the usa's military's greatest strength is

[danielost]

Never give up your personal rights for the sake of security. Those who you give them to will never give them back and they will make sure you don't feel safe (hence your post just prior to this one). They will craft slight propaganda to make you fear your neighbours if they have to. It has been done in the past and will be done again. Just look at the outrage and destructive action American Civilians have brought down on inoccent people of middle eastern back ground, not necessarily Muslim just middle eastern.

There is no such thing as a Muslim Terrorist, just a terrorist who happens to be Muslim. Just like there is no such thing as an English Terrorist, just a Terrorist who happens to be English. etc.

~Thanato

They are dividing us right now in the usa. Let's see, there are the evil rich, the bigotted whites, the sexest males, the white supremists groups, the black supremists groups, the illegal hispanics(which means all hispanics legal or not)

[Bama13]

^

The continuation of the myth of the savage?

Our Manifest Destiny had nothing to do anything with Indian savagery but our own greed for land.

The conditions that allowed for and made the Plains War were us pushing people off their land in the East and forcing them into the West artificially creating overpopulation and competition for resources in the same way the Hun invasion sparked off the Great Migrations in Europe where Germanic tribes began pushing into Rome.

Not claiming that the Indians were peaceful but they were less savage than us for when they fought battles dozens died but when we did hundreds died and if we use contemporary European examples then thousands could die in one battle with the cannons and muskets and lines of war we used. Of course we adapted new strategies and did not usually have two great armies match off in even lines on the field in America outside the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.

We were the more advanced and formidable killers and not the natives. Had we been through industrialization we would have used tanks, bombs, and concentration camps. We did use camps and even sent in poison blankets. We started the practice of scalping. The only thing we did not do is cannibalism but at a time even Texas Rangers allied with cannibals and looked away.

Their deadliest warriors were mounted but only found their horses after Europeans introduced them into the Americas.

We were not heroes but land grabbers and it did not matter what the Indians were doing before we arrived, we were going to take and have that land.

"We" started the practice of scalping? If you are of Scythian descent perhaps. Not sure if they were the first, but they were scalping people in the 400's BCE.

Then we have this:

Certain tribes of Native Americans practiced scalping, in some instances up until the end of the 19th century. According to Haines and Steckel (2000), "Probably the most dramatic skeletal example of prehistoric violence in North America comes from the Crow Creek site in central South Dakota. Archaeological excavations revealed about 486 skeletons within a fortification ditch on the periphery of the habitation area. The site represents the Initial Coalescent period and dates to about 1325. P. Willey's analysis revealed that 90% of the individuals had cut marks characteristic of scalping."^[ 1325, pretty sure Europeans weren't in the New World yet.

If a battle is between two "armies" of 50-75 warriors each (100-150 total), and "only" dozens died it might be because of the numbers involved. If the "armies" consisted of 1000s to 10,000s each the total deaths will naturally be higher, yet the percentage of deaths might be close to equal. Also the Europeans had much better weapons, thus increasing the death rates of their battles.

[questionmark]

"We" started the practice of scalping? If you are of Scythian descent perhaps. Not sure if they were the first, but they were scalping people in the 400's BCE.

Then we have this:

Certain tribes of Native Americans practiced scalping, in some instances up until the end of the 19th century. According to Haines and Steckel (2000), "Probably the most dramatic skeletal example of prehistoric violence in North America comes from the Crow Creek site in central South Dakota. Archaeological excavations revealed about 486 skeletons within a fortification ditch on the periphery of the habitation area. The site represents the Initial Coalescent period and dates to about 1325. P. Willey's analysis revealed that 90% of the individuals had cut marks characteristic of scalping."^[ 1325, pretty sure Europeans weren't in the New World yet.

If a battle is between two "armies" of 50-75 warriors each (100-150 total), and "only" dozens died it might be because of the numbers involved. If the "armies" consisted of 1000s to 10,000s each the total deaths will naturally be higher, yet the percentage of deaths might be close to equal. Also the Europeans had much better weapons, thus increasing the death rates of their battles.

