Greatest Army of all time

[Dienekes]

we had a greatest leader so now we go to full ranked army (of the time)
I as always have very detailed opinions that most will find completely borring
I'd have to go with the Spartans they were trained since the age of seven to be perfect military machines, the weaponry they had could be used effectively against archers, cavalry, and infantry. The Phalanx formation could and did crush the formations used by the Romans (the Romans fought three battles to conquer greece two they lost the third they were getting their butts kicked until their reinforcements arrived)

My list goes like this
Spartans (undefeatable in battle of even numbers)
Romans (undefeatable because they had 50 men for every one their opponents had)
Huns (beat out Mongols due to the fact they had an infantry to back them up)
Russians (their tanks during WWII killed everything)
German Knights (heavily armored and well trained) / Muslims during Crusade 2-3 (techinologically they were far superior to us Christians during that time period)

[Dienekes]

and please in this dont say the Jedi Knights or something like that

[TuckEverlasting]

The greatest army of all time is clearly the Kiss Army (http://www.kissarmywarehouse.com/). :airguitar:

[norwegen]

My list goes like this
Spartans (undefeatable in battle of even numbers)
Romans (undefeatable because they had 50 men for every one their opponents had)
Huns (beat out Mongols due to the fact they had an infantry to back them up)
Russians (their tanks during WWII killed everything)
German Knights (heavily armored and well trained) / Muslims during Crusade 2-3 (techinologically they were far superior to us Christians during that time period)I would say, more than the Russians in WWII, the Soviets in the 1980s. They had more troops and nuclear weapons than any other nation in history. The Soviets were a supremely formidable military force, I think, and might now be teaching Russian to the world had Reagan and a few other visionaries not realised that they situated their military might atop economic and political eggshells.

[Straylight]

the Soviets in the 1980s

Pfft...No way man! John Rambo took them out single handedly with a bow and arrow.

[furay]

My army of subterranean mole-men that I'm amassing and will soon unleash upon an unsuspecting world.

[Bubbahotep]

You mean apart from the US Military of today? They may not fight a lot of open wars but in the ones they do fight they completely dominate the enemy in ways never seen before, while sustaining fewer casualties than ever seen before. Of course, the fact that we spend obscene amounts of money on a military that is clearly designed not for defence of the homeland but for domination and intimidation of the world probably has a lot to do with it.

Apart from the modern US military I would have to put my money on the German Wehrmacht of WWII. They weren't defeated by our superior tactics or fighting spirit; we beat them by nothing more than numbers and the fact that the US homeland was never seriously threatened and so our massive economy could produce war materiel that could be sent overseas to defeat the Germans at home. The Germans (80 million) took on Russia and the Western Allies at the same time and came close to winning the war. Even at the end, when they faced overwhelming odds and enemy air domination (way beyond supremacy) and incredible shortages, the Germans could still find a way to inflict some vicious, surprise blows.

I really can't see putting the Russian Army of WWII up high on the list. They suffered defeat after defeat after defeat until Stalingrad and the only reason they managed to defeat the Germans after that was sheer numbers. The Russian losses are truly staggering and their basic tactic was simply to throw their undertrained and semi-barbaric hordes at the Germans and eventually wear them out, especially when the Germans had to spend a lot of effort on the West. In an even fight the Germans pretty much always beat the Russians and beat them badly.

[Nicholas]

I'd have to go with the army of Alexander the Great. While you could make the argument that Alexander was a major reason for their victories, if you don't have good soldiers a brilliant commander doesn't so much good.

[Bubbahotep]

I'd have to go with the army of Alexander the Great. While you could make the argument that Alexander was a major reason for their victories, if you don't have good soldiers a brilliant commander doesn't so much good.

Definitely a good choice. Not only did Alexander's army conquer an unheard of before amount of territory, it included fighting across a wide variety of terrain and climate and many different enemy armies and cultures. The adaptability of tihs army was superb and they were ultimately defeated not by enemies but by their own desire to go home.

Another candidate has to be the Conquistadors of Spain. Cortes had only 500 men and he conquered an empire with them. Pizarro had even fewer. These guys could be argued to be even more impressive than Alexanders army for the odds they faced. While their weaponry was much superior to that of the native armies they fought, the tactics of the Conquistadors was also superb.

