Who Does Not Believe The US Has The Most Superior Military?

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Colt45
The US is good at bombing the shit out of places, not so good on the ground.

We're fine at war, on the ground or in the air. It's the post-war that sucks. How many days did it take to beat the entire nation of Iraq? Afghanistan? It's when there was no longer a clear centralized government with an organized army that it became a quagmire.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Number1
The US forces are the best equipped and best trained in the world. The US spends more money per capita on defence then any other country in the world.

Yet, the US army got its ass kicked in Vietnam by a bunch of dedicated under equipped hillbillies.

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.


I guess being the best army in the world is not the only factor in deciding who is going to win or loose any given conflict.

No, the rules by which that army has to adhere to is the deciding factor in winning a war. You could take Mohammad Ali, say that he has to fight with a leg and an arm tied to eachother behind his back and he probably won't win (ok, he might ).

In sending the US forces into Iraq, Bush (Rummy or Cheney, whoever pulls the puppet strings) essentially did that. They sent too few troops, dictated where to go and what targets to attack, dictated how it should handle the occupation...etc.

Look at Vietnam. We couldn't attack Hanoi very much, some targets were extremely limited. It was pure political BS.

If we had gone into either situation full-bore, unlimited warfare dictated by *GENERALS* (not politicians) both would have worked flawlessly.

So what you are saying is that unlimited carnage is the solution? Let the general run the show, kill everything in sight and we will win everytime? Anne coulter would be proud of you.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
What most people fail to see is the extent of deployment of our forces. If we were to pull all our forces out of non-confrontational countries and apply them at home for defense, no country in the world could invade. We are stretched thin but if our homelands were in jeopardy, and our children were in danger, the combination of population, technology and resources would make our military without rival.

Where are they going to invade from? Canada or Mexico? They would have to gather a strong and numerous force to attack via amphibiously. So they would have to get through our Navy and Air Force without detection in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.

How'd you think we invaded Afgani and Iraq? We had to use Saudi Arebia and Turkey as staging areas.

Even during 9/11 they took over an hour to scramble Jet Fighters on the eastern sea board. Mostly because they took long enough to find out what the hell was going on before the military moved up defcon status and the fact Bush was no where to be found to give the order to shoot down a commercial air plane on the spot (the only one with authority was Bush or Cheney for such orders) . No matter how stretched our military is, they simple do not have the means to defend the country completely from such terror attacks. That's the CIA and FBI's job.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: mattpegher
What most people fail to see is the extent of deployment of our forces. If we were to pull all our forces out of non-confrontational countries and apply them at home for defense, no country in the world could invade. We are stretched thin but if our homelands were in jeopardy, and our children were in danger, the combination of population, technology and resources would make our military without rival.

Where are they going to invade from? Canada or Mexico? They would have to gather a strong and numerous force to attack via amphibiously. So they would have to get through our Navy and Air Force without detection in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.

How'd you think we invaded Afgani and Iraq? We had to use Saudi Arebia and Turkey as a staging area.

Exactly. Our little buddy we call NORAD wouldn't let anything get within hundreds of miles of North America.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Getting our butts kicked? Not hardly. Have you been over there? Didnt think so. Keep believing what the bias media writes about, and keep your head in the sand.

Not getting your butts kicked; I would say it's more of a stalemate, which is embarrassing enough considering our military expenditure versus their rag-tag network of insurgents.

Our leadership carries the blame for it, not the soldiers on the ground.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Getting our butts kicked? Not hardly. Have you been over there? Didnt think so. Keep believing what the bias media writes about, and keep your head in the sand.

Not getting your butts kicked; I would say it's more of a stalemate, which is embarrassing enough considering our military expenditure versus their rag-tag network of insurgents.

Our leadership carries the blame for it, not the soldiers on the ground.

You do realize why it is so hard to fight them right?

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Getting our butts kicked? Not hardly. Have you been over there? Didnt think so. Keep believing what the bias media writes about, and keep your head in the sand.

Not getting your butts kicked; I would say it's more of a stalemate, which is embarrassing enough considering our military expenditure versus their rag-tag network of insurgents.

Our leadership carries the blame for it, not the soldiers on the ground.

There is a huge difference between Vietnam and Iraq, and that is we toppled Saddam in a matter of days and never toppled the communist in Vietnam over decades, and I'd say that says a lot for our power today.

What we have now is not a War persay but an occupation. No occupation in history has ever worked. Just take a look at Africa. Constant cival war and regicide from the hundreds of tribes leaders fighting over power. One tribe leader dies, another nut case takes his place.

There comes a point were the sacrifice is too costly. If we wanted to we can turn Iraq into a nice shiney glass mirror while killing all of its people. The military won their war, but the military cannot fight against the local sociology and politics.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: Number1

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.

