Two thousand years ago, Rome was expanding, growing, invading, conquering. From well-garrisoned centres of trade and government and culture, Rome was leaking outward, its influence spreading via force of arms, wealth, and simple communications. Where Rome established a limb, there the locals learned Roman ways.

However, when Varus took up the reins in the north, he desired faster assimilation. He wanted more money, and he wanted it now. Like a certain political leader of today, Varus was not a soldier; he was a bureaucrat. According to his books, his knowledge of the way the world worked, and so on, he thought squeezing the Germans harder and harder would bring gains that would outweigh any losses.

In 9 anno domini, Varus led three legions, six cohorts, and three squadrons of cavalry to quell some pesky Germans who didn't want to play along with the Roman way of doing things. In all, over 16,000 Romans, a monstrous army for the day and a large army in Roman terms.

This massive army, the most well-equipped and disciplined in the world, was slaughtered in Teutoburg Wald by the Germans.

history does tend to repeat itself... and we learn history so that we dont repeat mistakes.. well, that's one of the reasons at least... well, i think we're makin great progress... :bugeye:

Hmm... there are one or two things Adam fails to mention.
Those "pesky Germans" were about 14,000 strong (an estimate only, of course. It's almost impossible to get an exact figure but this estimate is generally agreed as being fairly close) and represented the first real unification of the Germanic tribes against an oppressor yet seen, under the command of an ex-Roman auxiliary soldier, Arminius. Arminius was an ex-Roman auxiliary (and had roman citizenship, by all accounts) and was no "barbarian". He was no stranger to the Roman army, or it's tactics. They were outnumbered, yes, but not a huge amount and picked their terrain carefully to negate any Roman advantage.

Arminius himself was goaded into revolution mostly due to the fact that his wife eloped to marry him, which pissed off her father no end. The father then complained to the roman governor about his non-welcome son-in-law and accused him of treason. He intensley disliked the romans prior to this but hadn't yet made the final step into rebellion. Most of the planning was done in secret while convincing Varus that he was not doing anything of the sort.

The Romans were lured into hilly, wooded terrain, which in no way suited it's general fighting style, as Arminius knew quite well. He began with lightning attacks against the Roman baggage train, cutting supplies before the real fighting started. His Germans, a fearsome lot well used to "psyching out" enemies using blood curdling yells and having a fearsome countenance, were then put to work harrassing a still-marching Roman army every step of the way, with the result that by the time the Romans reached a suitably defensive position, they were tired, drawn, and had lost most of their baggage wagons. 800 or 900 of their troops were German light cavalry, auxilaries, and these had mostly deserted and were now fighting on the German side.

What was slaughtered over three days then was not the well-discplined, deadly Roman legions the Germans had fought until then. They were demoralised, hungry, and frightened, and fighting on terrain they were not suited for. It was definately not a slaughter of the disciplined Roman legions we all know, by a tribe of barbarians. It was the systematic mauling of an ill-led force by a superbly-generalled German army, even if they didn't have the training or equipment of the Romans.

Somehow, I dont think this is very similar to the situation we're now facing in Iraq. Georgy boy is not standing at the head of the American forces, and they're led by professional soldiers. The Iraqi government is going to have to come up with something pretty damn special to stop them, and I don't think they have much in the way of hilly wooded terrain. Maybe a city or two to hide in?

Hey, look. Someone made exactly the same connection you did Adam...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/12/162014.shtml

In other words, they whipped them.

As I said, the Romans were well-equipped and disciplined. These are the legions who had already conquered nation after nation, no doubt with many hard battles behind them, many of those with limited supplied. It takes a lot more than three days with limited food and sanitation facilities to demoralise a professional army.

See, this is where actual military experience can give one a useful perspective.

But the point remains. The vastly superior force was hammered in the home territory of the people they sought to crush. If Saddam really does have the support of his people - against the USA at least - and if he manages to bog the USA down into a Mogadishu-like battle in Baghdad, the USA may find itself shouting "Bring me back my legions!"

Originally posted by The Marquis
Hey, look. Someone made exactly the same connection you did Adam...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/12/162014.shtml

Cool. Maybe there really are other people out there who can read and make logical connections.

Although I dislike the way he, and you, refer to the Germans of the time as "barbarians". It is worth noting that they weren't even called "Germans" (or "Germany" for that matter) at the time.

Originally posted by Adam
In other words, they whipped them.

As I said, the Romans were well-equipped and disciplined. These are the legions who had already conquered nation after nation, no doubt with many hard battles behind them, many of those with limited supplied. It takes a lot more than three days with limited food and sanitation facilities to demoralise a professional army.

It does, yes. Good leadership from the enemy, never knowing when you're going to be hit next by screaming "barbarians", not getting any sleep, those sorts of things... those professional soldiers would have been jumping at the hoot of an owl.

The Germans weren't exactly strangers to the odd swordfight either.. they'd been beating the shit out of each other for centuries before deciding the Romans would be a far better target.

See, this is where actual military experience can give one a useful perspective.

*laughs* yeah Adam. Being in the navy must have given you invaluable insights into ancient warfare. Appealing to authority now?

But the point remains. The vastly superior force was hammered in the home territory of the people they sought to crush.

I disagree with the "vastly superior" bit (superior, yes.. "vastly" gives the wrong impression of actual events.). The Americans don't come anywhere near outnumbering the Iraqis, and I doubt the Iraqis have the capability to seriously harm American morale unless the US stupidly allows itself to be drawn into a street-fighting conflict.

I would also point out that while the Roman armies were better equipped than the Germans, the technological gap between Iraq and the US is far wider.

If Saddam really does have the support of his people - against the USA at least - and if he manages to bog the USA down into a Mogadishu-like battle in Baghdad, the USA may find itself shouting "Bring me back my legions!"

Here, you might be right. If all those conditions are met. the Americans would have to be fairly inept to allow themselves to be drawn into fighting in Baghdad though. If they do, I unreservedly withdraw all comments about the US having good military leadership.