[Nicholas]

Definitely a good choice. Not only did Alexander's army conquer an unheard of before amount of territory, it included fighting across a wide variety of terrain and climate and many different enemy armies and cultures. The adaptability of tihs army was superb and they were ultimately defeated not by enemies but by their own desire to go home.


Exactly, his army was certainly one of the most capable in history.


Another candidate has to be the Conquistadors of Spain. Cortes had only 500 men and he conquered an empire with them. Pizarro had even fewer. These guys could be argued to be even more impressive than Alexanders army for the odds they faced. While their weaponry was much superior to that of the native armies they fought, the tactics of the Conquistadors was also superb.

The main problem I have with the conqistadors was that their victory had as much to do with the Aztecs mistaking Cortés for Quetzalcoatl, the siding of other native tribes with the Conquistadors and the introduction of European pathogens as anything else. These factors played as much part in their victory as anything else.

[Mr. Christopher]

we had a greatest leader so now we go to full ranked army (of the time)
I as always have very detailed opinions that most will find completely borring
I'd have to go with the Spartans they were trained since the age of seven to be perfect military machines, the weaponry they had could be used effectively against archers, cavalry, and infantry. The Phalanx formation could and did crush the formations used by the Romans (the Romans fought three battles to conquer greece two they lost the third they were getting their butts kicked until their reinforcements arrived)

My list goes like this
Spartans (undefeatable in battle of even numbers)
Romans (undefeatable because they had 50 men for every one their opponents had)
Huns (beat out Mongols due to the fact they had an infantry to back them up)
Russians (their tanks during WWII killed everything)
German Knights (heavily armored and well trained) / Muslims during Crusade 2-3 (techinologically they were far superior to us Christians during that time period)

The greatest army of all time, is by far, the United States Army. With their M16's and 240's, the Spartans and Romans would be no problem. Their shields cannot stop a grenade. Lets see how Marc Antony would have liked a 25,000 megatons of Atom Bomb on his head. Or, they can't stop a M1A1 Abrams tank from rolling over all of them, having a rofl good time. And the German Knights? How about German don't put up a fight Knights? And the Russians and their WW2 tanks? Please. The Army has those LAW and AT rockets.

I don't think anyone can hold a candle to the US Army.

[Nicholas]

The greatest army of all time, is by far, the United States Army. With their M16's and 240's, the Spartans and Romans would be no problem. Their shields cannot stop a grenade. Lets see how Marc Antony would have liked a 25,000 megatons of Atom Bomb on his head. Or, they can't stop a M1A1 Abrams tank from rolling over all of them, having a rofl good time. And the German Knights? How about German don't put up a fight Knights? And the Russians and their WW2 tanks? Please. The Army has those LAW and AT rockets.

I don't think anyone can hold a candle to the US Army.

Today, yes they are the greatest military force. But remember we were also thinking in terms of historical context. I'm by no means being critical of your choice, but we shouldn't choose based on whether one military could defeat another. The question, atleast in my opinion, is how great an army was in the context of its history.

[Mr. Christopher]

Today, yes they are the greatest military force. But remember we were also thinking in terms of historical context. I'm by no means being critical of your choice, but we shouldn't choose based on whether one military could defeat another. The question, atleast in my opinion, is how great an army was in the context of its history.

Heh, I understand that, I was just joking around, sorry bout that :-(.

But, I still think the US Army is the best hehe

[NJon]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Mossad. Although technically intelligence agents, they do paramilitary work; in Israel, their intelligence services are under the control of their military (IDF), unlike in the U.S. DoD.

If assassinations of terrorist leaders and the international kidnapping of war criminals are up your alley, then Mossad is among the world's best.

[Eleazar7]

I would agree with the choice of the U.S. Military as the up there as one of the best, but realize I said U.S. Military and not just the U.S. Army. I make the distinction because Army wouldn't be very great in today's world if you take away the work of the Marines, Navy, and Air Force.

[Ironweed]

My list goes like this
Spartans (undefeatable in battle of even numbers)


Didn't Thebes under Epaminondas beat them a whole bunch of times, just about even up? My vague remembrance is that Thebes and her allies weren't able to put an army into the field much bigger than of Sparta's.

On top of the fact that they were so hamstrung with needing to keep their Helots in line that they weren't really able to go abroad kind of diminishes their importance.