The Vikings were there 300 years before that. It still is possible that they bought along the scalping thingy.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

No. The greatest weakness is the politicians. The generals would win the war in two weeks and get the jobs done. Collateral damage and civ casualties happen in war. They have always happened.

@the world needs you, you are off base. Indians wanted guns and horses and wespons to destroy their neighbors. They had no might to back up their claim to the land so they lost it. It happens to bears, wolves, and all other animals. Those with the power win over. Otherwise the weak would survive....kind of like what is happening in first world countries today...the weak survive and that is what is naking ys weaker, unless cheap and abundant cannon fodder is a resource. ...

Incorrect, collateral damage applies to warring countries. We are technically not even in a war, it is a conflict. A country vs a Group of people. If we treat another country's civilians like collateral damage, we would have an actual war on our hands. We would also have no more oil, and we would get owned economically. So no, generals would not just destroy everything and finish the job in two weeks. But I do agree with the politicians being the biggest weakness.

Our strength is our pride and freedom. Although in recent times, we are losing our freedom, thus surrendering our strength...

Edited July 1, 2013 by xFelix

[ninjadude]

The militaries current goal is to get the fighting over with and then help rebuild.

REally?! you have that writing somewhere? From the Joint-Chiefs? No, they're goal is to gather as much money as possible and spend it on war.

[acidhead]

Stop being afraid.

ha

[Yamato]

How can we be afraid of angry people coming to our country to kill us for occupying and bombing them when the government is keeping us safe by occupying and bombing them?

[danielost]

Because, the people the government is trying to kill someone who doesn't have any borders to worry about. Meaning we can't occupy them.

[ellapenella]

Is also its greatest weakness. The troops care about what happens to none combatents. This is its strength because everyone or almost everyone is happy to see them. It is its greatest weakness because the enemy knows this and can wait until they are busy getting the civilians out of harms way. Also, in this war were the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, they can blend i n with the civilians.

The U.S.A Military are one of the most elite forces in all the world . I don't know how I feel about your view on what you consider to be their greatest weakness .I consider that it's in their training to be observant of non combatents .

[ellapenella]

How can we be afraid of angry people coming to our country to kill us for occupying and bombing them when the government is keeping us safe by occupying and bombing them?

I wouldn't say fear but there's a need for concern . People who hate us come here on visas , a lot of them are unable to be located .People who hate us also enter into our country by crossing our borders illegally . Those who hate western civilization and are here , give cause to be concerned.

[Border Collie]

Driving is not a right. It is a privilege, not driving does not infringe on freedom of movement. It just gets you places faster, which is more of an inconvenience. General safety equipment does not infringe on personal freedoms. Unless your personal freedom is to kill yourself (which you can still do if you really wanted to). Food safety in restaurants again does not infringe on personal freedoms.

Despite certain preconceptions there are actually very few human "rights". I agree that in a civilised society there are certain expectations which ought to be rights. But as soon as the walls of civilisation start to crumble, they disappear.

Plenty of examples from the twentieth century.

[Thanato]

Holy Necropost Batman!

[ellapenella]

How can the War On Terror be won?

I sort of think that it will always be . Only one day it won't be as severe as it is now. The world will be forever watchful , that it will never escalate as it did .

[Sir Smoke aLot]

If 'the enemy' had it's country there would be no need for him to hide and be a rebel, guerilla or something like that. Divide and conquer, as result - true patriots became evil, traitors became good. Add decades of unstable situation and you get movements like al quaid, taliban etc.. Or, as the end result of messing up with internal things of other countries - isis.

Big question would be why is it that US Army doesn't ever fight against other country's army, and it's full strenght? I am not trying to say anything 'hidden' here, nor do i in any way try to justify taliban movement or any other similar group, but there is a reason for everything man, there is a reason why US Marine must keep his guard up even if little kid approach him and it isn't because of what that individual Marine did, but because of 'greater good', or best said ' greater evil ' that politics make.

US military strenght is in it's people and what makes US military weaker and vulnerable is wrong politics, especially in ME.

