Occupy what?

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Unless I'm wrong I think the Chinese have most of the oil concessions now in Iraq.

The US never did anything to prevent that from happening after the war, or to help US oil companies to gain oil concessions.

I don't think there's much controversy now about the motives of the actors in the Bush administration.

It's pretty transparent.

We finally agree on something. Actually, you are correct, the Chinese are still getting the oil. In my opinion, we gave it to them because of the money we borrowed from them. We got screwed.
But there are still a lot of undeveloped oil fields that the US might get, but Iraq is also keeping some of them for themselves.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

You are right a lot of the Americans in WWII were drafted, but they fought bravely anyway.

Actually, my father was one of the "greatest generation." He did a number on the Japs.
He volunteered and signed up after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was 18.

Actually, the US participation help keep the communist in check.

You are right 90% of the Americans landing in Normandy probably did not fire their weapons, but that's because they were getting zapped by machine guns in all directions.

My hat is off to your Dad as it is to any other veteran of any war our Country has fought. I have nothing but respect for anyone that volunteered during such a dangerous and difficult time in our nation's history following Pear Harbor. Volunteer or Draftee, most of the veterans of WWII carried themselves with honor, fulfilled their duty and came back home to help lead the way in making our Country one of the most prosperous of the world during that time.

As to TAE's 90% "myth".. Let's not forget the number of weapons that went to the bottom of the ocean when landing crafts were hit, the number that jammed up with sand from the beach, the number that were discarded when men had to swim for their life. The best part however is....... DESPITE all that, they still managed to kick some German ass and make it off the beach!

Although TAE would struggle to tell you where he got the 90% figure from, I'll be a PAL and help him out. It came from S.L.A. Marshall in his book: "Men against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War"
( I managed to read that despite not having been to graduate school)

Although Marshall's numbers were often quoted in years past, no serious scholars give much weight to them. Here's one example of why they don't...from the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies:

quote:"This calculation assumes, however, that of all the questions Marshall might ask the soldiers of a rifle company during his interviews, he would unfailingly want to know who had fired his weapon and who had not. Such a question, posed interview after interview, would have signalled that Marshall was on a particular line of inquiry, and that regardless of the other information Marshall might discover, he was devoted to investigating this facet of combat performance. John Westover, usually in attendance during Marshall's sessions with the troops, does not recall Marshall's ever asking this question. Nor does Westover recall Marshall ever talking about ratios of weapons usage in their many private conversations. Marshall's own personal correspondence leaves no hint that he was ever collecting statistics. His surviving field notebooks show no signs of statistical compilations that would have been necessary to deduce a ratio as precise as Marshall reported later in Men Against Fire.

The "systematic collection of data" that made Marshall's ratio of fire so authoritative appears to have been an invention.

The author was professor Roger J. Spiller, and his task was an unpleasant one because he believed that Marshall was basically right about the primacy of ground combat. Nonetheless, Spiller pulled no punches. He writes:

Marshall had no use for the polite equivocations of scholarly discourse. His way of proving doubtful propositions was to state them more forcefully. Righteousness was always more important for Marshall than evidence....

The foundation of his conviction was not scholarship but his own military experience, experience that he inflated or revised as the situation warranted. Marshall often hinted broadly that he had commanded infantry in combat, but his service dossier shows no such service. He frequently held that he had been the youngest officer in the American Expeditionary Forces during the Great War, but this plays with the truth as well. Marshall enlisted in 1917 and served with the 315th Engineer Regiment—then part of the 90th Infantry Division—and won a commission after the Armistice, when rapid demobilization required very junior officers to command "casual" and depot companies as the veteran officers went home. Marshall rarely drew such distinctions, however, leaving his audiences to infer that he had commanded in the trenches. Later in life, he remarked that he had seen five wars as a soldier and 18 as a correspondent, but his definitions of war and soldiering were rather elastic. That he had seen a great deal of soldiers going about their deadly work was no empty boast, however. This mantle of experience, acquired in several guises, protected him throughout his long and prolific career as a military writer, and his aggressive style intimidated those who would doubt his arguments. Perhaps inevitably, his readers would mistake his certitude for authority." -End quote for all the above


Sorry to include all the above but I found it relevant. It shows that TAE bases his opinions and "facts" on discredited historians who often exaggerate about their own exploits. Sound familiar TAE?

