NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I am not kidding. Liberals claim they support the military and feel that there have been 'just' wars in the past. I think most are just blowing smoke. Let's see.

im not a liberal, or a soldier

well, i might be a liberal, whats your definition?

anyways

whats a soldier class?

I'd say medic(?) personally, aside from it being so intensive. Pilot? is that one?

Yeah, uh, what do you mean by soldier class? That's basically a gaming term. Or is a poll up-coming?

Liberals value individual freedom, democracy and free trade...hence the term "market liberalization". That is what is meant by the term liberal.

If one is anti-liberal, then one is authoritarian, even fascist. What is a fascist's favourite soldier class? How many Americans who bash liberals, realise that they are bashing their own country's values?

sheesh, gimme a chance to finish already! :)

(poll is up now)

Liberals value individual freedom, democracy and free trade...hence the term "market liberalization". That is what is meant by the term liberal.

If one is anti-liberal, then one is authoritarian, even fascist. What is a fascist's favourite soldier class? How many Americans who bash liberals, realise that they are bashing their own country's values?

lol, yes, im that type of liberal

ont Liberal Party liberal, or Democrat liberal or whatever

Liberals value individual freedom, democracy and free trade...hence the term "market liberalization". That is what is meant by the term liberal.

If one is anti-liberal, then one is authoritarian, even fascist. What is a fascist's favourite soldier class? How many Americans who bash liberals, realise that they are bashing their own country's values?
That definition is arguable, but not the topic of this thread. Start your own if you wish to discuss it.

from the list

sniper

Where's Gardening?

No gardening?

Damn. Guess I'll have to pick Seal.

And I'm not strictly a liberal.

What the beep is "Commando" supposed to refer to?

Anyway, I suppose I'm going to be a liberal by any possible set of standards, and my favorite MOS in the US armed forces is 18D -- Special Operations Medical Sergeant (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/18d.htm). And by "favorite", I mean the MOS I most respect. I think.

I said "general infantry" because those are the guys i have the most respect for...the guys in the trenches.

A liberal wouldn't choose a favourite. If you're going to put your life on the line then a liberal, conservative or whatever is going to admire that. Saying that.. snipers and commandos are pretty cool ;-)

Now that I've participated, I'd like to take offense to this poll...How have liberals supported the military more than conservatives, given that a "conservative" is currently president and conducting the largest war we've faced in sometime? (War on Terror, not in Iraq)

Air Commando (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0397/comando.htm)
Is this what you're referring to? I can see why people would vote that their favorite type of member of the US armed forces is one whose unit has not existed for 36 years...

I support all of our soldiers, they have taken up arms and put themselves in harms way to protect me and my family.

It's just a shame they aren't being used to do that now. I say we bring them back so they can go about protecting America.

No, I am not kidding. Liberals claim they support the military and feel that there have been 'just' wars in the past. I think most are just blowing smoke. Let's see.

"Well, it ain't. Freedom has an extremely high cost in money, in property, in lives, physically, mentally and emotionally. What, did you forget to factor in Human Nature or the basic instinctive compulsions are subject to, to secure for their own use, food and shelter, water and security, resources that all animals (including Man) need. Or humanity's tendency to exceed the "Carrying Capacity" of wherever they live in sheer numbers, thus depleting such resources at an alarming rate. Resources that are needed to secure mates, which are in turn required if one intends to leave one's genes in the next generation....

Yes, like every other creature on the planet, all this boils down to sex. Whether it's a gang defending it's turf (and therefore the resources within it) or one country at war with anouther one (so it's borders and citizens are safe and therefore what is inside the borders...ergo, the resources within those borders.)

It's a vicious circle, but that doesn't make it any the less real. :rolleyes:

What the beep is "Commando" supposed to refer to?

Anyway, I suppose I'm going to be a liberal by any possible set of standards, and my favorite MOS in the US armed forces is 18D -- Special Operations Medical Sergeant (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/18d.htm). And by "favorite", I mean the MOS I most respect. I think.


It generally refers to Marines.

All i have to say is that sniping is the best! What if you had a 1,000,000 sniper army? ;)

It generally refers to Marines.Are you by any chance British? I know the UK armed forces has the Royal Marine Commando unit(s), which are basically the same as the US Marines. "Commando" does not refer to the Marines in US military usage, however. A quick Googling does not support the idea that it refers to US Marines, either.