Let's just see when the dust settles, shall we?

In the end the Romans did win the cultural war against the Barbaric German tribes. Germany, like much of Europe today, is just a bastardized version of Roman culture.

Originally posted by Adam
Cool. Maybe there really are other people out there who can read and make logical connections.

Although I dislike the way he, and you, refer to the Germans of the time as "barbarians". It is worth noting that they weren't even called "Germans" (or "Germany" for that matter) at the time.

When I used the word "barbarians" it had quote marks around it. Didn't that suggest anything to you?

The term "Germans" was used for ease of reference, rather than listing each people individually. So I'm lazy, sue me.

Originally posted by Hannibal
In the end the Romans did win the cultural war against the Barbaric German tribes. Germany, like much of Europe today, is just a bastardized version of Roman culture.

In a lot of ways, yes, I agree. Look at the Vandal's control of Carthage.. they embraced Roman culture wholeheartedly (and did nothing to deserve their reputation for destructiveness, incidentally).

This battle went a long way towards preventing an almost complete Roman domination of Europe though.

What are the odds on Iraq looking like an Arabic version of the USA someday?

It does, yes. Good leadership from the enemy, never knowing when you're going to be hit next by screaming "barbarians", not getting any sleep, those sorts of things... those professional soldiers would have been jumping at the hoot of an owl.

No. This is where military experience would serve you well.

I spent nine days in a wrecker's wargame without seeing the sun, irregular sleeping hours, no sleep sessions more than five hours long, no showers, stuffing food down when I could manage it between naps, off-shift action stations and the ops room. And no decline in my performance. Every sailor was rated, marked, as were the ship and each department.

I spent a week alternating between running, sleeping on the ground, and kayaking, carrying a full pack, with basic rations and no comfy unfiform or tent.

We used to run from 5am to midday in combat boots and uniform, full pack, L1A1, ammo, canteen. Stop for lunch. Then run back.

Physical hardship and low rations and discomfort for only three days is not enough to make the most highly trained soldiers in the world jump at the hoot of an owl. It simply doens't work like that outside of whatever David Eddings books you've been reading.


The Germans weren't exactly strangers to the odd swordfight either.. they'd been beating the shit out of each other for centuries before deciding the Romans would be a far better target.

The Romans, too, had been fighting and winning with generally superior methods for a long time.


*laughs* yeah Adam. Being in the navy must have given you invaluable insights into ancient warfare. Appealing to authority now?

Appealing to experience. Your appeal to ignorance does not serve you well.


I disagree with the "vastly superior" bit (superior, yes.. "vastly" gives the wrong impression of actual events.). The Americans don't come anywhere near outnumbering the Iraqis, and I doubt the Iraqis have the capability to seriously harm American morale unless the US stupidly allows itself to be drawn into a street-fighting conflict.

The USA military is, on a level playing field, vastly superior. Thus Saddam's announcement months ago that he would draw the USA into the cities if he could, to attempt another Mogadishu. The USA vastly overpowers the Iraqis because the USA retains absolute air superiority with incredibly powerful weapons systems. That is, by the way, the prevailing US military doctrine of the last couple of decades, in case you missed it.


I would also point out that while the Roman armies were better equipped than the Germans, the technological gap between Iraq and the US is far wider.

I disagree. Again, this is where actual knowledge of the subject would serve you well.

Regarding the Teutoburg Wald battle. The Celtic peoples of Europe were already using pattern-welded steel swords, which the Romans were still trying without success to imitate four centuries later. However, the Romans had superior training, superior methods, and superior numbers. The locals had the home ground advantage.

Regarding USA-Iraq. There are only a few differences in technology. 1) Twenty years of main battle tank development. 2) Very fast and mobile missile platforms (Apaches, F16s, et cetera). 3) Superior battlefield observation and resource management on the part of the Americans. The locals had the home ground advantage.

Those are the main differences in each case.


Here, you might be right. If all those conditions are met. the Americans would have to be fairly inept to allow themselves to be drawn into fighting in Baghdad though. If they do, I unreservedly withdraw all comments about the US having good military leadership.

My opinion is that the USA has some capable military commanders, and always has. But unfortunately they allow stupid civilians to interfere with their war activities. Regardless of what the USA military commanders want, Bush may demand they march into Baghdad.

Originally posted by The Marquis
What are the odds on Iraq looking like an Arabic version of the USA someday?

Not good I presume. The Arabs are an ethnocentric people who would rather ‘die on their feet then live on their knees’ to quote an old revolutionary. They are a proud people who have their own history and culture, which at one time was actually superior to Western civilization. For them, cultural submission to a people they have exchanged countless wars is not an option.

Originally posted by Adam
No. This is where military experience would serve you well.

I spent nine days in a wrecker's wargame without seeing the sun, irregular sleeping hours, no sleep sessions more than five hours long, no showers, stuffing food down when I could manage it between naps, off-shift action stations and the ops room. And no decline in my performance. Every sailor was rated, marked, as were the ship and each department.

I spent a week alternating between running, sleeping on the ground, and kayaking, carrying a full pack, with basic rations and no comfy unfiform or tent.

We used to run from 5am to midday in combat boots and uniform, full pack, L1A1, ammo, canteen. Stop for lunch. Then run back.

Physical hardship and low rations and discomfort for only three days is not enough to make the most highly trained soldiers in the world jump at the hoot of an owl. It simply doens't work like that outside of whatever David Eddings books you've been reading.

You're kidding, right? That's what you're basing your military knowledge on? You weren't exactly under fire during that exercise. Three days in unfamiliar territory being harrassed by a disciplined adversary, with loss of your auxillary forces to the other side, loss of your supplies, being harassed relentlessly until they reached a defensive position and unable to set up any sort of serious perimeter can very easily demoralize a force, particularly if you've realized your commander is incompetent. In ancient combat demoralization was a major contributor in many battle fields. Alexander's success against far superior Persian forces was generally achieved by demoralizing the center of the line that faced his phalanxes. I served 22 months in Vietnam and I saw men in defensive positions become extremely agitated during one night of harrassment when NVA forces continually probing the perimeter and mortars were being lobbed in. generally these positions were held, but air support and artillery fire often had to be called in to break the assault.


