[Unknown Target]

I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.

Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.

[AlphaOne]

what i find surprising is the fact that the conquered country in this case Irak decides all of a sudden to buy guns after "carefull" considerations from all points especialy an economical point guns form the conquering army in this case the USArmy. Now if that is not political pressure and a puppet gouverment then i dont know what is. Also im wondering exactly where the hell did Irak get the money to reequip its army since well that country was under a heavy embargo and it was more or less backrupt. Well they can always pay in OIL . and we know who actualy get theyr greedy little hand on all that oil. But anywai i honestly believe that purchasing m16's is a very grave mistake on the part of the Irak army. They would of been a hell of a better off with ak74 or ak103. Much more cheaper much more realiaber better hitting power and a good range and acuracy.

[Janos]

You know quite well that serving does not really give one an idea just how a weapon works or how it compares to other similar designs, at least if you've served in FDF. Rifles are generally movingly similar in their specs.

???

But regarding business driven by war, it has always been so. Not necessarily for the both sides. The only difference is that now honor is much more valued, while before all the soldiers got their share of the loot. Nowadays soldiers can be rewarded with a medal, whose actual monetary value is small - and they are happy about it.

Mika

Even in the good old 1500s, looting was often severely discouraged and in many cases looters were executed. And the ancient methods often don't even know what looting is. Greek warfare wasn't looting either. After Rome fell, most wars were long and boring marches through pretty much empty landscape, and battles in and around cities were a remarkable expection.

Of course, the armies had to stay alive, and they sacked the rural areas for... food. No one - expect the high-ranking officers, ubiquitous thieves, smugglers, black market salesmen, whores, bandits and other assorted fine folk! - got rich. The idea of soldiers going to war and coming back rich is a romantic thought, but it's not very realistic.

A medal is a symbolic reward, something which is surprisingly valued high in militaries. I find it pretty funny - you can get killed, you rarely get rich when you dig a trench or shoot the other bad guys, but A MEDAL apparently proves something. Just what, I do not know for sure, but it definitely is something that is not for sale. A well-paid voluntary soldier who doesn't have to pay for his living often values the medal much more than the sparse luxuries he can afford.

No, modern armies still work as mercenaries. Simple hired killers. Try seeing how well a volunteer army would work when they're not getting paid.

Obviously, conscription-based and reactionary armies - ie. guerrilla armies in the face of invasion - work under different principles, but we're only talking about modern, western armies here.

There are western armies with conscription still in place today and voluntary armies that are not western, though. Post-Cold War NATO armies in Europe are a very, very, very very veeery small part of armies throughout history.

I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.

Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.

Well, what are those over-stated opinions and where's the ignorance? Give us samples!

[Unknown Target]

Do you honestly want me to start finger pointing at people?

[Mika]

the high-ranking officers, ubiquitous thieves, smugglers, black market salesmen, whores, bandits and other assorted fine folk!

Which is pretty much the composition of any war time troops, excluding whores. And I think I don't have too romantic pictures of war times nor do I try to sugar coat my opinions about them. But, looking back the time I spent in the military, it was a good and worthwile experience about people themselves and organisation, all the good and the bad stuff together.

So I actually recommend military service for all men (I'm not sure if the Army is a good place for women), but I don't recommend staying in the army for too long. The mentioned 1600/month with additional bonuses is poor if you compare it to salaries of mid level company executives. But it is the soldier who is risking his life.

Nevertheless, war is almost always driven by the need of geopolitical resources or assets, which are then looted from the target nation. The soldier who do the dirty job will never see the total amounts of wealth they accomplished in transferring. It is no wonder some old soldier feel that they were betrayed, giving all they could to the country, and the country rewarding them with so little. If I'm not wrong, the same applies to firemen and police also, their salaries don't seem to high either for the job they are doing.

The medal thing I have found strange, medals are quite valued in military, but it bears very little meaning to civil life. You don't get food or money for the good stuff you have done, instead they hand you a little piece of metal. Again, it is money or food that keeps the soldier alive in later civil life, not a piece of metal. Maybe it has something to do with being paid too much of killing a bunch of bad guys, and making it too obvious? But army is army, it will not change. It has thousands of years of tradition, and these things tend to stay as they are.

