Talk:United States Army/Archive 1

message: Someone has vandalized the page and I haven't a clue how to revert. 66.23.224.200 08:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 21st century vandal

message: Might want to add a controversy or criticisms section to deal with stuff like US Army involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, stance on gays in the military and illegal combatants, or other issues.
*( A criticism section would be fine however Gays in the Military and illegal combatants should not be in there.  The Army does not set those policies.  They are set by the Department of Defense and Congress.  The Army merely enforces the policy.  Guantanamo Bay is a Navy Base and the detention center is a joint unit.  It is not run by the Army.  If you want to criticze tactics, troop behavior or other aspects that is fine but Most of the criticism you want to add should be directed at a higher level of authority.--Looper5920 06:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Controversy / Criticisms section?

message: I am surprised there's nothing on the US Army's anti-gay stance anywhere in the article. Not being 100% familiar with the subject I won't intervene but if anyone knows the issue well then perhaps this should be mentioned Dankru 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Army's "anti-gay" stance is dictated by the UCMJ and federal law. It really doesn't have a place in this article. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 07:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't ask, don't tell applies to the entire US military, not particularly the Army. <Maybe you should put it in Military of the United States. It's not mentioned there either. MPS 15:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality

message: Would it be possible to create a template for all US Army commands and organizations.  The US Army has a fairly nice command and organizational structure that would be nice to include in wikipedia.  For each organization, wikipedia could list its commanding organization, current commander, etc.  I am a newbie to editing the wikipedia but would be more than willing to try this project if someone could point me in the right direction Dukiebbtwin 04:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: It looks like a notice should be posted on Wikipedia's main page that states: "Caution: This is a site for the citizens of the United States of America." Folks, there are just too many articles filled with American information that is not really WORLD encyclopedia material or like this one, they contain things that a not NPOV like:
It should be noted here that it is the outstanding quality of the Non-Commissioned Officer ranks which has lagely built the excellent reputation of the United States Army.
...Yours Truly, DW
:I beg to disagree. The NCO is one of the reasons for excellence in the US Army.  One of the reason Soviet-style armies have faced problems is that there are no career NCOs.
:Besides, we are talking about the US Army.  Comparisons can be made in an article such as Noncommissioned Officer.
--GABaker, former Army
So, DW, you're saying that there are too many Americans on Wikipedia?  There's nothing stopping you from writing articles about other subjects.  -- Zoe
DW, no-one complains when the Austrians or the Belgians or the Australians or the New Zealanders or the Japanese or anyone else writes about their armies. Why should the Americans be denied what everyone else has? Take a trawl around the entries for other countries. You will see all sorts of POV violations. Honestly, when it comes to writing about their own country and their own armed forces, the Americans here do a pretty darn good job of telling it just as it is. OK, there are some appallingly shallow US POV entries where other countries are involved - take a gander at the bio of Field Marshal Montgomery for a prime example, or look at the last couple of paras on the Pacific part of WW2 for a more subtle one - but, trust me, the US Army really does have an "excellent reputation" as a fighting force at present, and the quality of their leadership and training has been a major reason for this. 
Moral of the story, DW, is stop complaining and get off your arse. Write some great NPOV content to balance it up. There are quite a lot of Wikipedians from other parts of the globe, and many of us are doing just that. Everyone has areas that they have some knowledge of, and I bet that you are no exception. Come join us! Tannin
Comment: I've been going through the military stuff and adding balance myself, and I'm American.  The US army does stuff differently from some of the other world militaries, mostly because we're rich but also because we're weird.  See squad, fireteam, and brigade / regiment for example.  It's a natural process of evolution, and if you see specific examples of non-NPOV, take up your pen and start slashing! -- clarka
You guys both have a good point, but the bigger point is the fact that more than six out of every 10 persons who use the Internet for reasons more serious than Chat and Email are Americans, and that is a fact. This is not because we have any more interest in doing this sort of work, just that we have more disposable income that gives us the chance to spend so much time on the Internet. As a retired NCO myself, I can also say that the US Army is unique in putting so much responsibility on the shoulders of a Non Commissioned Officer. We have a saying: "If you want something done, give it to a Sergeant. The only reason we need Officers is for a signature."
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Might it be possible to move this page to US Army, typing United States over and over is a bit hard on the fingers. Dietary Fiber
:US Army is redirected to this site. ugen64
I find it strange that there is no page or subpage for a listing of ranks and/or insignia. Shouldn't it be here somewhere? Ilyanep
On second thought, such a large orbat on this website is inherently messy (it's kinda hard to put bullets and make it look nice with that big of an orbat). So, I just added 1st and 3rd Armies, and took out 6th Army (it's inactive). ugen64 22:19, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
:Speaking of which, why is there an order of battle at all on this site? Because of its generalness, I would think the order of battle would be much smaller. I'm going to move the order of battle to "United States Army order of battle"... but seriously, I think that if we actually placed every unit in the USArmy on one page...... believe me, I've tried. ugen64 00:12, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
:Or actually, I'm just gonna delete everything below brigade level (if it's there). ugen64 00:13, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
:All right, I deleted everything below brigade, except certain unattached regimental formations (where they served as brigades, with battalions below them). I will begin editing divisional pages and adding individual, more specific orders of battle there.
I dont believe that you have adequetley explained the difference between the Brigade and Regimental sized units in the unit definitions. A regiment is not solely a cav formation.
Joint Publication 1.02 states as follows:
brigade — 
#A unit usually smaller than a division to which are attached groups and/or battalions and smaller units tailored to meet anticipated requirements.
#A tactical and administrative unit composed basically of a headquarters and two or more regiments or groups.
Group -
#An administrative and tactical military unit consisting of a headquarters and two or more battalions not a permanent organic part of the group.
#A unit of an echelon of the United States Air Force higher than a squadron and lower than a wing and composed of a headquarters and two or more squadrons.
Regiment -
#A body of soldiers commanded by a colonel and consisting of a variable number of companies, troops, or batteries.
#A parent military organization that may include many battalions or other units which rarely serve together but share a common history, traditions, uniforms, and other matters.
#A military unit composed basically of a headquarters and two or more battalions. 
Battalion -
A tactical military unit composed basically of a headquarters and two or more companies, batteries, or troops.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: I have this image of a US built 2-8-0 steam loco, which were built during WWII for use in Great Britain and liberated Europe.  Only problem is, I have nowhere to put it; can someone knowledgeable fill this in please? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport Corps 