I'm not from the US nor have I talked extensively with members of the US armed forces. I admit it's completely possible people use the word "commando" to refer to members of the USMC. I have personally never witnessed such use of the word by anyone who knows what the hell they're talking about.

I'd have to say sniper because he's the most independant of them all.

All i have to say is that sniping is the best! What if you had a 1,000,000 sniper army? ;)
You'd get your n05k1lz punk-ass pwnz0r3d by the bunny-jumping guys with RPGs.

All i have to say is that sniping is the best! What if you had a 1,000,000 sniper army? ;)
One helicopter. Flying at 50 feet off the ground. Strafing your snipers. Several times an hour.

No, I am not kidding. Liberals claim they support the military and feel that there have been 'just' wars in the past. I think most are just blowing smoke. Let's see.
What's the point of this thread, other than to say "OmG Librulz = traitorzz!!11!!!1!"?

Hi from France. :D
In the US army, my favorite class is the antagonist objector. :p :D
In french army, my favorite is navy seal. :)

'Commando' seems to be a problem in this vote, but doesn't it just mean 'special ops'? Usually highly trained and experienced people who are often air dropped into enemy territory, prior to the main offensive, to destroy or disrupt tactically important targets? Special operations units are definately impressive, but as I said before, why choose? If you're a concripted liberal or a hard core right-wing nutter, if you're put in the line of fire you're doing a job.

One helicopter. Flying at 50 feet off the ground. Strafing your snipers. Several times an hour.Give the snipers some credit. Every now and then someone firing Mk 211 Mod 0s with a Barrett M82A1M would hit the helo, possibly killing a member of the crew, setting it on fire, or destroying critical parts of the engine/transmission/flight control.

'Commando' seems to be a problem in this vote, but doesn't it just mean 'special ops'?Certainly some people use the word as such. A similar mention can even be found in most dictionaries, e.g. "a military unit trained and organized as shock troops especially for hit-and-run raids into enemy territory" at M-W.Com. The problem with that definition, though, is that Navy SEALs and Army Rangers already fit that description, with the Army Rangers being just about spot on -- light infantry with specops capabilities but little staying power that often operate in enemy territory. Both are also members of the US Special Operations community. So, if that's what the author meant, why include those three options?

I vote for "People Who Complain I, As A Liberal, Do Not Support My Troops, Or Any Troops In General, And Cannot Truly Respect The Military Or Warfare Should Make Sure They Know What They Are Talking About Before They Start Ranting". Why is that not an option?

What's the point of this thread, other than to say "OmG Librulz = traitorzz!!11!!!1!"?
I have to agree. I don't know what he (I'll go out on a limb there) is trying to prove. Maybe he doesn't understand the difference between supporting and fetishizing the military.

My favorite? Insurgents. They rock.

Now that I've participated, I'd like to take offense to this poll...How have liberals supported the military more than conservatives, given that a "conservative" is currently president and conducting the largest war we've faced in sometime? (War on Terror, not in Iraq)
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the poll suggests liberals support the military more than conservatives, especially since the individual who started the thread, and put the poll up, explicitly says he believes the opposite to be the case, and that this poll is aimed at showing this position to be a smokescreen. No-one has said anything on this thread yet that indicates liberals support the military MORE than conservatives.

You participated? Why did you do that when one gets the distinct impression that you are not a liberal, and the poll is specifically aimed at liberals. Did you bother reading anything at all?
But never mind: you go ahead and be offended at that thing that no-one said.

As for me, I think it's kinda silly to pick a favourite when the different trades in the military all kinda depend on eachother. I mean, artillery? Probably not going to last too long if they're all on their own. Infantry definately benefits from attack helicopters. Snipers or SEALS aren't going to win a war because there's just not enough of them. And what about Communication? Aren't the soldiers that do that important too? Anyway, I guess it's a moot point for me because I'm not a "Liberal". That's far too vague a word and it implies things about me that aren't true.

My favorite? Insurgents. They rock.
:D




I can't understand this thread. Why liberals (and you're(not you Keruvalia) were pointing only to liberals) should have a "favourite soldier class"?

Don't you think it's about the situation? That's why you have so many soldier classes to begin with.

Why liberals [...] should have a "favourite soldier class"?
Assuming you're male, et käynyt siviilipalvelusta, and aren't a (more or less...) conscientious objecter, you should have a "favorite soldier class" based on which you were trained to be... (Doesn't work in my case, though, I don't think too highly of MPs.)

I can't understand this thread.

I can't either. I'm not too sure it really has a point. "Soldier Class"? I don't even know what that means and I was a soldier (US Army Ranger).

