Where the U.S. Army Is Winless

Ratings
2 52 0
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
90
Country
USA
Location
USA
#1
Pall of football defeats hangs over West Point since 9/11



:D:D:D


Thirteen years ago, two months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the U.S. finally had something to celebrate. “We believe the Taliban appears to have abandoned Kabul,” General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, declared on Nov. 13, 2001, a scant 38 days after the U.S. launched its invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban, who had given sanctuary to those who carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were on the run.

Navy Unveils Spy Fish DronePapua Remains a Killing Field Even Under New Indonesian President JokowiSiege in Sydney: Gunman Takes Hostages at Australian Cafe NBC NewsWATCH NFL LIVE: Eagles vs. Cowboys in Battle of NFC East NBC NewsArrest Made in Shooting Death of Auburn Football Player NBC News
Nineteen days later, in the warm afterglow that followed, Army beat Navy, 26-17, in the annual gridiron classic between the nation’s two oldest military academies. It was the last game they’d play at Philadelphia’s now-gone Veterans Stadium.

It was also the last time Army beat Navy (Navy leads the series with 59 wins, 49 losses, and seven ties).

History repeated itself again Saturday, as Navy beat Army 17-10 in Baltimore in their 115th clash. The sting hurts even more given Army’s pregame hype.


For more than a decade, as Army loss follows Army loss, it has been distressing to see the Black Knights of West Point, N.Y., lose to the Midshipmen of Annapolis, Md. If the Army can’t prevail on the gridiron, the thinking goes, how can it beat the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS)? Football, after all, is a game played in the dirt—the Army’s home turf—not in salt water.

The streak has led to stories like this from Duffel Blog, a website dedicated to fake news about the U.S. military, shortly before kickoff:

The Army’s record-breaking 12-game losing streak against the Naval Academy is actually an experiment to build officer resiliency for the military’s next impossible war, according to one senior West Point official. “We’re going to win this time!” U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno is expected to exclaim to a crowd of crestfallen cadets in the locker room of M&T Bank Stadium, unconsciously echoing both William Westmoreland in 1971 and Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel last Friday…“Look at this way,” a leaked document of Gen. Odierno’s prepared remarks reveal. “Even at 0-12, we’ve still beaten Navy more recently than we’ve beaten any of America’s actual enemies!”

Football, with its goal lines, sidelines and referees, has a clarity that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq lack. But few believe that the Army—the service that has done the bulk of the fighting, and dying in both (accounting for 4,955 of 6,828 U.S. military deaths, or 73%)—has achieved victories there.

Since 9/11, 95 graduates of the U.S. Military Academy have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sixteen from the U.S. Naval Academy have made the ultimate sacrifice, including 2nd Lieutenant J.P. Blecksmith, Class of 2003. He caught a pass in the last game the Army won. Blecksmith was following in the footsteps of his father, who served as a Marine in Vietnam. As the Marines fought to retake the Iraqi city of Fallujah on Nov. 11—Veterans Day—2004, a sniper killed him.

Granted, it’s foolish to link wars with games. Football no more resembles war than it resembles life. But the ethos of football—grit, self-sacrifice, playing through pain—isn’t foreign to those on the battlefield.

And the battle continues in Afghanistan. The Taliban once again are stepping up their attacks in and around Kabul, the capital. Early Saturday, a pair of men on a motorbike shot and killed a top Afghan court official, as he walked from his home to his car in a northwestern suburb of Kabul. Late Friday, a bomb killed two U.S. soldiers north of Kabul. A pair of attacks killed six Afghan soldiers and 12 men clearing clearing landmines.

But the U.S., more or less, has decided to pick up its ball and head home. “This month, our combat mission in Afghanistan will be over,” President Barack Obama said in his weekly radio address Saturday. “Our war in Afghanistan is coming to a responsible end.”

It’s a lot easier to define end than it is to define responsible. Check back in a year to see if Army’s other losing streak has come to an end, too.


U.S. Army Football Loses to Navy Again
 

Scorpion

THINK TANK
Ratings
25 1,864 0
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
2,723
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
#2
That is epic man.
 

TatsuKaji

NEW RECRUIT
Ratings
0 18 0
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
29
Country
USA
Location
USA
#3
lmfao that video is great and then they still lose...
 
Ratings
1 42 0
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
197
Country
Thailand
Location
Thailand
#4
I like the ending line in the article. Let's define 'responsible'.

First who is the US responsible for? Or, more to the point, who is the POTUS responsible for? People in, say, Afghanistan, or people in the US? The US, of course. To bring home the US soldiers is an act of responsibility.

The unrest in Afghanistan is a neverending story. It started long before the US came on the scene. It will still be there long after the US has left the scene. How can the US be responsible for the characteristics of the Afghans?

The Afghans are a hardy people. They lived, for generations, in a harsh environment. They battle the elements and they battle each other. That is their way of life. If they are not fighting an external enemy, they are fighting each other. That's how they are.