[ellapenella]

If 'the enemy' had it's country there would be no need for him to hide and be a rebel, guerilla or something like that. Divide and conquer, as result - true patriots became evil, traitors became good. Add decades of unstable situation and you get movements like al quaid, taliban etc.. Or, as the end result of messing up with internal things of other countries - isis.

Big question would be why is it that US Army doesn't ever fight against other country's army, and it's full strenght? I am not trying to say anything 'hidden' here, nor do i in any way try to justify taliban movement or any other similar group, but there is a reason for everything man, there is a reason why US Marine must keep his guard up even if little kid approach him and it isn't because of what that individual Marine did, but because of 'greater good', or best said ' greater evil ' that politics make.

US military strenght is in it's people and what makes US military weaker and vulnerable is wrong politics, especially in ME.

I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly on this. I don't know if you're asking if we fight with our full strength or of we don't fight other military . But we have fought against other military before. Maybe since then we have allies and no one really starts wars . We would always stand our ground . I believe that our Military are very brave .We don't run . Though , with this administration we seem to be forced to not protect. Like what happened in Benghazi. That was pretty bad . I think that is a grand example of political games.

.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Ellapennella

[Sir Smoke aLot]

I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly on this. I don't know if you're asking if we fight with our full strength or of we don't fight other military . But we have fought against other military before. Maybe since then we have allies and no one really starts wars . We would always stand our ground . I believe that our Military are very brave .We don't run . Though , with this administration we seem to be forced to not protect. Like what happened in Benghazi. That was pretty bad . I think that is a grand example of political games.

.

Maybe both would be correct but yeah, i was saying later, that US army was fighting against 'leftovers' from armies of other countries. You can take Iraq for example and latest war there, for whatever reasons, a lot of Iraq troops just deserted. I am sure that Iraq isn't only case of this.

And of course, i maybe should have mentioned that first part of my post is direct reply to OP, reminder that there is a reason for everything - nothing happens by chance. I admire the soldier, one who would not harm innocent people intentionally, but it's bad politics which put soldiers in danger and reason for which US troops are in dangerous position today will most certainly be in US politics of messing up with internal things of many countries - especially at ME if not only because of ME.

[edit] fixed some typo's, can't turn on spell checker on my work PC - i suspect it's Gremlins attacking my browser

Edited March 2, 2015 by Sir Smoke aLot

[ellapenella]

Maybe both would be correct but yeah, i was saying later, that US army was fighting against 'leftovers' from armies of other countries. You can take Iraq for example and latest war there, for whatever reasons, a lot of Iraq troops just deserted. I am sure that Iraq isn't only case of this.

And of course, i maybe should have mentioned that first part of my post is direct reply to OP, reminder that there is a reason for everything - nothing happens by chance. I admire the soldier, one who would not harm innocent people intentionally, but it's bad politics which put soldiers in danger and reason for which US troops are in dangerous position today will most certainly be in US politics of messing up with internal things of many countries - especially at ME if not only because of ME.

[edit] fixed some typo's, can't turn on spell checker on my work PC - i suspect it's Gremlins attacking my browser

We've done shock and awe before. I don't think anyone really wants to fight but stuff happens and well we have to , the world is like that . I think we are the most elite military in the world. I think the hate (not from you , I don't mean you at all ) but from some people around the world towards America and our soldiers is not rightfully appropriate .Political agendas are the very reason I feel angry and sadness about things that pertain to America and the manner in which our Military and us are looked down upon and talked badly by other people . I'll always stand by my country's militray , I will not always be in support of the politians agendas . I will always be in support of our Military .

This is a piece of an artcle that was written in responce to a person that wrote a dishonorable article of the American sniper.

"Our military dislikes politics because the final outcome rest solely on political backing, rather than with the troops on the ground. Let me break it down Barney style for you, Laura. Imagine playing football with the NFL and winning every game up until you reach the Superbowl. Then, at that final moment,when it looks like all you need to do is hold out your defense a little bit longer, your team owner says “Screw this, lets go home”. That, Laura, is why we hate politics. "

Check out the artcile( I shared it with a couple of other people on the forum ).

http://warfighternew...merican-sniper/

Edited March 2, 2015 by Ellapennella