Romans (undefeatable because they had 50 men for every one their opponents had)


They had superior numbers during the final Punic war?

[Ironweed]

If assassinations of terrorist leaders and the international kidnapping of war criminals are up your alley, then Mossad is among the world's best.

They certainly seemed clueless about Hezbollah just recently, didn't they?

Or as War Nerd put it, "they got hosed." Here: Gophers by TKO (http://www.exile.ru/2006-August-11/gophers_by_tko.html)

Be forewarnded: Excellent article, but he's quite a potty mouth.


Of course all these moves would've been wasted if the Israelis had caught on to what Hezbollah was up to, which leads to another lesson, one I'm always preaching: in asymmetrical warfare, Intelligence is everything. Or in this case, counterintelligence. Israeli intel, Shin Bet and Mossad, has been the real strength of the IDF for a long time. They're the best and most ruthless intelligence agencies since the USSR went bankrupt. But they had no idea what was waiting for them over the border. That's incredible, the most shocking news of all.

Remember, the IDF has instant access to all US military satellite intel, so this means that our tech intel was just as ineffective as Mossad's more traditional infiltration methods. That means Hezbollah, a huge organization with branches in every street in South Beirut and South Lebanon, has a scary effective counterintelligence branch. We all know the CIA is useless, but when Mossad and Shin Beth can't even penetrate the lower levels of a mass movement like Hezbollah, then the world has turned upside down.

[TuckEverlasting]

They certainly seemed clueless about Hezbollah just recently, didn't they?

Or as War Nerd put it, "they got hosed." Here: Gophers by TKO (http://www.exile.ru/2006-August-11/gophers_by_tko.html)

Be forewarnded: Excellent article, but he's quite a potty mouth.
Wow, thanks for posting that. :shocked:

[flipper]

Wow, thanks for posting that. :shocked:

That war nerd guy is fascinatingly and quite disturbingly amoral. Although, I suppose, you can't fault his honesty.

[Ironweed]

That war nerd guy is fascinatingly and quite disturbingly amoral.

My understanding that he is some famous commentator's "sock puppet," who uses the War Nerd schtick to let his hair down.

Although, I suppose, you can't fault his honesty.

I'm more interested in his accuracy and his analysis that any sort of honesty or dishonesty. And I've never read anything he's ever written that either didn't make sense or come true, once you strip off the hyperbole.

[Justin Thyme]

Well, I think obviously, this is a moving target over time. Each empire which succeeded the last was obviously better. :wink:

It's tough to judge one against another of differing times.

But the Roman and Mongul empires were certainly very successful.

The 80's Soviets were definitely an impressive power, as is the modern US.

And while it may not be completely popular here for obvious reasons, if I were to say which military I would have to say is the most impressive, I would have to say that the accomplishments of the Israeli IDF over the last 50 years is tough to match. Their accomplishments against their odds for each of their major wars (48, 56, 67 and 73) is pretty remarkable.

[3kixintehead]

You mean apart from the US Military of today? They may not fight a lot of open wars but in the ones they do fight they completely dominate the enemy in ways never seen before, while sustaining fewer casualties than ever seen before. Of course, the fact that we spend obscene amounts of money on a military that is clearly designed not for defence of the homeland but for domination and intimidation of the world probably has a lot to do with it.
Wow, America is definitely not one I would put on the list. We don't have that great of a military. We just have lots of bombs and technology.

1. Spartans from ancient greece. Trained from the time they were seven years old to be fighting machines.
2. Israel int the 1960's kicked arab butt. (I don't mean this to offend anyone)
3. Romans kept the Roman Empire secure for almost two thousand years. (I am including the Byzantine Empire in this number)

If the Japanese samurai had been able to unite as a military whole rather than just the (relatively) small faction they were I would include them as # 1 on this list. Samurai would kick a spartans butt (actually it would be an excellent competition to watch, both were the greatest warriors of their time)

I am surprised that anyone would even consider the Russian army during WWII. They were the worst-trained of every army and thats why over 12 million Russian soldiers died. The only reason Russia didn't fall is because they had a seemingly limetless supply of men.

[rich1]

Army of Northern Virginia - lead by Robert E. Lee and corps commanders Longstreet and Jackson with eyes of the army lead by Stuart

[Longstreet]

Army of Northern Virginia - lead by Robert E. Lee and corps commanders Longstreet and Jackson with eyes of the army lead by Stuart


:thumb: My sentimental pick....

