President Obama needs your help! - Page 2

I don't think you are trolling, I think you are just now saying you are trolling to cover up the fact everyone thinks you are an idiot.

"Ad hom me kid, I read a lot." is pretty good, i'll probably be using that in the future.

On September 14 2013 22:37 chris wrote: I don't think you are trolling, I think you are just now saying you are trolling to cover up the fact everyone thinks you are an idiot.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/roman_army_and_warfare.htm

In a battle, new recruits were always placed at the front of the more experienced soldiers in the army. There were three reasons for this. The first was to give them confidence as behind them were experienced soldiers who had fought in battles before. Secondly, it stopped the new soldiers running away if their courage deserted them. Finally, those who were more likely to be killed in the initial phase of a battle were at the front. The hardened and experienced legionnaires were at the rear. The Roman Army could ill afford to lose experienced legionnaires whereas if a new legionnaire came through a battle alive, he would be blooded and experienced and a valuable addition to the army. If he was killed, then the loss of his inexperience would not be too great.

Do you think the Roman Empire ever fought in battles just to give some experience to troops? Like, say, raiding barbarians?

On September 13 2013 17:25 Gnarly wrote: Well, if there are pipelines in Syria that lead to China, we need them. We plan on selling a lot of oil to China in the next few decades. We also are supposed to be having new laser warships and maybe we want to test them out live. There's also making sure that certain elements of the defense of the US is properly trained and equipped to handle any possible scenario. If you didn't know, a Tier 1 asset, meaning the highest possible tier, for the United States defense is a team of men? Their experience is one of the most crucial aspects to our national security. War may be a very shitty thing, but to not fight in wars is to weaken one's army. China is still around today because they fought in wars they could've stayed out of between what the Korean Peninsula was back then and Japan. They then used their experienced army to fend off attacks.

You do understand that if USA goes into Syria and helps the rebels win that doesn't mean they have any right to any of the country? Also - you make arguments about your army needing 'experience' - The pledge is to have no boots on the ground so I'm sure pointing and shooting cruise missiles is not going to give your army a ton of experience. It will cost a shit ton of money though and there WILL be collateral damage in the form of civilians.

"we need them if there are pipelines that lead Syria to China" - Well whoever wins you're not going to get them. I suppose perhaps a few companies might get some contracts but I highly doubt it considering how islamic extrimist alot of the rebels are. Honestly USA getting involved in a war in the middle east is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of - the rebels want your help to win and then they are going to want you to f**k off afterwards. -

On September 15 2013 00:22 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2013 22:37 chris wrote: I don't think you are trolling, I think you are just now saying you are trolling to cover up the fact everyone thinks you are an idiot. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/roman_army_and_warfare.htm   In a battle, new recruits were always placed at the front of the more experienced soldiers in the army. There were three reasons for this. The first was to give them confidence as behind them were experienced soldiers who had fought in battles before. Secondly, it stopped the new soldiers running away if their courage deserted them. Finally, those who were more likely to be killed in the initial phase of a battle were at the front. The hardened and experienced legionnaires were at the rear. The Roman Army could ill afford to lose experienced legionnaires whereas if a new legionnaire came through a battle alive, he would be blooded and experienced and a valuable addition to the army. If he was killed, then the loss of his inexperience would not be too great. Do you think the Roman Empire ever fought in battles just to give some experience to troops? Like, say, raiding barbarians?

Not really, they fought barbarians for their land, assets, slaves and to protect their frontiers. If you think barbarians weren't a threat who actually was responsible for destroying the (non Byzantine) roman empire? Yea experience is important but I am positive the romans didn't turn around one day and say "Well centurians XL - L of Legion VI haven't had any experience so lets attack the Barbarians in Germania, just to get them some experience. I am sure the experience was a bi-product of other goals.

Also do you really think the political climate in USA is "oh if new recruits die its no big deal because we need experienced soldiers anyway (last two sentences of your quote)" its 21st century now and body count is the most important thing to democratic western nations. Please think more before you post instead of reading something and deciding to go off on one about it.

On September 15 2013 08:48 KeyleK_uk wrote: Show nested quote + On September 13 2013 17:25 Gnarly wrote: Well, if there are pipelines in Syria that lead to China, we need them. We plan on selling a lot of oil to China in the next few decades. We also are supposed to be having new laser warships and maybe we want to test them out live. There's also making sure that certain elements of the defense of the US is properly trained and equipped to handle any possible scenario. If you didn't know, a Tier 1 asset, meaning the highest possible tier, for the United States defense is a team of men? Their experience is one of the most crucial aspects to our national security. War may be a very shitty thing, but to not fight in wars is to weaken one's army. China is still around today because they fought in wars they could've stayed out of between what the Korean Peninsula was back then and Japan. They then used their experienced army to fend off attacks. You do understand that if USA goes into Syria and helps the rebels win that doesn't mean they have any right to any of the country? Also - you make arguments about your army needing 'experience' - The pledge is to have no boots on the ground so I'm sure pointing and shooting cruise missiles is not going to give your army a ton of experience. It will cost a shit ton of money though and there WILL be collateral damage in the form of civilians. "we need them if there are pipelines that lead Syria to China" - Well whoever wins you're not going to get them. I suppose perhaps a few companies might get some contracts but I highly doubt it considering how islamic extrimist alot of the rebels are. Honestly USA getting involved in a war in the middle east is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of - the rebels want your help to win and then they are going to want you to f**k off afterwards. -

It's not helping the rebels, it's putting in the rebels yourself and them helping them. Have you seen some of the rebels? Have you seen how different a lot of the FSA looks from the Syrian Army? You should actually look into how the "syrians" are fake demonstrating and setting up fake chemical attack scenes while real ones go on. Also, we already have boots on the ground. America uses american mercenaries over the military due to more flexibility. Doesn't Britam ring a bell?

Now, talking about islamic the rebels are, that doesn't matter. There are american contractors working in remote industrial areas in the middle east, in countries that despise us.

Not really, they fought barbarians for their land, assets, slaves and to protect their frontiers. If you think barbarians weren't a threat who actually was responsible for destroying the (non Byzantine) roman empire? Yea experience is important but I am positive the romans didn't turn around one day and say "Well centurians XL - L of Legion VI haven't had any experience so lets attack the Barbarians in Germania, just to get them some experience. I am sure the experience was a bi-product of other goals. Also do you really think the political climate in USA is "oh if new recruits die its no big deal because we need experienced soldiers anyway (last two sentences of your quote)" its 21st century now and body count is the most important thing to democratic western nations. Please think more before you post instead of reading something and deciding to go off on one about it.

>protect their frontiers

Knowing how to fight barbarians is protecting one's frontier. The Barbarians were a threat, but not every single tribe ever. It wasn't until they started to group up that they started to become a serious threat. The Romans would use their lesser experienced troops to fight a disposable battle over using experienced troops, because a: more experienced troops is better, and b: inexperienced troops dying is better than experienced troops.

It's less of a deal if a new recruit dies over a battle hardened vet. This will only apply to the military. The media will blast the generals, some politicians understand, but have to blast the generals. However, it's not that anyone wants them to die. Over the last ten years, we've become extremely efficient in urban combat. When we first invaded after 9/11, we had no idea what the fuck to do. It is because of the experiences over there that our soldiers know how to effectively fight in our own turf. Even our police know urban combat. If we were to be invaded, we'd know how to fight, unlike ten years ago.

Theres nothing I can say to any of that it is really all just complete bullshit. I'm sorry I'd like to have a much better discussion but..... Theres nothing to say almost all of it is just wrong or pure speculation.