If the opinions of theRoyal United Services Institute for Defense Studies aren't credible, one can also proceed to the U.S. Army War College publication. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...n/chambers.htm
Simply type in "S.L.A. Marshall" in the search window and you'll find their conclusions on why the myth that 90% didn't fire their weapons is completely false and unsupported by any evidence or documentation.
Now, I'm in NO WAY saying we should hold TAE accountable for the above. The man attended Strategic Studies classes in the early 80's and should be commended for it. The fact that he isn't aware that most of his "sources" were debunked by serious historians, defense institutes, universities and war colleges just means that perhaps his graduate level learning is a bit dated.

Hopefully the sources listed above will be enough to get me out of the "denier" category and put me back in the "debater" category? What say you Mr. Mitty? (TAE)

[theaustinescorts]

D'Torchia,

I'm calling you out.

You are not a soldier.

You are a fantacist posing as a soldier on these boards.

You refuse to meet me in person to verify who I am.

You are a coward.


"Nuff said."

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

You are right a lot of the Americans in WWII were drafted, but they fought bravely anyway.

Actually, my father was one of the "greatest generation." He did a number on the Japs.
He volunteered and signed up after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was 18.

Actually, the US participation help keep the communist in check.

You are right 90% of the Americans landing in Normandy probably did not fire their weapons, but that's because they were getting zapped by machine guns in all directions.

Actually few draftees fought bravely.

US army studies showed that only 15% of soldiers in non-volunteer units did pretty much all the fighting. Loss of weapons at the Normandy beach wasn't a factor. They were only pinned down by machine gun fire temporarily on a few beaches. Many soldiers in every theater refused to fire on the enemy or aimed above their heads.

This is well known. These were army studies widely published.

These issues were well documented and were addressed in many training reforms after the war.

[WyldemanATX]

Those occupy people are retarded...

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

D'Torchia,

I'm calling you out.

You are not a soldier.

You are a fantacist posing as a soldier on these boards.

You refuse to meet me in person to verify who I am.

You are a coward.


"Nuff said."

Slow down......breathe.......read the prior posts AGAIN. Read ALL my posts again. I have stated to you many times that I stopped being a "soldier" about 20 years ago.
Repeat same exercise......slow down......deep breaths TAE....now, read post #31, 43 and read your PM. Now please state where have I EVER said that I won't meet you? Please, point it out to me. I made you a promise that I will contact you as soon as I'm stateside again. Now you have two options. You can wait until I get back in about 2 1/2 months or you can buy a plane ticket to Kabul and sit down with me here.
Oh, but then that would mean you would actually have to visit one of the places you claim to know so much about. A lot's changed here my friend since 1983 and this isn't Pakistan.

I'm not gonna get into childish back and forth name calling with you. As far as "verifying" who you are? I think I've done that. In fact, I think I know more than I really cared to know.

You're obviously troubled and at least now I understand the reason why you are.

Try to get some sleep. I know it's been awhile.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Actually few draftees fought bravely.

US army studies showed that only 15% of soldiers in non-volunteer units did pretty much all the fighting. Loss of weapons at the Normandy beach wasn't a factor. They were only pinned down by machine gun fire temporarily on a few beaches. Many soldiers in every theater refused to fire on the enemy or aimed above their heads.

This is well known. These were army studies widely published.

These issues were well documented and were addressed in many training reforms after the war.

A Source? ......just ONE please. Just name ONE source that didn't use S.L.A. Marshall for their "study" on rates of fire. Surely I'm not asking too much for you to name JUST ONE?