message: heres one thing i dont understand. in the army, youre suposed to have short haircuts and no facial hair. but for some reason these guys in the u.s. army football team have long hair and facial hair. do they not have to abide by the same rules? i also dont understand how they go onto play university football afterwards. wouldnt they be a bit old?
:The U.S. Military Academy (West Point) American football team is composed of cadets, who although they are in the Army, are allowed greater variations in weight standards.  Before they are commissioned, cadets must meet height and weight standards.  I believe they have short hair. U.S. Army regulations allow mustaches that are neatly trimmed, and you don't have to wear a crewcut. 
West Point is a four-year college, and plays a regular schedule of college-level sports, including football in Division I-A, the highest level of college sports in the U.S. (Recently, very badly). The cadets who play must meet NCAA regulations for student-athletes in terms of eligibility, which means they vary in age from 18 to 24 in most cases. --GABaker
The USMA Team has to meet eligibility requirements much more stringent than the NCAA regulations. Football is strictly a recreational activity - it is NOT looked at as a form of Physical Training - and won't get you out of normal P.T. Furthermore, you have to pass ALL of your courses in order to remain in the student body, and you only get one shot at repeating a year if you fail. You can be the star player on any USMA Team, and fail one or more of your courses, and you will find yourself on the outside looking in at the end of the year. Finally, how you place in the seniority of your class has almost everything to do with which job you end up with in the Army IF you graduate. The higher your scores, the higher you place in your class, and the better shot you have at getting the Career Group and Military Occupational Specialty yoiu requested when you applied for entry.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Army Football 

