

Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).

CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia

You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.

Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.

What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.

Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights

The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.

Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.

The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.

It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.

Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.

The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.

The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.

You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.

That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.

That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).

CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia

You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.

Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.

What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??

bluechild isn't American. I don't know if he is Eastern German or from one of the Slavic Countries. But he's not from a traditional Western country.