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Actually few draftees fought bravely.

US army studies showed that only 15% of soldiers in non-volunteer units did pretty much all the fighting. Loss of weapons at the Normandy beach wasn't a factor. They were only pinned down by machine gun fire temporarily on a few beaches. Many soldiers in every theater refused to fire on the enemy or aimed above their heads.

This is well known. These were army studies widely published.

These issues were well documented and were addressed in many training reforms after the war.

Your theories or whatever research studies you've read do not give you the entire picture. You have to be there.
Draftees or Volunteers, the majority of them will fight. Sure, there will be those that won't, but that's only a small majority.
They all fight for different reasons, their country, their family, duty and honor or just for the soldier next to them. Its been the same throughout the entire history of war. I've seen it and I've lived it. I come from a military family. My family has served this country from WWII to Vietnam to both gulf wars. I'm not even including my ancestors who the original Spanish conquistadors or my ancestors who fought at the Texas Revolution and the Mexican/American war.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

* You've said I've posted being a diamond "courier," but I don't think I did. No one that I knew "curriered" anyone elses stones. I did what everyone else did; I bought them, tansported them, and then sold them. There were a lot of such people there.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I made 17 trips there when I couriered diamonds

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=106700
Post#7 4th Paragraph

You're right, I did post that you said you were a diamond "courier"....unless there's a different name for someone that says they "made 17 trips there when I couriered diamonds"

I know, it's not a "contradiction" just a "misinterpretation" on my part

Wonder what names I'll get called now for my misinterpretation?

[theaustinescorts]

D'Torchia,

This is really starting to make me laugh.

You're in Afghanistan posting every day to providers in Austin on an escort site? You post every day but you have not submitted even one review of anyone. Could it be that you're not in Afghanistan at all? Could it be that you never really see any providers because you don't have the money at your low-paying private security guard job where you spend all night reading Soldier of Fortune magazine, looking at escorting web sites, etc., and bullying and ridiculing others?

This reminds me of a customer of mine two years ago who was falsely accused on another site by a provider of actually being me.

This provider in all her bravado challenged this guy to have coffee with her the next day, thinking that he would never show.

He immediately posted that he would meet with her the next day, or any day.

She immediately withdrew her "offer," claiming that it wouldn't have proven anything anyway. LOL AND IT WAS HER IDEA!

You cyber fakers/bullies/phonies are all the same.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

D'Torchia,

This is really starting to make me laugh.

You're in Afghanistan posting every day to providers in Austin on an escort site? You post every day but you have not submitted even one review of anyone. Could it be that you're not in Afghanistan at all? Could it be that you never really see any providers because you don't have the money at your low-paying private security guard job where you spend all night reading Soldier of Fortune magazine, looking at escorting web sites, etc., and bullying and ridiculing others?

This reminds me of a customer of mine two years ago who was falsely accused on another site by a provider of actually being me.

This provider in all her bravado challenged this guy to have coffee with her the next day, thinking that he would never show.

He immediately posted that he would meet with her the next day, or any day.

She immediately withdrew her "offer," claiming that it wouldn't have proven anything anyway. LOL AND IT WAS HER IDEA.

You cyber fakers/bullies/phonies are all the same.

Well if there's ONE guy on this board that should have experience with "bullies" it should be you.....right?

Tell me, is that why you brag about so many things you've done yet get SO angry when a "cyber faker" like me points out your contradictions?

You want to talk finances Mr. "Q"? How is it that the owner of an escort agency can't afford to send more than $$ to.......Nahhhh, you know what, I won't even go there. You and I both know what I'm talking about don't we??!!

I told you not to go down this road with me. You didn't want to listen. I'm not one of your girls you can threaten to "out" to keep me in line. There's NOTHING you can out me on.
Your frustration with my not having posted any reviews stems from the fact that you have nothing to use against me.
As I said, I'm comfortable with who I am, where I am and what I am. Low and behold, I also have no trouble sleeping at night. Can you say the same?