Assuming you're male, et käynyt siviilipalvelusta, and aren't a (more or less...) conscientious objecter, you should have a "favorite soldier class" based on which you were trained to be... (Doesn't work in my case, though, I don't think too highly of MPs.)
I'm female. An if I'd be male I'd have choosed "siviilipalvelus".

But alright. A Finnish view. Quite hard actualy. My grandfathers were on the front line in both wars. But I have to give credit to (again sorry my bad english) air raid defence too.

I can't either. I'm not too sure it really has a point. "Soldier Class"? I don't even know what that means and I was a soldier (US Army Ranger).
You were?

Oh I remember, you mentioned when you were talking about your father. I think that was one of the best posts I've read (in here) this far.

Sorry I know nothing about this classes, what's an army ranger?

Aren't Commandoes British? You want U.S. Special Forces, Bozzy!

-Where's the artillery?

-You are the artillery!


Stalingrad

But alright. A Finnish view. Quite hard actualy. My grandfathers were on the front line in both wars. But I have to give credit to (again sorry my bad english) air raid defence too.Yeah, talking to veterans of WW2 certainly won't make you like war a bit more. The majority of people who have experienced real warfare (and I'd say WW2 was as real as it gets) think it's absolute hell.

Of the members of armed forces who have have been ordered to go to war I truly respect every last one.

Aren't Commandoes British? You want U.S. Special Forces, Bozzy!Like I said earlier in this thread, the UK Royal Marine Commandoes are closer to the USMC.

Sorry I know nothing about this classes, what's an army ranger?
"Soldier classes" is a gaming term for those computer games where you choose a "class", such as Heavy Weapons D00d, Sniper, Medic, etc in Team Fortress. I tell a lie: In Team Fortress, they are called simply "class", with the "Soldier class" being one. Battlefield Vietnam (http://www.eagames.com/official/battlefield/vietnam/us/home.jsp), for example, uses this term the way I originally meant.

US Army Ranger Association (http://www.ranger.org/)
The 75th Ranger Regiment, US ARSOC, at Globalsecurity.Org (http://globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/75rr.htm)
Basically, they are the US equivalent of the Laskuvarjojääkärit ("Parajaegers") Finnish Defense Forces, mixed with a bit of Erikoisjääkärit ("Specialjaegers"). More info on them in Finnish here (http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/joukot/utjr/laskuvarjojkrikoulu.dsp).

"Soldier classes" is a gaming term for those computer games where you choose a "class", such as Heavy Weapons D00d, Sniper, Medic, etc in Team Fortress.


I only play Tetris :D

(joke, but not really, I know about all short of games, but I'm not really interested eventhough I've written some scripts)

US Army Ranger Association (http://www.ranger.org/)
The 75th Ranger Regiment, US ARSOC, at Globalsecurity.Org (http://globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/75rr.htm)
Basically, they are the US equivalent of the Laskuvarjojääkärit ("Parajaegers") Finnish Defense Forces, mixed with a bit of Erikoisjääkärit ("Specialjaegers"). More info on them in Finnish here (http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/joukot/utjr/laskuvarjojkrikoulu.dsp).
So Jääkärit=rangers (or pretty much so)
then I certainly have a huge respect for rangers ( and everyone else defending their own country)

So Jääkärit=rangers (or pretty much so)
then I certainly have a huge respect for rangers ( and everyone else defending their own country)There's huge potential for muddling up the Finnish terms, too. The Jääkärit-units pre-WW2 and during it were a completely different thing than what just plain Jääkärit is now. In the current unit line-up of the Finnish Defense Forces, Jääkärit is just general infantry, your basic grunts. Back then they were the elite infantry, trained secretly in Germany during the first World War, fighting for the Germans, mostly being being officers of varying ranks in the Winter and Continuation Wars.

US Army Rangers are certainly closer to the older usage of the word Jääkärit. They could certainly be called "elite" compared to basic infantry. They also tend more towards airborne operations, as well as most quick, aggressive and somewhat non-conventional operations. They are not generally considered a very good defensive unit, but offense can indeed be the best defense in warfare.

Armor, I love tanks.

US Army Rangers are certainly closer to the older usage of the word Jääkärit. They could certainly be called "elite" compared to basic infantry. They also tend more towards airborne operations, as well as most quick, aggressive and somewhat non-conventional operations. They are not generally considered a very good defensive unit, but offense can indeed be the best defense in warfare.
Well...We did use some guerilla methods against Russians. And everyone thinks we were heroes.