The USA military is, on a level playing field, vastly superior. Thus Saddam's announcement months ago that he would draw the USA into the cities if he could, to attempt another Mogadishu. The USA vastly overpowers the Iraqis because the USA retains absolute air superiority with incredibly powerful weapons systems. That is, by the way, the prevailing US military doctrine of the last couple of decades, in case you missed it.


I disagree. Again, this is where actual knowledge of the subject would serve you well.

Regarding the Teutoburg Wald battle. The Celtic peoples of Europe were already using pattern-welded steel swords, which the Romans were still trying without success to imitate four centuries later. However, the Romans had superior training, superior methods, and superior numbers. The locals had the home ground advantage.

Regarding USA-Iraq. There are only a few differences in technology. 1) Twenty years of main battle tank development. 2) Very fast and mobile missile platforms (Apaches, F16s, et cetera). 3) Superior battlefield observation and resource management on the part of the Americans. The locals had the home ground advantage.

Those are the main differences in each case.


My opinion is that the USA has some capable military commanders, and always has. But unfortunately they allow stupid civilians to interfere with their war activities. Regardless of what the USA military commanders want, Bush may demand they march into Baghdad.

There are more than a "few" differences between US and Iraqi technology other than you mentioned. One of the main factors in today's warfare will be the US' ability to destroy Iraqi communications. The US military has always allowed its field commanders a great deal of autonomy in adjusting to battlefield situations. In other words, Central command develops a strategic blueprint, but commanders on the spot are allowed a great deal of autonomy in adjusting to opportunities or problems that arise. The Iraqi military, however, is completely centralized in the style of the old Soviet Union. It is an extremely rigid chain of command. Field commanders are given no autonomy whatsoever on the battlefield, and if an opportunity arose would not be able to capitalize with out going through the chain of command first, and by the same token, if the situation collapses, they have to allow for orders from higher up before adjusting. They dare not make a decision on their own. Before US ground troops go in the Iraqi communications will be destroyed, thus cutting off all contact between Iraq leadership and field commanders. Iraq's army today is not even of the quality it was in '91. The Iraqi' Soviet-built main battle tanks were no match for the Abrams, artillery is not even comparable, and many of the Iraq troops surrendering were using weapons that were WWII vintage. And as in '91 Saddam will direct the Iraqi military; Bush won't. He will give full control to his generals as his father did with Schwartzkopf. This will be no Teuteburg Wald.

Originally posted by Adam
No. This is where military experience would serve you well.

Yeah Adam. You were in the navy once, and that makes you a expert authority on military history and tactics. If anyone else used this argument on you, you'd label them a fool, and we both know it. Save it for the groupies, you're completely failing to impress me.

I spent nine days in a wrecker's wargame ...

Adam's little story about how he thinks he had it as tough as a Roman legionary under attack for three days once, edited out in the interest of space, and the fact that this thread was never meant to be a comedy.

...Physical hardship and low rations and discomfort for only three days is not enough to make the most highly trained soldiers in the world jump at the hoot of an owl. It simply doens't work like that outside of whatever David Eddings books you've been reading.

And did they shoot at you too? Were your mates dropping around you with axe wounds and spears in the belly? Those war dogs the Germanic tribes used going for your throat? No? Didn't think so.

As much as you try to convince me you've been through it and know, the fact is you havent, and you don't.

Appealing to experience. Your appeal to ignorance does not serve you well.

Look up the definition of an "appeal to authority" fallacy argument Adam. Oh look, I'll save you the trouble.

from : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true."

In this case, "claimed to be" is particularly appropriate.

The USA military is, on a level playing field, vastly superior. Thus Saddam's announcement months ago that he would draw the USA into the cities if he could, to attempt another Mogadishu. The USA vastly overpowers the Iraqis because the USA retains absolute air superiority with incredibly powerful weapons systems. That is, by the way, the prevailing US military doctrine of the last couple of decades, in case you missed it.

Erm, Adam? I was talking about the Romans not being a "vastly superior force" compared to the Germanic army.
Context, Adam. Con-text. It's in the dictionary.

However, here you're preaching to the converted. I'm not sure why you had to write a whole paragraph telling me something I already know. Unless of course you were assuming (bad, bad Adam) that I didn't.

I disagree. Again, this is where actual knowledge of the subject would serve you well.

Regarding the Teutoburg Wald battle. The Celtic peoples of Europe were already using pattern-welded steel swords, which the Romans were still trying without success to imitate four centuries later. However, the Romans had superior training, superior methods, and superior numbers. The locals had the home ground advantage.

Here is what I originally said.
"I would also point out that while the Roman armies were better equipped than the Germans, the technological gap between Iraq and the US is far wider."

Adam, you cannot seriously sit there and tell me that the technology gap between the USA and Iraq in terms of military hardware is not not wider than what the Germanic people and the Romans was at the time of that battle.

Swords and spears are swords and spears. Ok, so the Germans had them a little longer and far less likely to break. But the fact remains that it's still a sword, and still requires you get up close and personal. I won't even go into how many germanics actually had those swords.

Compare that with tanks that can hit your enemy at a much longer range and better accuracy than he has, and what will probably amount to total control of the air with all the attendant advantages that gives.

I mean, seriously... argue away Adam. Type your heart out.

My opinion is that the USA has some capable military commanders, and always has. But unfortunately they allow stupid civilians to interfere with their war activities. Regardless of what the USA military commanders want, Bush may demand they march into Baghdad.

Hence me saying that if they allow themselves to get drawn into an urban conflict then I agree, they would be pretty damn stupid. I did put in this disclaimer.