I guess a win to you is some caveman putting a homemade bomb in the road, detonating it and running. I?ve always considered winning as my team scoring more than their team.

Your numbers are meaningless in determining the outcome of the conflict (check vietnam history). It is just a mater of time before the US army is withdrawned from Iraq.

The american public is increasingly fed up with this meaningless war and the Democrats are comming.

 

[txrandom]

Israeli military would suck without America.

 

[FlashG]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: Number1
The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.

I guess a win to you is some caveman putting a homemade bomb in the road, detonating it and running. I?ve always considered winning as my team scoring more than their team.

Your numbers are meaningless in determining the outcome of the conflict (check vietnam history). It is just a mater of time before the US army is withdrawned from Iraq.

The american public is increasingly fed up with this meaningless war and the Democrats are comming.

Yea the Democrats have the answer all right. What was it again?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Number1
The US forces are the best equipped and best trained in the world. The US spends more money per capita on defence then any other country in the world.

Yet, the US army got its ass kicked in Vietnam by a bunch of dedicated under equipped hillbillies.

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.


I guess being the best army in the world is not the only factor in deciding who is going to win or loose any given conflict.

No, the rules by which that army has to adhere to is the deciding factor in winning a war. You could take Mohammad Ali, say that he has to fight with a leg and an arm tied to eachother behind his back and he probably won't win (ok, he might ).

In sending the US forces into Iraq, Bush (Rummy or Cheney, whoever pulls the puppet strings) essentially did that. They sent too few troops, dictated where to go and what targets to attack, dictated how it should handle the occupation...etc.

Look at Vietnam. We couldn't attack Hanoi very much, some targets were extremely limited. It was pure political BS.

If we had gone into either situation full-bore, unlimited warfare dictated by *GENERALS* (not politicians) both would have worked flawlessly.

So what you are saying is that unlimited carnage is the solution? Let the general run the show, kill everything in sight and we will win everytime? Anne coulter would be proud of you.

It's amazing, I heard my voice but my mouth wasn't moving.

No, what I am saying is that people expect us to go in KATN every time and win in any situation. However, that isn't a reasonable expectation given the limitations we place upon ourselves.

Realistically, in Vietnam, we would have waged a stronger war against Hanoi, hitting real targets instead of hiding from them so that the Chinese didn't enter the war (realistically they already had).

In Iraq we should have not disbanded the army (like the generals said), gone in with 3x the troops (like the generals said), gone after the Fadayeen (as the generals said) instead of going to Baghdad right away (Stalingrad anybody?), shut down the border with Iran (we have a problem with borders), and aggressively gone after militants while enticing the Iraqi army with actual paychecks and not IOUs.

Now, I am somebody who cannot stand Anne Coulter, so you can just take your strawman attacks and shovel them.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TallBill
Don't remember that scene. In "The Patriot" yes, but can't remember it in Glory. What part?

Oh yeah, our military rocks. Not just because of the equipment either.

It was a long time ago, I thought it was Glory but I could be wrong. I know I watched it in 10th grade social studies (eg. history). It was really graphic, fullscreen shot and just.. boom, pink explosion, headless body. And that's fine for a teenager, hell most people wouldn't mind their 10 year olds seeing that. But even as an adult I can't see a breast on TV because it would corrupt me, and apparently because kids might be watching (at 3 AM). Odd how we've propagated as a species considering sex is so evil and wrong, yet the only way to do so...

Nope, you are right. It is in "Glory" where a Seargent gets his head blown off at the beginning during Antietam (sp?). Union soldiers are marching on a Confederate position, Seargent yells "Come on for Christ's sake" or something along those lines and pop. ~Was kinda trumatic, saw it before I saw Saving Private Ryan and before I got desensitizes.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
But, seriously, it seems as if any type of military spending these days is frowned upon. Granted I know we need more education funding etc, but if I was President I'd pour a lot of money into the military like the Reagan days.

And the purpose of that would be...?

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
But, seriously, it seems as if any type of military spending these days is frowned upon. Granted I know we need more education funding etc, but if I was President I'd pour a lot of money into the military like the Reagan days.

And the purpose of that would be...?

so we don't ever need to use it.

 

[Dritnul]

and when we pull out of Iraq and one group of Muslims commits some mass genocide against the other. what will the democrats do then?

basing this loosely off of when we pulled out of Vietnam and the following genocide
(at least i think it was Vietnam its been a while since we talked about it in history)

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: Number1
The US forces are the best equipped and best trained in the world. The US spends more money per capita on defence then any other country in the world.

Yet, the US army got its ass kicked in Vietnam by a bunch of dedicated under equipped hillbillies.

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.


I guess being the best army in the world is not the only factor in deciding who is going to win or loose any given conflict.