I know some people will always bring uo the question about Finnish Rangers (old time Jääkärit) but considering the time and the impossile situation Finland was forced into to, I think they've been heroes too.

So Erehwon, you're obviously a Finnish person (and male)

Just curious, (as there are not so many Finns around) are you new to this game? I would like some Finnish support sometimes...

Terminology for the US military, in case anybody cares: the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. are the five US military branches. Infantry (11), Field Artillery (13), Armor (19), Special Forces (18), etc. are Fields within these branches. Further specialization is denoted by one's Military Occupational Specialty or MOS, such as Infantryman (11B), Cannon Crewmember (13B), Armor Crewman (19K) or Special Forces Weapons Sergeant (18B).

Incidentally, it seems Army Rangers have the same MOS identification as non-Rangers -- Ranger riflemen are 11B, for example. The difference is one of training received and unit assigned to.

Just curious, (as there are not so many Finns around) are you new to this game? I would like some Finnish support sometimes...Not new. I ran a nation named Athkathla for something like 6 months, took a break and let that nation be destroyed, and now have Erehwon Forest (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=erehwon_forest) in the Suomi (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=suomi) region. Talks are in progress about possibly uniting with the Finland (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Finland) region. Together Suomi and Finland have well above 160 member nations, which is quite respectable in my mind.

There's also Pelit (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Pelit), but that doesn't really inspire me...

For those of you confused about the term 'Commando'
http://www.specwarnet.com/americas/usaf.htm

In modern times 'Special Ops' is sometimes used, however it can also refer to Rangers or Seals. Commando is strictly Air Force.

Not new. I ran a nation named Athkathla for something like 6 months, took a break and let that nation be destroyed, and now have Erehwon Forest (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/54609/page=display_nation/nation=erehwon_forest) in the Suomi (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/54609/page=display_region/region=suomi) region. Talks are in progress about possibly uniting with the Finland (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/54609/page=display_region/region=Finland) region.
Alright, haven't met you (or previous) before. Only involved in "Scandinavia"

But I think we agree, enough of that on these forums...There has just been some arguments about Finnish army and I've known they're wrong but didn't have enough English data to prove me right.

In modern times 'Special Ops' is sometimes used, however it can also refer to Rangers or Seals. Commando is strictly Air Force.I guess you didn't check the link I provided about the Air Commando unit(s)?
When General of the Army Henry H. "Hap" Arnold created an elite war- fighting unit during World War II, and called them "Air Commandos," he had no idea an Air Force tradition was being set in motion. A tradition few bluesuiters know about today.

The setting was Japanese-occupied Burma, 1943. Geography made a "textbook" frontal assault on the Japanese impossible, and dictated the British take an unorthodox approach to the fight. Their answer was a commando unit that would use unconventional "hit and run" tactics to confuse the enemy, and destroy their lines of communication and resupply.

The concept depended heavily on air support, and with most of their resources committed to Europe, the British looked to America for assistance.

Arnold met with British Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, the supreme allied commander for the theater, to discuss the air support plan. To honor Mountbatten's earlier leadership of British commandos, Arnold coined the phrase "Air Commandos" as a name for the unique unit created to fill the requirement.

The 1st Air Commando Group, as it came to be known, was a self-contained composite force of fighters, cargo planes, light aircraft, helicopters and support people. The 1st ACG, which adopted the motto "Anytime, Anywhere," successfully attacked the enemy from the air, resupplied British commandos on the ground, and airlifted injured out of the battle area, eventually driving the Japanese out of Burma.

So what does any of this have to do with the Air Force?

In April 1961 a unit was created at Hurlburt Field, Fla., by then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay to train Air Force members to fight unconventional, "non-textbook" air warfare. This was in response to Soviet-supported insurgencies springing up in Third World countries.
[...]
In July 1968 the Special Air Warfare Center at Hurlburt Field was redesignated the USAF Special Operations Force. Subordinate units were redesignated special operations wings and squadrons, and all reference to "Air Commandos" was dropped.Those Special Operations units are now part of the US Air Force Special Operations Command, AFSOC (http://globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/afsoc.htm). Just "AFSOC" would cover most of what Air Command was all about.

They are absolutely "Special Ops", a term which accurately refers to all members of units that fall under the authority of the USSOCOM (http://globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/socom.htm).