You're kidding, right? That's what you're basing your military knowledge on?

Also basing it on my ability to read and learn from history.


You weren't exactly under fire during that exercise.

Indeed. I have been in situations in which group[s of people were actively hunting me, trying to kill me, but those were the best examples I personally have of being physically hard-pressed over time. The point being to demonstrate that being pressed hard does not screw over professional soldiers.


Three days in unfamiliar territory being harrassed by a disciplined adversary, with loss of your auxillary forces to the other side, loss of your supplies, being harassed relentlessly until they reached a defensive position and unable to set up any sort of serious perimeter can very easily demoralize a force, particularly if you've realized your commander is incompetent. In ancient combat demoralization was a major contributor in many battle fields. Alexander's success against far superior Persian forces was generally achieved by demoralizing the center of the line that faced his phalanxes. I served 22 months in Vietnam and I saw men in defensive positions become extremely agitated during one night of harrassment when NVA forces continually probing the perimeter and mortars were being lobbed in. generally these positions were held, but air support and artillery fire often had to be called in to break the assault.

1) Demoralisation is still a major factor in combat. However, I doubt the level of demoralisation suggested among the Romans in Teuroburg Wald. They were very experienced soldiers, with the best training in the world. And unlike today, where you get 18 year old high school jocks, give them an M16, and say shoot when you see something, these were men who fought toe-to-toe with people trying to stick sharp metal through them; I have no doubt whatsoever that they were emotionally tougher than any of the kids sent over to Vietnam.

2) No offence, but the American performance in Vietnam is hardly a good thing to use as an example of anything except bad work.


There are more than a "few" differences between US and Iraqi technology other than you mentioned. One of the main factors in today's warfare will be the US' ability to destroy Iraqi communications.

This is covered by the second point I made earlier.


The US military has always allowed its field commanders a great deal of autonomy in adjusting to battlefield situations. In other words, Central command develops a strategic blueprint, but commanders on the spot are allowed a great deal of autonomy in adjusting to opportunities or problems that arise. The Iraqi military, however, is completely centralized in the style of the old Soviet Union. It is an extremely rigid chain of command. Field commanders are given no autonomy whatsoever on the battlefield, and if an opportunity arose would not be able to capitalize with out going through the chain of command first, and by the same token, if the situation collapses, they have to allow for orders from higher up before adjusting. They dare not make a decision on their own.

I'm not so sure that's accurate. Iraq doesn't have the battlefield communications capability to support such a method.


Before US ground troops go in the Iraqi communications will be destroyed, thus cutting off all contact between Iraq leadership and field commanders. Iraq's army today is not even of the quality it was in '91. The Iraqi' Soviet-built main battle tanks were no match for the Abrams, artillery is not even comparable, and many of the Iraq troops surrendering were using weapons that were WWII vintage. And as in '91 Saddam will direct the Iraqi military; Bush won't. He will give full control to his generals as his father did with Schwartzkopf. This will be no Teuteburg Wald.

Yes, that is exactly what happened last time. Do you think they learned nothing? Maybe so.

I spent nine days in a wrecker's wargame without seeing the sun, irregular sleeping hours, no sleep sessions more than five hours long, no showers, stuffing food down when I could manage it between naps, off-shift action stations and the ops room. And no decline in my performance. Every sailor was rated, marked, as were the ship and each department.

I spent a week alternating between running, sleeping on the ground, and kayaking, carrying a full pack, with basic rations and no comfy unfiform or tent.

We used to run from 5am to midday in combat boots and uniform, full pack, L1A1, ammo, canteen. Stop for lunch. Then run back.

so? my winky is still bigger than yours

Yeah Adam. You were in the navy once, and that makes you a expert authority on military history and tactics. If anyone else used this argument on you, you'd label them a fool, and we both know it. Save it for the groupies, you're completely failing to impress me.

No. What makes me qualified to discuss tactics is me having graduated with top marks from the RAN Surface Warfare School, and having read about history my entire life, and having been so damn good at my job that the Captain of my ship specifically requested that I be on certain critical tasks in various siuations.


And did they shoot at you too? Were your mates dropping around you with axe wounds and spears in the belly? Those war dogs the Germanic tribes used going for your throat? No? Didn't think so.

Yes, I have been shot at, by a great many people. Yes, I have had people with knives and such actively trying to kill me.


Erm, Adam? I was talking about the Romans not being a "vastly superior force" compared to the Germanic army.
Context, Adam. Con-text. It's in the dictionary.

No, you were talking about USA-Iraq:

I disagree with the "vastly superior" bit (superior, yes.. "vastly" gives the wrong impression of actual events.). The Americans don't come anywhere near outnumbering the Iraqis, and I doubt the Iraqis have the capability to seriously harm American morale unless the US stupidly allows itself to be drawn into a street-fighting conflict.

Happy?


However, here you're preaching to the converted. I'm not sure why you had to write a whole paragraph telling me something I already know. Unless of course you were assuming (bad, bad Adam) that I didn't.

Actually I do make an assumption about you. I assume you're an idiot regarding just about everything, because you rarely show any rational thought or logic.


Adam, you cannot seriously sit there and tell me that the technology gap between the USA and Iraq in terms of military hardware is not not wider than what the Germanic people and the Romans was at the time of that battle.

Demonstrate to me the technological gap between Iraq and the USA.


Swords and spears are swords and spears. Ok, so the Germans had them a little longer and far less likely to break. But the fact remains that it's still a sword, and still requires you get up close and personal. I won't even go into how many germanics actually had those swords.

The number of pattern-welded steel swords available is unknown. Most steel and iron weapons from the time have vanished through corrosion.


Compare that with tanks that can hit your enemy at a much longer range and better accuracy than he has, and what will probably amount to total control of the air with all the attendant advantages that gives.

I mean, seriously... argue away Adam. Type your heart out.