message: Why on the shoulders of the uniforms are the American flags backwords? This seems almost disrespectful to the flag, something that Americans hold in high regard. Kaiser Matias 16:43 4 July 2005 (UTC)
:Here's what the DoD says about it: "The full-color U.S. flag cloth replica is worn so that the star field faces forward, or to the flag’s own right. When worn in this manner, the flag is facing to the observer’s right, and gives the effect of the flag flying in the breeze as the wearer moves forward. The appropriate replica for the right shoulder sleeve is identified as the reverse side flag." It's not "backwards," it's just the other side. It's not at all disrespectful. An upside down flag on the other hand is quite disrespectful. Jamesmusik 5 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
::Actually, a flag flown upside down is a distress signal. --Mddake 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally, if you see an upside down US Flag, your next move is to call 911!!
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag on Shoulder 

message: 1st Lieutenant is NOT an O-1. It is O-2.
General of the Army is an O-11 not an O-10.
W-5 is a MASTER Warrant Officer not a Chief Warrant Officer 5.
I have the official Army "Guide for Future Soldiers and their Families" book (2004 edition) that I got from the MOS counselor and it corroborates what I am saying. Please stop reverting my changes as they are correct.
:Just read what it says at the top of the table! This is the NATO rank code, not the US rank code. It says OF-1, not O-1. They are DIFFERENT THINGS. Please stop reverting other people's changes without bothering to read the article properly. -- Necrothesp 01:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And it might not be a bad idea to include the Associate Press Stylebook rank useage.  For example Sgt. 1st Class or Lt. Gen..  The Army Times and many DOD publications use this style. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in rank structure 

message: Since the U.S. Army uses the term "Major Command" (MACOM) with specific meaning, that is, commands that report directly to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), shouldn't use here be the same?  Specifically, Third U.S. Army is not a MACOM in the current structure.  There have been discussions about making it so, but it is not.  --Mddake 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term "major commands"

message: It is very ambitious to list the rank and name of the MACOM commanders here, but is it wise to attempt to do so?  LTG Peake retired over a year prior to this posting, but I just now inserted LTG Kiley.  Wouldn't it be better to list the authorized rank of the commander and any other titles (i.e., CG MEDCOM is also TSG) that position has?  --Mddake 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if people want the names I'm sure they can find them from the Army.  Cjrother 00:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ability to keep this updated

message: I would suggest to source out the Revolutionary War part and delete the Formations, since this already is an article. And I don't see a historical part, which should differ from Military history of the United States, but I don't know enough. --Predator capitalism 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: can we get some newer numbers for the army size as of 2006? I've been googling but I can't find anything. A Clown in the Dark 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as the Soldier's almanac comes out with the numbers, I will update the info Rarelibra 04:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More recent numbers

message: ===restructure of weapons/equiment===
I'm restructuring this section into the accepted  "Summary/link to main article" format to cut down on size, as requested from the "United States military history task force" Wikiproject. 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Restructuring project

message: I'm restructuring this section into the accepted  "Summary/link to main article" format to cut down on size, as requested from the "United States military history task force" Wikiproject. 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: restructure of weapons/equiment

message: I've restructured the formations section into the main/sub article format. Everything removed has been added in to the subpage that it came from, no information has been lost. Next stop is listed below⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 04:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: restructure of the formations

message: Need to size down the ranks and insignia...link to their own main/sub articles. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next project to restructure

message: This article is in dire need of a good long cleanup. Long sections of un wikified stuff, massive number of external link, that surely could be done in a more readable way and you generally lose any sort of orientation as you read down the article. MAJOR cleanup required! Twthmoses 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This article is a MESS.  I think someone shoud bring this to the attention of Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce.  Cornell Rockey 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Taskforce 