Nobody said it was. And I wouldn't say we're getting our asses kicked overseas right now. You try and occupy a country and hunt down enemies who blend in with civilians, all while minimizing civilian casualties. No army in the world could do that well.

an army of ninjas could.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Dritnul
and when we pull out of Iraq and one group of Muslims commits some mass genocide against the other. what will the democrats do then?

basing this loosely off of when we pulled out of Vietnam and the following genocide
(at least i think it was Vietnam its been a while since we talked about it in history)

How would that be any different then what is hapening now. Them yahoos are blowing each others up in the hundreds almost on a daily basis now.

 

[Dritnul]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: Dritnul
and when we pull out of Iraq and one group of Muslims commits some mass genocide against the other. what will the democrats do then?

basing this loosely off of when we pulled out of Vietnam and the following genocide
(at least i think it was Vietnam its been a while since we talked about it in history)

How would that be any different then what is hapening now. Them yahoos are blowing each others up in the hundreds almost on a daily basis now.

true but there is also the potential that if we weren't there they could become more organized and move that number closer to thousands a day

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Number1
The US forces are the best equipped and best trained in the world. The US spends more money per capita on defence then any other country in the world.

Yet, the US army got its ass kicked in Vietnam by a bunch of dedicated under equipped hillbillies.

The US army is getting its ass kicked by a bunch of caveman in Iraq as we speak.


I guess being the best army in the world is not the only factor in deciding who is going to win or loose any given conflict.

No, the rules by which that army has to adhere to is the deciding factor in winning a war. You could take Mohammad Ali, say that he has to fight with a leg and an arm tied to eachother behind his back and he probably won't win (ok, he might ).

In sending the US forces into Iraq, Bush (Rummy or Cheney, whoever pulls the puppet strings) essentially did that. They sent too few troops, dictated where to go and what targets to attack, dictated how it should handle the occupation...etc.

Look at Vietnam. We couldn't attack Hanoi very much, some targets were extremely limited. It was pure political BS.

If we had gone into either situation full-bore, unlimited warfare dictated by *GENERALS* (not politicians) both would have worked flawlessly.

So what you are saying is that unlimited carnage is the solution? Let the general run the show, kill everything in sight and we will win everytime? Anne coulter would be proud of you.

It's amazing, I heard my voice but my mouth wasn't moving.

No, what I am saying is that people expect us to go in KATN every time and win in any situation. However, that isn't a reasonable expectation given the limitations we place upon ourselves.

Realistically, in Vietnam, we would have waged a stronger war against Hanoi, hitting real targets instead of hiding from them so that the Chinese didn't enter the war (realistically they already had).

In Iraq we should have not disbanded the army (like the generals said), gone in with 3x the troops (like the generals said), gone after the Fadayeen (as the generals said) instead of going to Baghdad right away (Stalingrad anybody?), shut down the border with Iran (we have a problem with borders), and aggressively gone after militants while enticing the Iraqi army with actual paychecks and not IOUs.

Now, I am somebody who cannot stand Anne Coulter, so you can just take your strawman attacks and shovel them.

Those are all good sounding theories but we will never know. Remember that McCarthur also wanted to nuke North Korea and would have invaded China. There has to be political control over the armed forces. Ill grant you the anne coulter comment was prety low. Sorry.

 

[RadioHead84]

thats crazy. Without the nukes we still are really powerful. People always talk about how china could whoop us in a war...yeah..if we try to fricken INVADE them. Invading China is really just a silly concept. If anyone tried to have any kind of skirmish...or tried to invade us we would be at a great advantage no matter the way you look at it. Yeah china has a huge amount of people...but try getting the billion of them across the pacific without being blown to pieces.

also it should be noted that most countries with any kind of advanced army are usually developed enough to have an interest in NOT starting a war. Yeah North Korea is crazy but why would China want to start a war with thier buyers, its just not logical.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: alien42

the number of phds and engineering grads that china is producing is extremely high. the whole system could just crumble in the next 20 years but the potential is definately there.

Yeah, but they're coming to the US!

 

[meltdown75]

America, f*ck yeah!

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
I know China and India are on the rise, and Israel is very very good, but I still believe we have the better military, and will continue to do so.

Israel? Israel is a tiny country, they don't even come close to the European powers, why pick them out?

Of course the US has the most powerful millitary right now, that's quite obvious, but it's just as obvious that things will not remain that way. No country can remain the one superpower for long.

Umm Israel's military is extremely effective. Their Special Forces are some of the best in the world.

-10,000 points for beginning a sentence with "Umm"

It makes you sound like a mouthbreather.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
America, f*ck yeah!

Don't hate. I'm sure you guys have a fine tank...eh!

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Atheus
No country can remain the one superpower for long.

The Roman Empire did... For a thousand years. The British Empire did... For what, three hundred years?