I'm well aware that we use different technology today. How does this demonstrate that the technological advantage of one side is greater or narrower then then now, or now than then?

I wasn't aware that we were still living in the era of the sword.

*Smiles and politely reminds Adam that we even have crossbows*

This massive army, the most well-equipped and disciplined in the world, was slaughtered in Teutoburg Wald by the Germans.

Shocking, isn't it? It's not like something like this has ever happened before or after....I mean, the Americans didn't defeat the better trained and equipped British army in our Revolution, and it's not like the Americans didn't get their asses kicked in Vietnam by a technologically inferiour force that knew the land...

Oh wait. :rolleyes:

Hannibal:

Not good I presume. The Arabs are an ethnocentric people who would rather ‘die on their feet then live on their knees’ to quote an old revolutionary. They are a proud people who have their own history and culture, which at one time was actually superior to Western civilization. For them, cultural submission to a people they have exchanged countless wars is not an option.

Power is most effective when it is most insidious. Perhaps they can stand up to military might, but I wonder if they can hold up against Pepsi-Cola and rock and roll?

Originally posted by Adam
No. What makes me qualified to discuss tactics is me having graduated with top marks from the RAN Surface Warfare School, and having read about history my entire life, and having been so damn good at my job that the Captain of my ship specifically requested that I be on certain critical tasks in various siuations.

And this, of course, makes you an eminent authority on ancient warfare. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I know you'll point out the connection for me.

You're still appealing to (claimed) authority. Besides which, I've read a lot of history too. And I can piss further. And My dad is bigger than your dad.

Now.. regarding your above "statement of fact" ... umm... "prove it". I want scanned documents, statements from your former commander describing his undying respect for you, statements from the opposition saying how they admire you so much because you ran rings around them in "exercises".... the whole nine yards. Support your assertions, Adam!

Yes, I have been shot at, by a great many people. Yes, I have had people with knives and such actively trying to kill me.

*laughs* umm.. ok. Me too, huh.

No, you were talking about USA-Iraq:

Happy?

*sighs* alright Adam, seeing as you can't read, I'll post it again for you.

Your post :

But the point remains. The vastly superior force was hammered in the home territory of the people they sought to crush.

My reply :

I disagree with the "vastly superior" bit...

I'll say it again for you, Adam. Context.

Demonstrate to me the technological gap between Iraq and the USA.

Waste of time. I'd try to demonstrate that the majority of trees have green leaves too, but I'm sure you'd find some way to argue about it.

/Adam mode
I'd try to demonstrate that the majority of trees have green leaves too, but I'm sure you'd find some way to argue about it.

But Marquis, in the fall, the trees in my yard have orange and red leaves! You are just a silly teen who frightens me, just as most women do.

/end Adam mode

And then there are those trees with needles...evergreens.

*smile* A teen I am not, but silly? You may be completely right. Tilting at windmills isn't exactly a productive pastime, but it's sure as hell fun!

/Adam mode/

YOU ARE A TEEN! Everyone who disagrees with my infinite wisdom is simply an angst-y teen! It's not possible to disagree with me and have a valid opinion.

/end Adam mode

/Xev mode/

Wow, being Adam is kinda scary. No matter he's so messed up. I've got the chills just from entering Adam mode for a minute!

Now I kinda think I should pity him and be nice.

I sense some interesting vibes between you two. Do opposites attract?

If you're reffering to me and Adam, Bowser, then I can assure you we're not opposite at all. Rather similar, except I laugh at me and him, and he laughs at me, and doesn't laugh at himself as far as I'm aware.

Xev and Adam :D Ignore me now...sorry :p

Bowser:

I have a boy, and the only time I'd fuck a slave is if he was my slave.

Not society's.

the marquis

So... no demonstrating that the gap between USA and Iraqi technology is greater than the gap between Roman and Celtic technology? Right. Thought so.

As for my record; perhaps I will scan it some day, and post it. I hope to get inh touch with my old Captain again soon for a reunion, too.

xev

Do you have a point? Ever? Anything?

Adam:

Yes. Try reading my posts. You may notice my point. However, you're not the smartest fish in the barrel, so I'm not holding out much hope.

Let me reiterate: It is semi-common throughout history for a well equipped and disciplined force to be defeated by a weaker force on home soil. To imply that the US' potential actions in Iraq are foolish because of something that happened over 2000 years ago in a wildly different context is - well, it's stupid. Worse, it ignores the valid reasons against military action in Iraq.

Xev - "Kill hippies, not ragheads" - Bellringer

It seems you once again missed the point of not only my recent posts, but an entire thread. The entire point was: this has happened before (and I gave one famous example of it), so the USA should be careful. Now, you are arguing my point as though it is an opposing point.

Originally posted by Adam
the marquis

So... no demonstrating that the gap between USA and Iraqi technology is greater than the gap between Roman and Celtic technology? Right. Thought so.

No, Adam. It means that it's not worth my time. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong, it doesn't mean I couldn't if I could be bothered, and it doesn't mean that the sky is in fact red in your opinion simply because I said it was blue. It means, in simple terms, it's fairly obvious to most, and not something I'm going to demonstrate in order to make you do a happy dance.

As for you posting your "qualifications" here, by all means, go ahead. Prove to me that your navy experience makes you an expert in ancient history and tactics. I'll post my highschool results as proof that I'm an expert water polo player to reciprocate.

Adam:
Now why'd you state such a stupidly obvious fact?

I guess that to an idiot, the obvious seems brilliantly new.

While the situation is simular, so what? For one thing, the overall situation is so different (it was over 2000 fucking years ago, etc). For another, one need only look at Vietnam to see that the US should be careful.

Most people would agree that being careful is a good thing when your actions involve the deaths of thousands.

P.S:

The Marquis says that:
"the whole point of everyones replies was that the situation wasn't the same as what the US is facing now."