Liberals value individual freedom, democracy and free trade...hence the term "market liberalization". That is what is meant by the term liberal.

If one is anti-liberal, then one is authoritarian, even fascist. What is a fascist's favourite soldier class? How many Americans who bash liberals, realise that they are bashing their own country's values?
Because some stupid bastard in the 60's decided to make liberal synonymous with Democrat, although they really aren't necessarily connected.

Sniper: Its one guy(two with a spotter) using one gun and a small amount of ammo to inflict crippling damage to large, expensive pieces of enemy equipment, or kill an enemy when they are totally unaware, demoralizing them, with almost zero potential for collateral damage.

Artillery is great with the big gun aspect, the missiles are huge cash-sinks though.

Compared to say:

General Infantry: Bunch of guys, bunch of guns, belts and belts of ammo used to attack enemies in roughly equal equipment with the potential for equal casulties, often in urban areas, demoralizing civilians, with a large potential for collateral damage of rock-throwing kids. We get hundreds of soldiers without limbs returning because of IEDs, demoralizing their families who aren't sure why the hell we're over there to begin with.

Aircraft: Extremely highly trained guys in godlessly expensive vehicles limited to attacking enemies marked out already using massively expensive bombs with demorilizing effects on civilians, and as demonstrated many times huge collateral damage. On a positive note, the generals get kickbacks from the weapons corps for massive bombing campaigns, so they'll stay in high spirit, plus jets look cool and get people to sign up.

Armed Bookworms - so are non-Liberals also anti-democracy? Sometimes seems that way with the way that Conservatives carry on, about Liberal winging etc. Used to be called freedom of speech.

Its one guy(two with a spotter) using one gun and a small amount of ammo to inflict crippling damage to large, expensive pieces of enemy equipment, or kill an enemy when they are totally unaware, demoralizing them, with almost zero potential for collateral damage.You could use almost exactly the same kind of reasoning with certain Special Forces, like the Navy SEALs mentioned in the poll.

As for what you said about infantry: largely true. I think you'll still agree that they are absolutely required for a working military, though. A fucked-up job, but somebody's gotta do it.

And what you said about the air force, I don't get it. Do you think militaries should instead use artillery (cheaper, often less accurate and thus even more collateral damage) to achieve some of the same objectives (not all, because of extremely limited range compared to aircraft) much less effectively? Sure, it's an expensive way to wage war, but it's also an extremely effective one -- an absolutely necessary way, most military analysts (who are not paid by the companies) would say.

I'm going to join the Navy probably, so I picked the SEALs.

You forgot Marine Recon, Bozzy.

You were?


Yeppers ... SSG (Staff Sergeant) MOS-18B (Special Operations Weapons Sergeant) Bravo Company. Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iris Gold.

I guess someone already answered your question as to what a Ranger is.

Me = 'liberal'


I picked sniper. The sniper was by far the coolest guy in saving private ryan.

The sniper was by far the coolest guy in saving private ryan.That's just because Barry Pepper knew he'd be cast in Bullshit Movie: A Saga Of Immense Crap, so he simply had to make play a really cool role in a really cool way in this obviously superior movie to save his career.

Bomber!

Despite the fact that I'm against massive collateral damage, there's something just.. appealing about the massive, yet graceful movement of a good heavy bomber. From the B-17, to the B-52, the B-2, and the B-1, they're all amazing machines, and likewise, flown by amazing people.

That's not to downplay the importance of the rest of the troops on the list, every soldier, pilot, mechanic, cook, etc. in the military is critical to the effort. Bombers and their pilots and co-pilots (and gunners, etc. in the case of WWII bombers) just happen to be my favorite.

None of the above. I'm confessedly liberal. I think it's important to draw a distinction here. Have there been jusitified wars? OF COURSE! Does that mean we should spend insane amounts on inefficent military equipment and hydrogen bombs? NO! Do I hate the military? NO!

Maybe this has been brought up already, but I don't see this thread as meritorious enough to read 5 pages of it. Why does one need to have a "favorite soldier class" to support the military? I support the homosexual rights movement, for example, but I don't have a favorite kind of homosexual. Maybe if "liberals" (to use the sweeping label of the thread) claimed that they took an avid interest in the military, you might have some ground to challenge in such a way, but this is a pretty worthless way to determine if someone merely supports the military.

No, I don't have a favorite soldier class...I just hope as many as possible come home from this hopeless, unnecessary conflict.