[nickcopernicus]

we had a greatest leader so now we go to full ranked army (of the time)
I as always have very detailed opinions that most will find completely borring
I'd have to go with the Spartans they were trained since the age of seven to be perfect military machines, the weaponry they had could be used effectively against archers, cavalry, and infantry. The Phalanx formation could and did crush the formations used by the Romans (the Romans fought three battles to conquer greece two they lost the third they were getting their butts kicked until their reinforcements arrived)

My list goes like this
Spartans (undefeatable in battle of even numbers)
Romans (undefeatable because they had 50 men for every one their opponents had)
Huns (beat out Mongols due to the fact they had an infantry to back them up)
Russians (their tanks during WWII killed everything)
German Knights (heavily armored and well trained) / Muslims during Crusade 2-3 (techinologically they were far superior to us Christians during that time period)
Nick:

The greatest army of all time is not the most trained, the most disciplined, the best technology, the greatest equipped, nor is it the largest.

The most important factor in the evaluation of the "greatest army of all time" is the army that does not loose.

At the risk of sounding like an Arrogant American; suffice it to say that In the There is not a standing army in the world nor has there ever been one that could defeat the United States Army. That they have the advantage of time matters not. A single brigade would wipe out any of the armies listed above. So you must forgive me if I find your list somewhat....well, wrong.

cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

3kixintehead:
Wow, America is definitely not one I would put on the list. We don't have that great of a military. We just have lots of bombs and technology.
Nick:
Wow, you probably dont' know much about the United States Army. As much as I disliked it, there is a little more to it then "lots of bombs and technology"
3kixintehead:
1. Spartans from ancient greece. Trained from the time they were seven years old to be fighting machines.
Nick:
And would be slaughtered by the thousands if they fought the United States Army as of 22-July-07.
3kixintehead:
2. Israel int the 1960's kicked arab butt. (I don't mean this to offend anyone)
Nick:
The Israeli fighter pilots are considered the worlds best. They have a lot of combat experience. But an Airforce is a completely seperate entity from an Army.
3kixintehead:
3. Romans kept the Roman Empire secure for almost two thousand years. (I am including the Byzantine Empire in this number)
Nick:
I wonder how long they would have kept it "secure" against the present day United States Army. I'd say about 15 minutes.
3kixintehead:
If the Japanese samurai had been able to unite as a military whole rather than just the (relatively) small faction they were I would include them as # 1 on this list. Samurai would kick a spartans butt (actually it would be an excellent competition to watch, both were the greatest warriors of their time)
Nick:
Fighting together, "bombs and technology" would have wiped them out.
3kixintehead:
I am surprised that anyone would even consider the Russian army during WWII. They were the worst-trained of every army and thats why over 12 million Russian soldiers died. The only reason Russia didn't fall is because they had a seemingly limetless supply of men.
Nick:
While sheer numbers aren't everything, if one has enough of them, then that is all that one requires.


The best army is the one that would beat the others. An army's purpose is to win wars and occupy territory.

Cheers,

Nick - A guy with "some experience" concerning the military.

[Nicholas]

Nick:
Wow, you probably dont' know much about the United States Army. As much as I disliked it, there is a little more to it then "lots of bombs and technology"

Nick:
And would be slaughtered by the thousands if they fought the United States Army as of 22-July-07.

Nick:
The Israeli fighter pilots are considered the worlds best. They have a lot of combat experience. But an Airforce is a completely seperate entity from an Army.

Nick:
I wonder how long they would have kept it "secure" against the present day United States Army. I'd say about 15 minutes.

Nick:
Fighting together, "bombs and technology" would have wiped them out.

Nick:
While sheer numbers aren't everything, if one has enough of them, then that is all that one requires.


The best army is the one that would beat the others. An army's purpose is to win wars and occupy territory.

Cheers,

Nick - A guy with "some experience" concerning the military.


The problem with your comparisions are that you are comparing a military witht he advantage of modern technology to those without. Of course the American military could defeat the Romans, it would be assault rifles and guided missiles versus swords and catapults. If you really want to compare them, give the American troops the exact same equitment as their opponents, otherwise it's simply not a fair fight.

