I can't believe you buy that...

You are basically saying that we are fighting a 'conventional' non-intelligence based war in two failed states while ignoring the intelligence war of going after a terrorist organization which everyone knows is based within the unruly parts of Warizstan.

Not to mention the psychological and political coup of capturing Osama Bin Laden the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks, who in his elusiveness fuels anti-American aggression, resistance and sentiment.

Let's imagine this was Iraq back in 2003 and suddenly the US army decided NOT to go after Saddam Hussein because it is better to deal with regional insurgents then going after the leader of the Baath party.

How Kafkaesque.

Al Qaeda is being consecrated into becoming the un-capturable, unstoppable, multi-lateral, international terrorist bogeyman. Have you read 1984?

But is it surprising?

Look at the level of sheer noise of everything occurring in the world. Information is provided but there is often very little analysis behind the events, just fear and paranoia about phantom organizations, the war is fought in the same way, 70% of US casualties are IEDs. Yet we are lead to believe some Iranian country threatens the might of the entire US Army? Navy? Air Force? Stationed out in the Persian Gulf recently having conducted training exercises?. The current quagmire is of our own making the only solution provided is holding on and seeing how far down the abyss we can go before realizing that our infantry is overstretched over two combat zones? And then the withdrawl from there is even worse. But it's all some say this and that. Because it's okay to have a population in fear and confusion against themselves, it allows actions to be taken that in an informed society would lead to impeachments of everyone in the administration.

Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed both posted with parts of a different sniper documentary, but I think it works.

In reply to your comment:
“Heya, both "US Army Sniper school" sifts are dead, I'm afraid :-/”

Heya, both "US Army Sniper school" sifts are dead, I'm afraid :-/

Why post this clip really?

I would be the last person telling combat personnel how they should be dealing with the situations they find themselves in.

I would much rather attack the higher echelon of lunatics who thought up the war in the first place.

These guys, they are just trying to make it right now. Under combat fatigue and stress, when you'd say pretty much anything about anyone because of where you are stuck in. This is how combat against non-military units is; stressful, fearful and unknown because you are always meeting resistance in the form of guerrilla tactics.

Videos like this, sure maybe the guy is a jerk whatever, but sometimes people take these videos and think it speaks for the entire US army. Just look at the effect the Rodney King tapes had on respect towards police officers all across North America.

Great vid, but a dupe:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Men-In-Black-by-US-Army-Specialist-Colby-Buzzell

This is Iraqi Military training done by the US army. It might look drastic but it has to be done this way because they need to train these guys in weeks not months... So woohoo CPA planning...

The more you bleed in training the less you bleed on the front line.

What excuse me? Pakistan is a country that is half run by dictatorial law, with the majority of areas being entirely autonomous of each other. The gun market that is there has been there since the days of the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Its really one of the few places in the world where I wouldn't want to be caught dead unarmed, alongside Somalia.

When I lived in Kuwait there was a cross border gun market as well, filled with soviet era and American weapons. Because for the US Army it's cheaper to sell off bulk mass to the government then to freight it all back to the US.

Guns will proliferate wherever there is conflict. But I don't believe that blanket elimination of all weaponry will lead to some kind of Utopian society of no crime, people will just find new ways to kill each other, you know nonlethal ways like microwaving you from a far.

But in no way can I understand why civilians should be allowed to own an assault rifle that has armor piercing capabilities, a weapons range is good enough to fire off all your testosterone.

I disagree. I think it's inexcusable to simply state this was a intelligence failure due to failure to react to world post-cold war. Simply due to the following factual information:

The Cold war was built on the shoulders of relationship with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
They got miffed due to US military presence and the House of Saud.
The American Embassy in Africa bombings.
The 1994 WTC attack.
The CIA and FBI knew of their presence in the country.
Constant threats by Al Qaeda.
Intelligence failure post 9/11 with regards to Iraq.

Honestly all this back and forth about this tape is enough for me.

All I ask is that you don't consider the day, but what that day meant, and where that day has lead us.

The police state you mention we should avoid? We're already there... from Gitmo, arrest without trail, NSA phone taps, heabus corpus, NSA echelon program and so on and so on.

Do you know what the Terrorists want? No, the whitehouse tells us they hate the Western way of life. Or what is it? Islamofacists. No mention of their demands to end to house of Saud, Palestine and so on, i.e. specific grievances but no it degrades at this level to some clash of cultures and religions. Because the Decider has decided that for you.

Does it make logical plausible sense? No, if the intent of Al Qeada was to destroy the western way of life in American the attack would have been on nuclear power stations (check your maps its all there, its not state secrets or anything) around the East coast causing an event the size of Chernobyl. They knew that such an attack would lead to possible usage of nuclear arms against them, they don't seek a war of mutual annihilation, they are at issue with the foreign policy actions of the USA. So did not pursue that action.

In our world of fear due to terrorism, a massive securities and weapons supply chain is developing, the American goverment is spending nigh on billions on futuristic weapon systems that don't coincide with the needs of the US Army currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same money that could have been used to rebuild New Orleans which more then a year later is still there in tatters.

Are we safer today then we were before 9/11? No. It's worse. But you know, I guess no one read 1984 and am just paranoid.