Now, why should US lives be sacrificed to change something which has nothing to do with the US? Bring home our soldiers, I say, bring them home to where they are welcomed, bring them home to where they are loved.
 
Ratings
0 18 0
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
59
Country
USA
Location
USA
#5
It seems like every forum I go to Aree is right in front of me. Great stuff Aree!

Afghanistan is a wild card, this is place that absolutely deplores Western Civilization and will do so regardless of whether or not we stay or leave. Therefore, why keep the men and women overseas - let's bring them home.

This whole idea of the United States acting as the world's police officer stems back to the days of the post World War I era when then U.S. President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the League of Nations. Wilson advocated for self-determination but wanted to provide western assistance to countries that needed help in getting themselves settled from the war. Thankfully the U.S. Congress did not sign the Treaty of Versailles and the U.S. never joined the league. However, the mentality of being a superpower was first born at that moment and came to fruition after World War II.
If you examine United States military history over the course of the past 100 years what will you find...a series of police actions:
1.) Korea
2.) Vietnam
3.) Grenada
4.) Panama
5.) Kuwait
6.) Bosnia
7.) Iraq
8.) Afghanistan

Police actions enacted by the sitting President of that time. Which leads back to Aree's question - who is POTUS responsible for?
 
Ratings
1 42 0
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
197
Country
Thailand
Location
Thailand
#6
Thank you. I am not everywhere. I am just omnipresent in cyberspace. LOL. Here, try this for size:

Send books, not bombs. Send teachers, not soldiers. Send tablets, not bullets. If we can win the war of minds, we have won a great victory.
 
Ratings
0 8 0
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
132
Country
USA
Location
USA
#7
This is hilarious! But I couldn't agree more with Aree, education is still the best way to defeat the enemy. I don't know why can't they just send a group of talented and skilled nerds to war haha. I'm quite sure war is so going to be over when that happens. I'm a nerd and I do want to be a part of it somehow, but not to the point of a bloody and messy war.
 
Ratings
0 2 0
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
36
Country
USA
Location
USA
#8
I just wish this was the only way for our military to prove itself, on the athletic field. Wouldn't it be nice if we could solve all the worlds problems by putting the leaders in a uniform, give them a ball and blow the whistle?
 

003

MEMBER
Ratings
0 11 0
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
206
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
#9
They were winless with the Vietnam War during the World War 2. I think no greater cause one could fight for other than sincere and true nationalism in which the armies, other than equipped with military weapons, are strongly guided by values and genuine love for their country, for which all soldiers unite. This is I think the problem with the army of the US. They are only fighting because they are rather fighting for their pride that their defeat would only mean loss of pride instead of loss of their people. American army are fighting and carrying their country's flag, because they are representing America. They take all that pride of power. With that said, they are only fighting for power, where other countries' armies fight to protect their country and their people, which as I have mentioned before is the greater force that could defeat those high-end military arsenals.
 
Ratings
0 11 0
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
61
Country
USA
Location
USA
#10
This is hilarious! But I couldn't agree more with Aree, education is still the best way to defeat the enemy. I don't know why can't they just send a group of talented and skilled nerds to war haha. I'm quite sure war is so going to be over when that happens. I'm a nerd and I do want to be a part of it somehow, but not to the point of a bloody and messy war.
I agree, I think there are many other ways to solve a problem than using guns. I'm not saying to send all nerds of course and no one that knows how to perform in a War like situation. However other solutions besides continuous wars, would help to avoid the problem of Soldiers being overseas and all the continuations of wars, just in the name of diplomacy.
 
Ratings
1 42 0
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
197
Country
Thailand
Location
Thailand
#11
I'm not saying to send all nerds of course and no one that knows how to perform in a War like situation.
We can actually still send soldiers but in the role of teachers instead. Send them equipped with books instead of guns. Send them to distribute tablets instead of bullets. It can be done. All that is needed is to make the voting public aware of the alternative to armed intervention.
 
Ratings
0 8 0
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
132
Country
USA
Location
USA
#12
I agree, I think there are many other ways to solve a problem than using guns. I'm not saying to send all nerds of course and no one that knows how to perform in a War like situation. However other solutions besides continuous wars, would help to avoid the problem of Soldiers being overseas and all the continuations of wars, just in the name of diplomacy.
Most definitely. This whole physical war is endless if we are just going to support it anyway. The mind is more powerful to conquer this.
 
Ratings
0 39 0
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
349
Country
New Zealand
Location
New Zealand
#13
The United States army need to return home and protect the country of the internal wars going on and conflicts before trying to get involved with other countries and their conflicts. The internal wars in the country like riots and divided people needs to change as this is what is causing the country to be divided and needs to change these ways and for the better. There needs to be changes in war, not just senseless violence or throwing the bombs around and hoping to kill the enemy and innocents die in the process as well.
 
Ratings
0 20 0
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
159
Country
Romania
Location
Romania
#14
I agree that troops need to return home and america needs to have some order inside before pushing order in other countries. The internal situation is getting out of control and it's disheartening to see that the president is most implicated in external affairs rather than internal affairs.
 
Top