[nickcopernicus]

Nicholas:
The problem with your comparisions are that you are comparing a military witht he advantage of modern technology to those without. Of course the American military could defeat the Romans, it would be assault rifles and guided missiles versus swords and catapults. If you really want to compare them, give the American troops the exact same equitment as their opponents, otherwise it's simply not a fair fight.
Nick,
Yes, I understand that it's "not fair." There are many 3rd world countries today that would be defeated by the Roman Armies simply because they too do not have the technology.
My point here is that it's not about "fair;" rather it's about who is able to win.

War is about death and occupation. Which ever army is the most powerful, is the best. It's not as interesting as the "300," but it's true.

Cheers,

Nick

[Anoetos]

Maybe the question is whether they've ever been beaten in pitched battle.

Not in counter-insurgency based conflicts since in these cases the unit sizes are are a bit prohibitive of fair consideration; i.e. the units are relative in size and an advantage goes to the one more familiar with the field and with better immediate intel.

The three things absolutely necessary are the ability to shoot, move and communicate in the heat of pitched battle.

The Romans were very good at moving in small unit warfare as well as large unit tactical maneuvering and for their day they communicated and inflicted destruction better than anyone had ever done before.

The US Army is similar for its day. It shoots, moves and communicates better than has any military force in the history of the world.

In their historical context I would have to say that the Roman Legions and the US Army were comparable (all things being equal). What sets the US Army apart is superior technology enabling it to do all three things with an effectiveness unknown to history. The Romans didn't have any real overwhelming technoclogical superiority to, for example, the Egyptians or the Persians or any of the hellenized "tribes" of western Asia since Alexander.

So, my vote goes to the US Army.

When we add all the special ops, the close and distant air and arty support, the Marines and so on and make it a discussion about over all military supremacy from an historical perspective then the differences become more clear and the superiority of the US military in general to all other similar entities should become clear.

[Anoetos]

One more thing, wrt technology, I would reiterate my point that as compared with other military forces extant, the superiority of military hardware and technology is, in the case of the US, far greater than that enjoyed by any ancient army over its competitors.

[Nicholas]

Nick,
Yes, I understand that it's "not fair." There are many 3rd world countries today that would be defeated by the Roman Armies simply because they too do not have the technology.
My point here is that it's not about "fair;" rather it's about who is able to win.

War is about death and occupation. Which ever army is the most powerful, is the best. It's not as interesting as the "300," but it's true.

Cheers,

Nick

But my question was, if you armed the American forces with the same technology as the Romans, who would win in an evenly matched battle?
Or a better question would be, with the technology of the time, would any modern army be able to do what Alexander's army did? Or what the Roman legions did? If they couldn't accomplish the same feat with the technology available in the period, they aren't as good. Atleast that's how I see it.

[Anoetos]

It could be reduced to a wrestling match then.

Who would win, a well trained, physically fit Roman seventeen year old or an American of the same age with the same relative fitness and training?

The American would be physically larger, but it could be argued that the Roman would be more congenitally conditioned to brutality and less likely to "hold back".

[Nicholas]

It could be reduced to a wrestling match then.

Who would win, a well trained, physically fit Roman seventeen year old or an American of the same age with the same relative fitness and training?

The American would be physically larger, but it could be argued that the Roman would be more congenitally conditioned to brutality and less likely to "hold back".

That's a fair point, but I think it illustrates part of the problem with comparing armies of different periods. The problem is a combination of and tactics. The modern American military doesn't fight the same way as the Romans did. The Romans fought hand to hand with large number of soldiers at a time while the American forces fight in comparatively smaller units at a distance.
I think a better comparison would be in their accomplishments. Take the army of Alexander the Great. They toppled the most powerful empire of the day, marched from Greece to India, and Alexander only stopped conquering not because he was defeated, but because his army didn't want to go any further. Are there any other armies that have simply stopped, not because they were defeated or their enemy was too powerful, but because they wanted to go home? Look at another candidate for greatest army, Rome.
Why did Rome stop expanding? Partially because of logistics. There was also the problem that the German tribes were hard to beat in their own territory (See the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest), and in the Middle East there were the Parthians, who were also a tough nut to crack. In Africa they really didn't have a reason to go further because of the Sahara desert.