He then resumed his off-key rendition of "Give my regards to Broadway" while cavorting about in a PVC jacket and a pair of fishnet stockings that look strangely familiar....

*Edit*

Now he's threatening me.

Xev is making all of that up. It was in fact "If you knew
Susie" I was singing, and the stockings were not hers at all.

*edit - Don't listen to her. The knife I'm holding at her throat is for scraping off the odd barnacle I can see.

Marquis:

With your singing, you might have been singing Shiller's "Ode to Joy" and I wouldn't know.

Not her stockings....you son of a bitch, are you wearing my stockings again?!

You might have a point about my singing. But then, I'm not sure how you can judge, seeing as when I heard you singing your own national anthem it sounded like a longship full of vikings heading off for a bit of rapine and plunder, except in a roughly feminine tone. Sounded a bit wierd. ;)


As for your stockings, I insist that the ones I'm wearing aren't yours. I know that for certain, because I put yours... oops.

Marquis:

You might have a point about my singing. But then, I'm not sure how you can judge, seeing as when I heard you singing your own national anthem it sounded like a longship full of vikings heading off for a bit of rapine and plunder, except in a roughly feminine tone. Sounded a bit wierd.

I was probably singing some manner of death metal, Dying Fetus most like.

As for your stockings, I insist that the ones I'm wearing aren't yours. I know that for certain, because I put yours... oops.

You bastard! Don't you dare go using my best fishnets for autoerotic asphyxiation!

I will never invite you over while you're blasted on cold medicine again!

So, no doubt most of you are aware of several related factors:

USA culture is "leaking" outward via the arts, commerce, et cetera, as we saw with Rome.
The USA military is vastly superior to Iraq's in terms of the sheer volume of equipment they can put into the field.
The USA has massively extended supply lines, resting entirely on the goodwill of the nations around Iraq.
The USA has the world's largest economy feeding those supply lines, feeding their mountains of equipment.
Iraq is intending to attempt to draw the US land forces into close combat in an urban environment.
The USA will undoubtedly maintain superior battlefield communications, enabling a more effective command structure.
In Baghdad, IF it comes to urban combat, and IF the Iraqi people object to an American invasion, then the USA infantry will be facing a couple of million people who don't want them there.


1) Will the USA forces be drawn into urban combat?

2) If not, why not? Since Saddam probably plans to entrench in his cities.

3) If so, will the Iraqi populace be against the invaders?

4) The United Nations has made predictions regarding the likely number of civilian casualties. What would you estimate as the number of civilian casualties if the USA gets into urban combat in Iraq's cities?

5) If the USA military is drawn into urban combat, in all likelihood the number of civilian casualties wil increas dramatically. This wil further turn the local populace against the invaders. In this case, will the local civilians get involved in the fight? If so, how many do you think will get into the action?

6) If urban combat occurs, if the civilian detah toll climbs ever higher, will the USA lose all support from nearby nations? What effects will this have on the USA war effort in that region?

7) IF the USA loses the support or compliance of nations in the area, will they withdraw from the conflict?

8) IF the USA faces the loss of compliance of nations around Iraq - or worse, active aggression by those nations - would Iraq be able to capitalise on this enough to actually cause serious harm to the USA forces?

9) If the number of civilian casualties gets high enough to upset you, will you then be for or against the war?

Originally posted by Adam
So, no doubt most of you are aware of several related factors:

USA culture is "leaking" outward via the arts, commerce, et cetera, as we saw with Rome.
The USA military is vastly superior to Iraq's in terms of the sheer volume of equipment they can put into the field.
The USA has massively extended supply lines, resting entirely on the goodwill of the nations around Iraq.
The USA has the world's largest economy feeding those supply lines, feeding their mountains of equipment.
Iraq is intending to attempt to draw the US land forces into close combat in an urban environment.
The USA will undoubtedly maintain superior battlefield communications, enabling a more effective command structure.
In Baghdad, IF it comes to urban combat, and IF the Iraqi people object to an American invasion, then the USA infantry will be facing a couple of million people who don't want them there.


1) Will the USA forces be drawn into urban combat?
Somewhat, not heavily though.
2) If not, why not? Since Saddam probably plans to entrench in his cities.
Saddam's military IQ is very suspect, I doubt he'll come up with a good urban warfare plan, if it's even really possible.
3) If so, will the Iraqi populace be against the invaders?
I think it's apparent to most people in the World, that the Iraq people have to act like they support Saddam or face death. I think they'll jump at the chance to take him out.
4) The United Nations has made predictions regarding the likely number of civilian casualties. What would you estimate as the number of civilian casualties if the USA gets into urban combat in Iraq's cities?
As many as it takes....
5) If the USA military is drawn into urban combat, in all likelihood the number of civilian casualties wil increas dramatically. This wil further turn the local populace against the invaders. In this case, will the local civilians get involved in the fight? If so, how many do you think will get into the action?
It may turn the citizens against the invaders, or it may make the Iraq citizens even more war weary. How long will they fight for Saddam, a ruthless dictator, against overwhelming US forces.
6) If urban combat occurs, if the civilian detah toll climbs ever higher, will the USA lose all support from nearby nations? What effects will this have on the USA war effort in that region?
If the UN is envolved in the war, then it could be a factor. If the UN doesn't back an Iraq war, why would the US give a damn what other countries think? The countries in the region will fall in line with the US.
7) IF the USA loses the support or compliance of nations in the area, will they withdraw from the conflict?
No.
8) IF the USA faces the loss of compliance of nations around Iraq - or worse, active aggression by those nations - would Iraq be able to capitalise on this enough to actually cause serious harm to the USA forces?
I doubt it.
9) If the number of civilian casualties gets high enough to upset you, will you then be for or against the war?
I'm already against the war. We don't need a 60+ billion war, so the oil companies get paid.

I agree with taking out Saddam, but I just would rather focus on terrorist cells, and countries who support them *cough* Saudi Arabia...:m:

Originally posted by Adam
Also basing it on my ability to read and learn from history.