All the people who have served are authorised (and that's an order!) to shoot down all the bull**** I have written.

Mika

[BrotherBryon]

Medals only use in civilian life is that they can be put on a resume to help spice up the bit about military service. I'm not exactly certain how effective it is at earning one a job but they do help add to the experience section of the resume.

Medals are more symbolic then anything else, A soldier will look at those pieces of metal and remember the events that lead to them being awarded. A good deal of these are positive and reinforce the reasons behind their actions but others can be negative. I remember a young private who was given a medal for risking his life attempting to save one of our buddies trapped in a flooded vehicle. Had he been successful he would have been proud to have been awarded the medal but since our buddy died all it will remind him of is failure.

[IceFire]

I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.

Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.

And thats better than watching the news?

I'd say most of us know more than are given credit for but everyone should certainly do their own reading and come to their own conclusions.  Taking everything with a grain of salt is a very good thing.

[Nuclear1]

Military service isn't just about the pay or the experience with other people. The technical training most soldiers, sailors, and airmen get in the US can lead to getting very well-paying jobs in the civilian world. Mention on a resume you were trained in Arabic at DLI and spent two tours in the Middle East, and you're nearly guaranteed an edge over the ordinary college grad. Same goes for pilots, radar operators, crew chiefs, flight engineers...pretty much every military career field except infantry will get you some pretty good jobs after separation from service.

[Janos]

Do you honestly want me to start finger pointing at people?

Well, if you make such overarching statements as "thread is full of BS" then samples would be good, otherwise how could the people in question learn from their mistakes?

[Unknown Target]

I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.

Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.

And thats better than watching the news?

I'd say most of us know more than are given credit for but everyone should certainly do their own reading and come to their own conclusions.  Taking everything with a grain of salt is a very good thing.

I don't watch the news, I generally read Yahoo news blurbs, Wikipedia, independent blogs, and Digg.

Well, if you make such overarching statements as "thread is full of BS" then samples would be good, otherwise how could the people in question learn from their mistakes?

Except they wouldn't learn because what I said was a relatively inflammatory comment - so they would take it as such (rightfully so, which is why I didn't name names), and a flame fest would probably ensue.

[Mika]

Military service isn't just about the pay or the experience with other people. The technical training most soldiers, sailors, and airmen get in the US can lead to getting very well-paying jobs in the civilian world. Mention on a resume you were trained in Arabic at DLI and spent two tours in the Middle East, and you're nearly guaranteed an edge over the ordinary college grad. Same goes for pilots, radar operators, crew chiefs, flight engineers...pretty much every military career field except infantry will get you some pretty good jobs after separation from service.

Ah, here I see where we differ. I always think things from the infantry perspective since that is where I served. Infantry is still the majority of people in Army, while nearly all personnel needed to operate an air base are and will always be specialists for me. They get higher salaries, but are not so much in the direct risk of getting shot at.

Unfortunately, military experience and training meant nothing in the University. I got no compensation at all and I haven't heard of faculty that would give any kind of compensation of that. My current working place didn't care either if I had a rank a little bit above the common private - they were more interested in how good I was in Physics. Nor have the people who served in UN forces (that I know off) got any compensation from the university.

And about the AK47 and M16 rifles. It doesn't really matter which one they take since the new rifles are quite equivalent in many terms. For logistical simplicity it would be better to use rifles that use 5-point-something mm ammunition since Americans import quite a lot of that. AK exists with both calibers, and with the smaller one it is performance wise close enough to M16. It might not so accurate to longer distances nor there might be so many additional gizmos, but well, good enough. But again, it is Iraqian call.

About missing rifles, I have some difficulties to swallow those numbers. 190000 lost guns is a huge number from the logistical point of view and it sounds quite incredible to be true. 190000 to-be-trained Iraqians have deserted?

Mika

[Unknown Target]

It's Iraqis, and they didn't desert, it was just the gun shipment that went missing AFAIK.

And Mika, I know that the US has a college called Spartan or something that retrains military personnel to get an equivalent civvy rating for whatever they did in the military (although that may only be for specialists and whatnot - I don't know what your average "grunt' would do).