[A-Man]

Apart from the modern US military I would have to put my money on the German Wehrmacht of WWII. They weren't defeated by our superior tactics or fighting spirit; we beat them by nothing more than numbers and the fact that the US homeland was never seriously threatened and so our massive economy could produce war materiel that could be sent overseas to defeat the Germans at home. The Germans (80 million) took on Russia and the Western Allies at the same time and came close to winning the war. Even at the end, when they faced overwhelming odds and enemy air domination (way beyond supremacy) and incredible shortages, the Germans could still find a way to inflict some vicious, surprise blows.


I just about agree with that.
The Germans were ultimately defeated because they foolishly decided to invade the Soviet Union after they began their domination of western europe. If they had not done that and split up parts of eastern europe with the Soviets as orginally agreed upon, the world may very well be a different place.

[nickcopernicus]

But my question was, if you armed the American forces with the same technology as the Romans, who would win in an evenly matched battle?
Or a better question would be, with the technology of the time, would any modern army be able to do what Alexander's army did? Or what the Roman legions did? If they couldn't accomplish the same feat with the technology available in the period, they aren't as good. Atleast that's how I see it.
Nick:
I understand. The problem is that I could ask if we gave the Romans all of our technology... I mean no teaching or anything. Just give them some planes and tanks and guns and said "have at it," they probably would not do much better against other countries in this era as the Americans would do if we gave them swords, bows, and arrows.

Now, plenty of Countries have some very good technology. In fact, the Germans were using rocket engines and U-boats while the allied forces were still using props. They still lost...
My point here is that In one way the question could be:

What is the greatest army of its time?
Because America is no longer imperialistic (remember the "Manifest Destiny?") It is highly unlikely that they would try such military conquests.
The Nazis were a good example of what can happen in modern times if one tries to "take over the world."

Additionally, when we look at the fall of the Roman Empire, we see that one of the reasons they fell was lack of communication. With no phones, communicating the impending invading Germanic tribes took too long. An army can only do so much without the technology of which to help it.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

I just about agree with that.
The Germans were ultimately defeated because they foolishly decided to invade the Soviet Union after they began their domination of western europe. If they had not done that and split up parts of eastern europe with the Soviets as orginally agreed upon, the world may very well be a different place.
Nick:

I would argue that the sucessful completion of the Manhatten project and professor Openheimer's work would have finished the matter had the Germans not invaded the Soviet Union. I believe they were working on the A-Bomb as well, but in the end, whosoever had the Nuclear weapon (and the ability to deliver it into enemy territory) first, would have one had the Normady invasion failed.


Cheers,

Nick

[A-Man]

Nick:

I would argue that the sucessful completion of the Manhatten project and professor Openheimer's work would have finished the matter had the Germans not invaded the Soviet Union. I believe they were working on the A-Bomb as well, but in the end, whosoever had the Nuclear weapon (and the ability to deliver it into enemy territory) first, would have one had the Normady invasion failed.


Cheers,

Nick

Very good point. My name isn't Nick, btw.

[freethinker]

The greatest army ever was probably the Mongolian army at the time of Genghis Khan. The army operated under the most extreme conditions of heat and cold. It conquered the great empire of China and territory in Persia and was on the verge of conquering all of Europe. This army had mobility and firepower superior to anything else. It used tactics and strategy that were distasteful but effective. The individual soldiers used a bow with a tension of up to 75 kg. Apparently these soldiers could ride for days on a horse, opening a vein of a second horse while riding and drinking the blood for sustenance.

[jesusfreak]

The main thing you have to look at when talking about the greatest army of all time. With the spartans they were the best of their day. In todays standards The U.S. military is clearly the best of todays standards. The only thing holding the military back is the stupidity of how the U.S. is using it as more of a world police. Such as lets play the WWII senario since I like WWII for some reason.

Lets say that the country of Japan attacks our nation. It would actually be a right cause to beat the living crap out of them. But since we are over in Iraq giving the people of iraq "freedom" there was no attack on us or anything. Bush just said Iraq has weapons of mass distruction he must be taken out. That is what the U.S. military did. We completely took out his power and everyone in it. Now the problem is that there are so many war lords over there that they all want all the power that Sadam had and they don't want to give it up. So basically we are not using the military as how it should be and we are stuck in a civil war between the iraqi people.