message: United States Army Ranger Association
Ranger Andy 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Do we really need all the stuff that's directly ripped from other sites? I know it's not a copyvio but it's much more appropriate to just paraphrase it. Readers really don't want to go through all that detail. A Clown in the Dark 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is huge

message: I reverted a change by an anon that said that the British Army was the first to achieve 100% automotive mobility, not the US Army as previously stated.  I have no idea which is correct, but since both statements were unsourced I figured it would be best to stick with the version that has been in the article since February.  Maybe someone who knows something about the subject can sort it out. - Jon Stockton 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automotive mobility revert 

message: Holy crap, this article is horrendous.  Someone should delete and start over.  Desertsky85451 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what a mess 

message: Is there a point or reason to having Sections 5 through 12?  They seem to be a barely comprehensible and, perhaps, unnecessary listing of units formed with citations, better suited for a research paper.  If there are to be kept, they should be taken out and put a in its own subarticle, then cleaned up so it at least makes sense.  The biggest problem with the sections, as I see it, is that there is no narrative explaination or purpose for what is written.  It just seems like a long list of...um...what?--SOCL 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 5-12 

message: I think its about time that we start a US Army Portal... there's a US Marine Corps Portal... there needs to be an Army one too! Hal06 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: *Looking for input/feedback on taking out the lists following the rank tables.  Some of the paragraphs and notes (company grade, field grade, etc) are keepers, but I'm not seeing the point of the lists. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[US Army#Rank Structure]] section cleanup? 

message: The state of this page has been bugging me for a while now, and I've written a complete rewrite at my sandbox.  I know it's far from perfect (it'd be great if someone could get pictures for the history section) but I think it's a good deal better than the current article.  Are there any objections to replacing the current article with my rewrite? Atb129 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Rewrite 

message: Nothing in here on uniforms and appearance. The Navy and USMC not only have sections, but also their own articles - [[Uniforms of the United States Navy], Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps. - Matthew238 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniforms

message: I'm not currently in a position to edit the section as I feel my knowledge is too limited but I'm fairly certain the statement that the Army operates "no fixed-wing aircraft" is incorrect.  Though small and not for the same type of roles the Army relies on the Air Force to perform, it still exists and therefore invalidates this statement. 147.226.247.59 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Army Aviation

message: I included some information on officer training in this section, including precommisioning, OBC and the newly implemented BOLC. Hokiefan 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Training

message: Is there a reason why this unit is not included on the list of units. I'm pretty sure it is not being eliminated by the Army transformation. Hal06 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  172d Seperate Infantry BDE 