Indeed. I have been in situations in which group[s of people were actively hunting me, trying to kill me, but those were the best examples I personally have of being physically hard-pressed over time. The point being to demonstrate that being pressed hard does not screw over professional soldiers.

I'll just take your word on that.


1)And unlike today, where you get 18 year old high school jocks, give them an M16, and say shoot when you see something, these were men who fought toe-to-toe with people trying to stick sharp metal through them; I have no doubt whatsoever that they were emotionally tougher than any of the kids sent over to Vietnam.

You don't doubt it? You have no idea if they were emotionally tougher or not. It doesn't take long in combat to become "emotionally tougher." That is established in the first firefight. You either handle it emotionally or you crack and you die. If you do handle it, and most do because 18 year olds make very efficient killers it seems) you are basically a machine. You can handle anything thrown at you after that, but it doesn't mean you don't come under duress in intense situations.

2) No offence, but the American performance in Vietnam is hardly a good thing to use as an example of anything except bad work.

No offense taken. However, don't blame the performance of the American fighting men in Vietnam. The fault lays at the strategic level for getting into a fight our leaders didn't understand. Tactically, the American performance was fine. We never lost a standup fight. Even at Khe Shan, our equivalent of the French's Dien Bien Phu, Marines held out against far superior numbersuntil the NVA gave up. And what did our leadership do afterwards? Had the Marines march off the hill and leave it for the enemy. It was that type of strategy that failed us.


I'm not so sure that's accurate. Iraq doesn't have the battlefield communications capability to support such a method.

Neither did the Soviets, but it was the type of system the Kremlin insisted upon.


[/QUOTE]Yes, that is exactly what happened last time. Do you think they learned nothing? Maybe so.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure they learned something. That doesn't mean they could do much about it however. Our capablilities have been improved much more over the last ten years than theirs.

If Bush orders forces into Baghdad I still don't expect a repeat of Mogadishu. That raid consisted of a Rangers company and a small contingent of Delta Force. Barely over 100 men. And the Clinton administration nixed the use of armor and Spector gunships overhead, something the operation had called for. The force that goes into Baghdad will not be so limited, and I doubt would be so constricted by Washington.

You don't doubt it? You have no idea if they were emotionally tougher or not. It doesn't take long in combat to become "emotionally tougher." That is established in the first firefight. You either handle it emotionally or you crack and you die. If you do handle it, and most do because 18 year olds make very efficient killers it seems) you are basically a machine. You can handle anything thrown at you after that, but it doesn't mean you don't come under duress in intense situations.

In the ancient world we had people like the Spartans, to whom killing was no big thing at all. They killed as a normal part of daily life. It was considered a normal part of the day to wander outside and kill a slave, just to reinforce the fear in the minds of the other hellots. Every year they had a massive culling of the hellots, to both curb any build-up of rebellious sentiment and to provide a vacuum which could be filled by new slaves, thus giving further reason for more military conquest. And personally I believe it does require greater emotional toughness to fight toe-to-toe than to shoot at 150 metres or carpet bomb a village.


No offense taken. However, don't blame the performance of the American fighting men in Vietnam. The fault lays at the strategic level for getting into a fight our leaders didn't understand. Tactically, the American performance was fine. We never lost a standup fight. Even at Khe Shan, our equivalent of the French's Dien Bien Phu, Marines held out against far superior numbersuntil the NVA gave up. And what did our leadership do afterwards? Had the Marines march off the hill and leave it for the enemy. It was that type of strategy that failed us.

Fair enough, I also blame the management.


I'm sure they learned something. That doesn't mean they could do much about it however. Our capablilities have been improved much more over the last ten years than theirs.

The USA is still using M16s, the Partiot system, Tomahawks, Apaches, Abrams, Bradleys, F16s, F19s, the same ships with the same radar systems and the same data-integration systems (although those data-integration systemsare upgraded every now and then). It seems that the USA has included urban combat training more since Mogadishu, but apart from that, how have USA methods improved? Let's keep in mind that USA pilots in Kosovo were often fooled by a simple trick once employed by Rommel; building fake tanks out of cardboard and such.


If Bush orders forces into Baghdad I still don't expect a repeat of Mogadishu. That raid consisted of a Rangers company and a small contingent of Delta Force. Barely over 100 men. And the Clinton administration nixed the use of armor and Spector gunships overhead, something the operation had called for. The force that goes into Baghdad will not be so limited, and I doubt would be so constricted by Washington.

I agree, again it was bad management, bad decisions, and a bad idea to begin with.

The rest of the Muslim world will believe that we attacked and humiliated a Muslim nation that presented no threat to our security. (Anyone on either side who believes our laughable propaganda now surely won't after Baghdad falls without lobbing one nuke even as far as Israel.)

You folks are smart and well read. Anybody remember a little affair called the Crusades? Well, every Muslim on this planet does. And deep down inside, they all carry a little spark of fear that Christendom has been biding its time for a thousand years, waiting for the right moment to strike again and obliterate them. With the Soviet Union, the automatic knee-jerk defender of every underdog, long gone, it will look like we think we've finally got that chance and resumed the Crusades.

Those "moderate" Islamic governments in places like Indonesia and Malaysia? Think they'll withstand hysteria on a national scale? They'll topple like the Estonian Communist Party the morning after Perestroika. One billion Muslims -- one sixth of the world's people -- three times the total population of the U.S. -- will suddenly become potential suicide warriors.

Obviously not every one of them will actually tape dynamite to their bodies and moor sloops in Santa Barbara, ride snowmobiles down from Saskatchewan, row kayaks up Chesapeake Bay, or cut down the fence between Arizona and Sonora. But suppose just one tenth of one percent of them are taken in by the religious propaganda and believe they will go to heaven if they blow themselves up in the Mall of America or the Astrodome and take a hundred Americans with them?