Instead of getting angry, maybe you should simply address the issues I've raised with your many contradictions. You never seem to do that. Any reader of this thread will see that. You simply launch straight into the personal attacks. Continue on my friend, your meltdown is taking on epic proportions.

Ps: I thought for sure an "old burned out intelligence hand" like yourself would be able to have "contacts" to see where my IP address is coming from. Hint: It ain't the USA, lol!

And why is it that a successful "business owner" like yourself doesn't want to invest in one measly little round trip ticket to Kabul? I mean, surely for a man of your means a $1900.00 ticket isn't that much or? You rattled off and bragged of all these countries you've visited, why not this one? Even if I wasn't here, think of the STORIES you could tell about your adventure to Afghanistan. Think of the bragging rights you would have, coming back to the board and telling everyone I was a no-show! Tell you what though, if you decide to come, I'll even give you a ride to your hotel from the airport. I'd recommend the Serena or Interconntinental...in that order.
Let me know

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

Your theories or whatever research studies you've read do not give you the entire picture. You have to be there.
Draftees or Volunteers, the majority of them will fight. Sure, there will be those that won't, but that's only a small majority.
They all fight for different reasons, their country, their family, duty and honor or just for the soldier next to them. Its been the same throughout the entire history of war. I've seen it and I've lived it. I come from a military family. My family has served this country from WWII to Vietnam to both gulf wars. I'm not even including my ancestors who the original Spanish conquistadors or my ancestors who fought at the Texas Revolution and the Mexican/American war.

During the Second World War the US army conducted several studies in which observers watched and interviewed combat in non-volunteer units. What they observed was that a minority of soldiers, between 10 and 20 percent in each unit, did almost all the firing and advancing, while everyone else held back. The non-coms and officers would therefore rely over and over again on these small numbers of guys for the roles which required aggression and advancement. Only a few would always clear the way so the others could follow.

Conscript armies are notoriously ineffective in war....all wars; and it's no surprise to professional soldiers that such is the case.

There's no reason why any real soldier would seek to deny this simple, well-accepted fact. Sorry if it runs counter to the fond belief that the US public must have necessarily all been full of zeal during WWII. [afterall isn't that what I saw in the movies...duh?].

You can see this operate in every war. For example, what was the effectiveness of draftee units in Vietnam vs. their all-volunteer counterparts?

It's not even close.

btw...

I'm on the side of the conquistadors.

It's only been recently discovered that apparently some of Cortez' men were captured and slaughtered well prior to their assault on the Aztecs.

IMHO I'm glad the Europeans conquered the Incas, Aztecs, and other human-sacrificing/despotic tribes of the new world which made of it a living hell until the Europeans got here.

The Spaniard's histories of what happened are full of self-serving distortions....but however they did it and why, the result was positive.

Sorry to all the anthropologists out there, but I'm not politically correct.

[WyldemanATX]

The Occupy people are like a cult banging and chanting.. Do not drink the special ceremonial drink at the end.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

During the Second World War the US army conducted several studies in which observers watched and interviewed combat in non-volunteer units. What they observed was that a minority of soldiers, between 10 and 20 percent in each unit, did almost all the firing and advancing, while everyone else held back. The non-coms and officers would therefore rely over and over again on these small numbers of guys for the roles which required aggression and advancement. Only a few would always clear the way so the others could follow.

Conscript armies are notoriously ineffective in war....all wars; and it's no surprise to professional soldiers that such is the case.

And yet.....STILL no source, no link, not even a REFERENCE of where this "Army Study" can be found. Surprisingly enough, the U.S. Army War College disputes S.L.A. Marshall's assertions. Guess all those U.S. Army War College folks just sat around watching too many movies.

[theaustinescorts]

D'Torchia,

Thank you for taking the bait.