One helicopter. Flying at 50 feet off the ground. Strafing your snipers. Several times an hour.
its hard to kill what you can't see

Liberals value individual freedom, democracy and free trade...hence the term "market liberalization". That is what is meant by the term liberal.

If one is anti-liberal, then one is authoritarian, even fascist. What is a fascist's favourite soldier class? How many Americans who bash liberals, realise that they are bashing their own country's values?

Etymologically: correct.

In modern U.S. common parlaience: liberals favour government oversight of commercial enterprises, conservatives favour free trade. Yes this is the opposite of the technical meanings of the words, but this is probably due to the two major movements' strong associations with social liberalism/conservativism. Yes Libertarians are all liberal in technically correct terminology, and Communists or other authoritarian socialists/enviromnentalists/alansyists/etceterists could be seen as conservatives on both dimensions. But I think that the association, in modern american liberalism, of social liberalism with economic conservativism, and vice versa, is the associaition of social issues with defending "the little guy" from corporate oppression/wage slavery/ecological dangers from industry, etc. And vice versa: Those who support uinrestrained government control tend to support unrestrained corporate practices. It's all about siding with the disenfranchised/the common man/workers/minorities/etc. or siding with the rich/elite/empowered, as well as the tyranny of the majority, and liberals, by the common U.S. usage, tend to side with the underdogs.

You could use almost exactly the same kind of reasoning with certain Special Forces, like the Navy SEALs mentioned in the poll.

As for what you said about infantry: largely true. I think you'll still agree that they are absolutely required for a working military, though. A fucked-up job, but somebody's gotta do it.

And what you said about the air force, I don't get it. Do you think militaries should instead use artillery (cheaper, often less accurate and thus even more collateral damage) to achieve some of the same objectives (not all, because of extremely limited range compared to aircraft) much less effectively? Sure, it's an expensive way to wage war, but it's also an extremely effective one -- an absolutely necessary way, most military analysts (who are not paid by the companies) would say. Special forces like the SEALs often require fancy support elements like V-22s, LCACs, Harriers, underwater insertion vehicles, etc. I still love special forces a bunch though, because they can kick huge asses with tiny shoes.

Obviously general infantry are needed, you just wont see me volunteering for it any time soon, god bless the people that do.........

Artillery is becoming smarter all the time and it has the added bonus of a fast response time for soldiers in the field needing fire support. The air force is probably the most crucial weapon for taking a country, but for continued operations it becomes a logistics burden. The only problems with artillery in the guerilla type warfare we're in now is A) heavy bombardment of anything isn't really needed any more, and B) guerillas have the ability to attack it just as easily as main combat troops, since there are no lines to be behind.

I'd like to make it clear that my stance on the military is that it could do better with what it has, it doesn't need much more in certain areas, and it really doesn't need any downsizing. A perfect example of something that pisses me off is our continued neglect of the M113s we have sitting around by the thousands; they are more armored than hummers and the new strykers and we don't have to pay millions for pointless electronics. I posted the petition a while ago here link to thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369773)

Artillery is becoming smarter all the time and it has the added bonus of a fast response time for soldiers in the field needing fire support.Yep, modern artillery is significantly more accurate than e.g. that from the WW2 era. Electronics, communication, and even the use of smart weapons helps artillery as much as any other field. And it's true that artillery is often a better choice for ground support than aircraft because of the faster response. Dedicated CAS aircraft still remain plenty useful, though. Greater accuracy and lethality in engaging several types of targets -- especially armor, since guided anti-armor artillery ammunition does not seem to be very common yet -- mean they'll stay that way for a while still.

Anyway, you certainly seem like you know your stuff, and discussing militaries and warfare on this level is rather pointless beyong a certain level. Let's give room to 5n1prz r k3wl messages.

"What is your favourite solder class?"..... hands down, daftest question I've ever been asked since my gun-nut mate asked me what my favourite American missile was.... or the time he asked me that if I was one of the Columbine kids, what gun would I use and why. :s

if I was one of the Columbine kids, what gun would I use and why.That's actually the smartest, although not necessarily the sanest, question mentioned. At least there you can build a logical case. It isn't just asking about "favorites" or the "absolute bestest" thing, it basically asks which (types of) weapons would perform best in a particular, limited and well-known scenario.

The U.S. government:
-spends over $400 Billion on the military per year
-spends $10 Billion on the State department by comparison
-spends more on the military than the twenty nations suceeding it combined
-spends six times as much the number two country, Russia
-is estimated to have 12,000 available nuclear weapons

Think we could cut back a little?