That would still be one million guerilla fighters. Coming at us from every direction. Eager to die for their cause. We could send our brave military forces out and saturation bomb every one of those countries. But it won't stop the guerillas, especially the ones who are already halfway here. Probably even motivate the survivors to strap on some dynamite and join their buddies.

I agree that we could probably win the war in Iraq. But who thinks we could win the war in America? How many of us would be left? Would it still be a place we could call America?

We're making the same mistake we made in Vietnam. Thinking that the next war will be just like WWII. When in fact it won't even be like Vietnam.

AGINCOURT.

A vastly superior force annihilated by a rag tag, sick, hungry and demoralised army....

It can happen at any time .

adam 2314 you missed fraggle's point: This war is not going to end in Baghdad. It is going to end in American streets. When Americans are sick of the bloodshed at home and can no longer afford an empire, our troops will leave all the places where they are unwelcome. This is absolutely inevitable, and any US military actions without political mandate accelerate this process dramatically. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Originally posted by hypewaders
adam 2314 you missed fraggle's point: This war is not going to end in Baghdad. It is going to end in American streets. When Americans are sick of the bloodshed at home and can no longer afford an empire, our troops will leave all the places where they are unwelcome. This is absolutely inevitable, and any US military actions without political mandate accelerate this process dramatically. Welcome to the 21st Century.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was meant for Adam and The Marquis.. Bickering about the various merits of armies... Size and superior equipment mean nothing... against a determined defender.

When the shit hits the fan, anything can and does happen.. Even Adam had time to reflect on that during his lunch break on his war games.

Adam, the thought of someone like you in a position to defend millions of Americans is utterly sickening!!! Why did you join the Navy? You sound like one of many great "educated idots". :confused:

Originally posted by Adam
In the ancient world we had people like the Spartans, to whom killing was no big thing at all. They killed as a normal part of daily life. It was considered a normal part of the day to wander outside and kill a slave, just to reinforce the fear in the minds of the other hellots. Every year they had a massive culling of the hellots, to both curb any build-up of rebellious sentiment and to provide a vacuum which could be filled by new slaves, thus giving further reason for more military conquest.

And I wouldn't compare the Romans to the Spartans either.

And personally I believe it does require greater emotional toughness to fight toe-to-toe than to shoot at 150 metres or carpet bomb a village.

I won't argue that at all, but I would say that you don't seem to have an understanding of what ground combat in Vietnam was like. 150 meters? That's roughly 450 feet. We should have been so lucky. Most ground combat in Vietnam occurred from anywhere from right on top of each other to maybe 15-20 meters. Most combat was dictated by the type of terrain it was fought upon. Don't let the Hollywood portrayals of Vietnam fool you.


The USA is still using M16s, the Partiot system, Tomahawks, Apaches, Abrams, Bradleys, F16s, F19s, the same ships with the same radar systems and the same data-integration systems (although those data-integration systemsare upgraded every now and then). It seems that the USA has included urban combat training more since Mogadishu, but apart from that, how have USA methods improved? Let's keep in mind that USA pilots in Kosovo were often fooled by a simple trick once employed by Rommel; building fake tanks out of cardboard and such.

No point in going into a lengthy discussion of weapons systems. If war starts we'll see what the improvements, or lack of, were. Building fake tanks didn't help the Serbs, and if the Iraqis waste time building pseudo-tanks I doubt it will help them either.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Coldrake
[B] Don't let the Hollywood portrayals of Vietnam fool you.

Your correct there.... A bit of real blood and snot would change most peoples opinions.

Rumsfeld likes to micro manage the military much the same as the paranoid Hitler did after his assasination attempt.

Once we spend 200 - 500 BILLION DOLLARS for our Iraq war
what do we really get for our money?...

an enraged terrosist that blows up one of our nuclear plants that contaminates an area where 26 million Americans used to live?


By the way , if one of our nukes just happens to go off

Guess who will deny it is ours and blame Iraq.

Originally posted by Don H
Rumsfeld likes to micro manage the military much the same as the paranoid Hitler did after his assasination attempt.

I would say that Saddam fits this description better than anyone.....

Originally posted by Natt
Adam, the thought of someone like you in a position to defend millions of Americans is utterly sickening!!! Why did you join the Navy? You sound like one of many great "educated idots". :confused:

1) You seem to be under the impression I am American. I'm not.

2) I was in the RAN, not the USN.

3) I would defend anyone, regardless of nationality, religion, colour, or shoe-size, if I thought it appropriate.

4) That's okay, to me you seem one of those "uneducated idiots".

And I wouldn't compare the Romans to the Spartans either.

Fair enough.


I won't argue that at all, but I would say that you don't seem to have an understanding of what ground combat in Vietnam was like. 150 meters? That's roughly 450 feet. We should have been so lucky. Most ground combat in Vietnam occurred from anywhere from right on top of each other to maybe 15-20 meters. Most combat was dictated by the type of terrain it was fought upon. Don't let the Hollywood portrayals of Vietnam fool you.

Actually I base the range on Australia figures. I'm aware that the USA forces fought entirely differently to the methods employed by Australia in Vietnam. I have somewhere a declassified report on Australian troop-efectiveness in Vietnam; I'll see if I can find it.


No point in going into a lengthy discussion of weapons systems. If war starts we'll see what the improvements, or lack of, were. Building fake tanks didn't help the Serbs, and if the Iraqis waste time building pseudo-tanks I doubt it will help them either.
I simply don't think there has been much advancement in USA military technology in ten years. New software on the AEGIS systems and such, maybe. The true advantage remains the USA's air superiority in such open ground.

Originally posted by Adam
Actually I base the range on Australia figures. I'm aware that the USA forces fought entirely differently to the methods employed by Australia in Vietnam. I have somewhere a declassified report on Australian troop-efectiveness in Vietnam; I'll see if I can find it.


Hey, I really liked the Aussies I met. They were some tough nuts. Kindred spirits. They werek OK by me.