[IceFire]

I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.

Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.

And thats better than watching the news?

I'd say most of us know more than are given credit for but everyone should certainly do their own reading and come to their own conclusions.  Taking everything with a grain of salt is a very good thing.

I don't watch the news, I generally read Yahoo news blurbs, Wikipedia, independent blogs, and Digg.

Well, if you make such overarching statements as "thread is full of BS" then samples would be good, otherwise how could the people in question learn from their mistakes?

Except they wouldn't learn because what I said was a relatively inflammatory comment - so they would take it as such (rightfully so, which is why I didn't name names), and a flame fest would probably ensue.

So what you should have done was not be inflammatory and have a good look at some of the stuff that might be wrong.  Get a good discussion going.  If you're up on the defense industry stuff I've been reading a pretty interesting site here: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

Seems like a good source to see the raw stuff...contracts, controversies, politics...they even mention contracts for things like uniforms.  I never considered before but a huge part of the whole military industrial complex are things that aren't tanks, guns, and ships.  Stuff like field rations, uniforms, clothing, and countless other more mundane things are there too.  I wasn't always thinking about stuff like that but its all on that site.  Worth a quick read now and again.

[BrotherBryon]

About missing rifles, I have some difficulties to swallow those numbers. 190000 lost guns is a huge number from the logistical point of view and it sounds quite incredible to be true. 190000 to-be-trained Iraqians have deserted?

Mika

And to think they put my unit on lock down for a week because a pair of night vision goggles disappeared from the arms room. This seems a lot worse by comparison. 

[Rictor]

About missing rifles, I have some difficulties to swallow those numbers. 190000 lost guns is a huge number from the logistical point of view and it sounds quite incredible to be true. 190000 to-be-trained Iraqians have deserted?

It does sound a bit high, to be honest. But considering that the country is awash in small arms (every household is allowed one fully automatic rifle), it wouldn't surprise me. The government and military are notoriously corrupt, both individually and institutionally, especially in the years immediately following the invasion. I think maybe the worst excesses have been reigned in by now, but considering some of the stories I've heard*, 200,000 rifles is within the realm of possibility.

*such as $100,000 trucks being torched because a $100 tire needed changing, then charging the military for a new truck.

[Mika]

First thing to notice is that it is some department in Pentagon who is missing 190000 guns, ie. not located in Iraq. This makes me think that someone in the supply has been sloppy with the pencil work. 190000 guns simply do not disappear, because of the volume they occupy for starters.

I seriously doubt about the new truck example also - there is hell a lot of unconfirmed rumors in the Army - the original reason might be totally different than the stated one. Especially infantry is under tight budget frame all the time, and I suspect that it is so in all armies, so it sounds quite strange again.

And to think they put my unit on lock down for a week because a pair of night vision goggles disappeared from the arms room. This seems a lot worse by comparison.

Exactly. I don't want to calculate how many hours we spend in a forest searching for a certain ammo belt, and, god damnit, an old rusted axe! That was already Bad Stuff if somebody lost something like that! Anything even slightly related to the weapons was under much more strict control.

Mika

[Kosh]

First thing to notice is that it is some department in Pentagon who is missing 190000 guns, ie. not located in Iraq. This makes me think that someone in the supply has been sloppy with the pencil work. 190000 guns simply do not disappear, because of the volume they occupy for starters.

Or they simply never existed in real life in the first place and the funding was diverted to a black project.

[Flipside]

I seem to recall the US Navy lost a cruiser in Paperwork once, I'll have to check that out though....

[Kosh]

Man, if that really did happen then I think it's safe to say the US military really is a financial black hole.

[Mefustae]

Man, if that really did happen then I think it's safe to say the US military really is a financial black hole.

Considering the US Military gets twice as much money poured into it than the entire European Union combined, I don't think they're in danger of running out of cash any time soon.

Christ on crutches, if only they'd put that sort of dedication into funding education or healthcare, y'know, actually helping their population instead of maintaining the status quo. Don't get me wrong, the F-22 Raptor is the closest thing we've seen to an X-Wing for crying out loud, but how can anyone justify spending $62 billion developing a warplane while even a single person starves within your borders?