Not exactly. Because a lot of them were drafted. And of course I'm grateful they stopped the Nazis, but let's face. That was not WHY the US got into WW2. They stepped in because Pearl Harbor was attacked. Who knows how much longer it would have taken for the US army to enter the war, if Pearl Harbor didn't happen.
And let's face it, the Nazis were evil of course, but I'm pretty sure the US army was full of people who also didn't like jews or black people. And it's a known fact that soldiers in an army lose their sight of the purpose of the mission quite rapidly. They stay alive and fight because of each others, not because their nations ask them to.
And I'm bad mouthing the army people, but politicians are ever worse. They are the ones who cause the problems, and they're not even brave enough to step in the battlefields. That's why I think political careers should not exist. Everything should have a limited number of terms. The presidents can only serve a few times, so can the prime-ministers, and so should the ministers, secretaries, senators, mayors, etc. At least that way the people that would run for politics, wouldn't be doing it to live off of it, but because they had a real interest to improve things.
Just my 2 cents.
I know i'm totally utopian, but I expect from others, the same I expect from myself.

In the US army, it is said that if you cannot reload as fast as Val Kilmer under fire, you are not meant to be a soldier. At 2:52.


The guy driving is the same guy who played the president in season 1 of 24. He's a cool character.

Farhad you miss the point. No one is saying it doesn't occure often. The problem is that the US government denied the exsistance of the video, telling the grieving familiy there was no `chance of them ever finding out the truth. The MOD said that the video was classified and the property of the US army and should not have been leaked (not just the americans are currupt and heartless). I hope the family can find solice in the findings, though I fear that justice will never be seen.

Whoa. Upvote for being a significant work, but that was incredibly hard to watch. The energy and creativity are certainly there, but I literally had my hands over my face for large swatches of the movie.

Wikipedia

In addition, Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman:

Because the film is a cartoon masterpiece, a cultural tour de force of 1940's America, and a vital example of how animation is often able to capture a nation's social nuances in ways that live-action films can never hope to do, Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs should be seen by animation fans and anyone else interested in the evolution of our cultural mythos. There is, however, a problem. The film contains what are today considered shockingly racist images. In fact, one might say that in some circles its reputation is blacker than coal. Defenders of this short are quick to point out that the cartoon was made without malice, meanness of spirit, and with the full cooperation of black performers who by all accounts found the cartoon hilariously entertaining. It has been noted that Clampett, by insisting on using Watso, Beals, and the Dandridges, struck a blow agaist the inherent racism of 1940's Hollywood. Again, the concept of black men (though in caricature) wearing US Army uniforms while performing heroic deeds has been lauded in some quarters as one of the few depictions of blacks in that sort of role during the war years. Beacause the country adopted racist attitudes, it has been reasoned, cartoons carried these images forth, as did radio, stage, and movies. For good or ill, such were the times.

Yet for many, the coat-of arms bearing dice and switchblades, the dice that serve as Prince Chawmin's front teeth, the wild-eyed jitterbigging, the black dialect, and the thick-lipped caricatures mark this cartoon as far from harmless. Even though Clampett may have meant to show the Teutonic Master Race that even the blacks they despised were a formidable foe to reckon with when gathered under the American flag, the racist images speak only of contempt, bigotry, and ridicule. Some feel that this cartoon is so offensive to African-Americans that it should be consigned to the censor's vault for all eternity, lest any showing of it at all spark an outpouring of anger, shame, and outrage among blacks and indeed, all who rightfully seek to eradicate racism from our society.

Nice features, but ahh.... where do they carry the ammunition?

edit: ohh, and the water/food, sleeping gear, entrenching tool... Oh that's right, the US army doesn't like taking and holding an area - they come home in the evening.

Let's admit that both conflicts suffer from a distinct lack of understanding of the situation on the ground. Being South East Asia and Iraq. Bush Snr. knew this back in 1991, and halted at the border of Kuwait. Overthrowing Saddam then would have been easier but would still lead to the Sunni, Shiite and Kurd problems we see today in Iraq.

Actively sending more troops into the region would only make the arab population think that this is a larger scale invasion force. It doesn't help that mentions of going after Syria and Iran were at least alluded to by the administration to the press. This would only make Sunni, Shiite, terrorist resistance join together against the foreign invader that is the US. Iran could step in and again we have a worse situation then before.

Furthermore blanket force increases would not translate to a increased security baseline as you mention, this is a different war then the US army has been training for. It would only become even more entrenched and we'd have the equivalent of what the Russians faces against the Chechen rebels. The larger force presence would just mean the population would feel even more like its American imperialism. The Vietnam war could have been won by the US by further drafts and increases in forces, but it would have cost America alot of credibility internationally as a gung-ho state.

I think the disadvantages of sending more troops are just as bad as the disadvantages of pulling out. There needs to be a radical change in the way the administration deals with it, concessions will have to be made internationally. If it becomes a humanitarian crisis then it's easier to drag the rest of the UN in, with the US. Disruption of oil markets? I don't think so considering the supply has been stable since the war has began, the price movements being only speculative on possible supply shortages.

It's clear that going at it alone would only make the US suffer more.

And Empire, wake up to the real world from your Disney world reality. We can all make normative statements that this good and that is bad but clearly that is not what drives real world events, ++ for Scotishmartialart's comment.