message: It seems that in the many rewrites, the entire section on Army component was wiped out, including links to Regular Army, Army of the United States and National Army.  This section should somehow be restored in the current writeup if possible:
===Components of the U.S. Army===
"Between 1775 and August 7, 1789, the established Federal Army was the Continental Army. On the latter date, the Continental Army was replaced by the United States Army under the newly-established War Department. The structure of the US Army was constitutionally established as the Regular Army, the units of the State Militias when called to federal service, and units of Volunteers that were established for the duration of the emergency. This remained the normal scheme of things until the Civil War, when the first Conscription took place. The concept of the National Army as a Conscript Army was thus established in all but name, since units were established to accommodate the use of the conscripts in combat. The last time that the Volunteer Units were utilized was the Spanish-American War in 1898. From that time forward, the Regular Army, the State Militias, and the National Army were codified as standard. In 1908, the Organized Reserve Corps was established to provide trained Officers and Enlisted Men for immediate use in time of war.
During the First World War, the "National Army" was organized to fight the conflict. It was demobilized at the end of World War I, and was replaced by the Regular Army, the Organized Reserve Corps, and the State Militias.  In the 1920s and 1930s, the "career" soldiers were known as the "Regular Army" with the "Enlisted Reserve Corps" and "Officer Reserve Corps" augmented to fill vacancies when needed.
In 1941, the "Army of the United States" was founded to fight the Second World War.  The Regular Army, Army of the United States, the National Guard, and Officer/Enlisted Reserve Corps (ORC and ERC) existed simultaneously.  After World War II, the ORC and ERC were combined into the United States Army Reserve.  The Army of the United States was re-established for the Korean War and Vietnam War and was demobilized upon the suspension of the Draft.  
Currently, the Army is divided into the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the United States National Guard.  Prior to 1903 members of the National Guard were considered state soldiers unless federalized by the President.  Since the Militia Act of 1903 all National Guard soldiers have held dual status: as National Guardsmen under the authority of the governor of their state and as a reserve of the US Army under the authority of the President. 
Since the adoption of the total force policy, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, reserve component soldiers have taken a more active role in US military operations.  Reserve and Guard units took part in the Gulf War, peacekeeping in Kosovo, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  
Various State Defense Forces also exist, sometimes known as State Militias, which are sponsored by individual state governments and serve as an auxiliary to the National Guard.  Except in times of extreme national emergency, such as a mainland invasion of the United States, State Militias are operated independently from the U.S. Army and are seen as state government agencies rather than a component of the military.
Although the present-day Army exists as an all volunteer force, augmented by Reserve and National Guard forces, measures exist for emergency expansion in the event of a catastrophic occurrence, such as a large scale attack against the US or the outbreak of a major global war.  The current "call-up" order of the United States Army is as follows:
# Regular Army volunteer force
# Army Reserve total mobilization 
# Full scale activation of all National Guard forces
# Recall of all retired personnel fit for military duty
# Re-establishment of the draft and creation of a conscript force within the Regular Army
# Recall of previously discharged officers and enlisted who were separated under honorable conditions
# Activation of the State Defense Forces/State Militias
# Full scale mobilization of the unorganized U.S. militia
The final stage of Army mobilization, known as "activation of the unorganized militia" would effectively place all able bodied males in the service of the U.S. Army.  The last time an approximation of this occurred was during the American Civil War when the Confederate States of America activated the "Home Guard" in 1865, drafting all males, regardless of age or health, into the Confederate Army.  A similar event, albeit in a foreign country, occurred during World War II when Nazi Germany activated the Volkssturm in April and May of 1945." -Husnock 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant section deleted 

message: "Between 1775 and August 7, 1789, the established Federal Army was the Continental Army. On the latter date, the Continental Army was replaced by the United States Army under the newly-established War Department. The structure of the US Army was constitutionally established as the Regular Army, the units of the State Militias when called to federal service, and units of Volunteers that were established for the duration of the emergency. This remained the normal scheme of things until the Civil War, when the first Conscription took place. The concept of the National Army as a Conscript Army was thus established in all but name, since units were established to accommodate the use of the conscripts in combat. The last time that the Volunteer Units were utilized was the Spanish-American War in 1898. From that time forward, the Regular Army, the State Militias, and the National Army were codified as standard. In 1908, the Organized Reserve Corps was established to provide trained Officers and Enlisted Men for immediate use in time of war.
During the First World War, the "National Army" was organized to fight the conflict. It was demobilized at the end of World War I, and was replaced by the Regular Army, the Organized Reserve Corps, and the State Militias.  In the 1920s and 1930s, the "career" soldiers were known as the "Regular Army" with the "Enlisted Reserve Corps" and "Officer Reserve Corps" augmented to fill vacancies when needed.
In 1941, the "Army of the United States" was founded to fight the Second World War.  The Regular Army, Army of the United States, the National Guard, and Officer/Enlisted Reserve Corps (ORC and ERC) existed simultaneously.  After World War II, the ORC and ERC were combined into the United States Army Reserve.  The Army of the United States was re-established for the Korean War and Vietnam War and was demobilized upon the suspension of the Draft.  
Currently, the Army is divided into the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the United States National Guard.  Prior to 1903 members of the National Guard were considered state soldiers unless federalized by the President.  Since the Militia Act of 1903 all National Guard soldiers have held dual status: as National Guardsmen under the authority of the governor of their state and as a reserve of the US Army under the authority of the President. 
Since the adoption of the total force policy, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, reserve component soldiers have taken a more active role in US military operations.  Reserve and Guard units took part in the Gulf War, peacekeeping in Kosovo, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  
Various State Defense Forces also exist, sometimes known as State Militias, which are sponsored by individual state governments and serve as an auxiliary to the National Guard.  Except in times of extreme national emergency, such as a mainland invasion of the United States, State Militias are operated independently from the U.S. Army and are seen as state government agencies rather than a component of the military.
Although the present-day Army exists as an all volunteer force, augmented by Reserve and National Guard forces, measures exist for emergency expansion in the event of a catastrophic occurrence, such as a large scale attack against the US or the outbreak of a major global war.  The current "call-up" order of the United States Army is as follows:
# Regular Army volunteer force
# Army Reserve total mobilization 
# Full scale activation of all National Guard forces
# Recall of all retired personnel fit for military duty
# Re-establishment of the draft and creation of a conscript force within the Regular Army
# Recall of previously discharged officers and enlisted who were separated under honorable conditions
# Activation of the State Defense Forces/State Militias
# Full scale mobilization of the unorganized U.S. militia
The final stage of Army mobilization, known as "activation of the unorganized militia" would effectively place all able bodied males in the service of the U.S. Army.  The last time an approximation of this occurred was during the American Civil War when the Confederate States of America activated the "Home Guard" in 1865, drafting all males, regardless of age or health, into the Confederate Army.  A similar event, albeit in a foreign country, occurred during World War II when Nazi Germany activated the Volkssturm in April and May of 1945." -Husnock 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Components of the U.S. Army

message: Should the "Combat Maneuver Organizations" section represent the Army's organization as it exists TODAY, or as it WILL BE in 2009 (as the paragraph at the beginning of the section states)?  Most of the units listed are shown in their planned 2009 configuration, but a few are not (e.g., 4th Infantry Division). I don't have a preference either way, but it should be the same for all the units. Mike f 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization as it IS or WILL BE? 

message: Unlike the US Air Force and Navy, it seems that the Army is having trouble recruiting these days, ever since problems in Iraq started to manifest themselves.  Does this deserve a spot in the article, like in a 'Contemporary Issues' section or something?  --64.12.116.71 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention the Army's Recruiting Problems? 

message: I'm removing this addition by 216.185.126.254:
After most states in the South seceded to form the Confederate States of America, primarily because of the issue of states rights (contrary to popular belief, slavery was made an issue during the middle of the war to keep england out, not to mention the Lincoln only freed the slaves in the south not the ones in the slave states in the north), CSA troops opened fire on the US fort Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, starting the war.
... and reverting to the previous version:
After most states in the South seceded to form the Confederate States of America, primarily because of the issue of slavery, CSA troops opened fire on the US fort Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, starting the war.
Bottom line, the origins of the Civil War are complex and not appropriate for detailed, extended discussion in the U.S. Army article.  Slavery as the casus belli may be an oversimplification, but is all that is really necessary for this portion of the article.  216.185.126.254, if you want to debate the origins of the Civil War, the best place to do it would be here or here. Mike f 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War origins 

message: "Let's bomb our friends" isn't actually the official motto of the U.S. army, is it?
Caesar
No.  I reverted that nonsense.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Let's bomb our friends." 

message: Are there any campaigns to raise the age that you are allowed to join the armed forces? Personally, I think you shouldn't be allowed to go on active service in a war zone until you are 21 atleast. You can't drink in some states until 21, so why should you be allowed to murder 'the enemy' at 16? Ethoen 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recruitment Age