NationStates Jolt Archive

From all countries in the world, the U.S. spend the most for their military. They have a population of 288,369 Mio. and are spending 417,5 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ (2005) for their military.

The entire EU spends 130 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ and the NATO countries, without the US spend 138 Mrd (Billion) US-$.

The US has 4 clearly divided, yet very large, parts of military: The US Navy, the US Army, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps (which has it's own boats, air craft, helicopters, etc.)

The homeland of the US is being defended by the National Guard and the Coast Guard, which are again divided in 3 separate parts.

Combined, the US have approx. 2.8 Million people in their military (armed) - in 1991 it was 3.7 Million.

Additionally to this, the US have 4 forms of reserves:

the Selected Reserves
the Individual Ready Reserves
the Inactive Guard
the Ready Reserve = the sum of Selected Reserve and IRR and Inactive Guard
the Standby Reserve


Do you think that the US military is too large or that the US are too militarized? The effect of this being, that realisticly, no other country could at this time challenge the US or enforce anything against the US - be it international law or sanctions of any form. In fact, the US can take the liberty to act anywhere on the globe, in it's sole discretion, in any way it sees fit. This can reach from partaking and oftentimes leading UN peacekeeping missions to flat out illegal warfare as was seen with the Iraq war in 2003.

Additionally to the omnipresent military, many people from the US who are posting on this forum, seem to have a very militarized way of thinking. The result being that objectors to warfare which is deemed illegal by the international community, are judged as if they committed murder. People who are against the war are frequently denounced as un-american or unpatriotic or even insulted. In extreme cases some anti-war protesters were mistreated or had their life threatened - even by US police. Many cases of such behaviour were documented by www.democracynow.org

Is this unquestioning support of the US troops, no matter what they do in the world, justifiable? Is the absolute obedience of soldiers when given illegal orders or immoral orders in the US military accepted? Otherwise things like Abu Ghraib would not be possible. Do soldiers who shame the US in front of the world with such actions, receive punishments appropriate to their crimes or do they get away too easily most of the time?

Is the excemption of US citizens and US soldiers from the International Criminal Court justifiable?

Yes, I am a US citizen and think America is to militarialized

I don't think we're militarized enough. We need more troops so that situations like the Iraq insurgency can be handled more efficiently. Also I think a manditory term in the military for all young adults (in non-combat roles) would be a great thing to build character and serve the nation.

I definitely think that we're too militarized. We could cut our armed forces drastically without a drop in our military power, all while cutting taxes.

I definitely think that we're too militarized. We could cut our armed forces drastically without a drop in our military power, all while cutting taxes.
How do you propose we police nations like Iraq and Afghanistan with fewer people? We don't really have enough to do the job properly right now.

I wouldn't know. I am a US citizen that lives in Europe and a vast portion of other Americans that I know is military. They're obviously militarized.

I don't think we're militarized enough. We need more troops so that situations like the Iraq insurgency can be handled more efficiently. Also I think a manditory term in the military for all young adults (in non-combat roles) would be a great thing to build character and serve the nation.
So you do think that people who fight against a foreign oppression force in their country (the majority of insurgents are Iraqis) needs to be smashed with overwhelming military force?

And how exactly does serving in the military build character and help the nation? Personally I found my time in the military to be a waste of time when I would have most needed it to have a successful start in life.

Ein Deutscher']So you do think that people who fight against a foreign oppression force in their country (the majority of insurgents are Iraqis) needs to be smashed with overwhelming military force?


You'd have to ask the majority of Iraqis who wish the 'insurgents' would stop blowing them up.

How do you propose we police nations like Iraq and Afghanistan with fewer people? We don't really have enough to do the job properly right now.

I propose that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. We should've kept up Afghanistan. That place is a polluted shit hole, now.

I definitely think that we're too militarized. We could cut our armed forces drastically without a drop in our military power, all while cutting taxes.


I'm not sure how you propose to cut our armed forces (all voluntary by the way) and somehow escape a "drop in our military power." I feel that if a number of people feel that they should serve their country by entering the military, then more power to them. Any substantial reduction in military power would simply open the door for more anti-American attacks (IMO).

Ein Deutscher']So you do think that people who fight against a foreign oppression force in their country (the majority of insurgents are Iraqis) needs to be smashed with overwhelming military force?

And how exactly does serving in the military build character and help the nation? Personally I found my time in the military to be a waste of time when I would have most needed it to have a successful start in life.
The US isn't a "foreign oppression force". Although going into Iraq was a bad move IMHO, we haven't oppressed the Iraqi people. We've helped them form a democratically elected government that will be responsive to the people's will.

The military would teach a sense of responsibility and teamwork in pursuit of a goal. Both those things build character and make one a good citizen.

I propose that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. We should've kept up Afghanistan. That place is a polluted shit hole, now.
Gee, what was it before we went in? Oh, right, a shithole infested with terrorists and islamofascists who grossly violated people's human rights.

Ein Deutscher']So you do think that people who fight against a foreign oppression force in their country (the majority of insurgents are Iraqis) needs to be smashed with overwhelming military force?

And how exactly does serving in the military build character and help the nation? Personally I found my time in the military to be a waste of time when I would have most needed it to have a successful start in life.

Theres a lot of benefits now. I'm not sure when or how long ago you served, but the military now presents a lot of ways to start a life, like giving free education and college, build respect and obedience, gets you in very goos pyhsical shape, a chance to travel the world, etc.

As for the poster, I think we need to build our military numbers a bit more. Technology is a good thing, but if something like a large effective emp ever went down, we would probably be doomed. China and/or N. Korea could probably rival us pretty easy right now. Korea couldn't very well go on the offense like the Chinese could do though. Too many people take democracynow.org as a source. It's is pretty bias source, since it backs up every bush bashing that goes on in this forum and not yet saw one backing the President.

Ein Deutscher']From all countries in the world, the U.S. spend the most for their military. They have a population of 288,369 Mio. and are spending 417,5 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ (2005) for their military.

The entire EU spends 130 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ and the NATO countries, without the US spend 138 Mrd (Billion) US-$.

It would be far more accurate to use percentages for comparison than just dollar amounts.
For example, the US spends approximately 3.3% of its GNP on the military. Germany spends about 1.5, France about 2.5 and the UK also about 2.5. Percentage wise it is still higher than most European countries, but not drastically so. Compare all this to North Korea which spends about 18% of its GNP to the detriment of its people.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf

The insurgency is not made up of Iraqis fighting for an independent stable government in Iraq. It is made up of Iraqis urged on by extremist leaders who want Iraq to remain chaotic so they can maintain their power. If they succeed in their goal of driving the US out (unlikely) Iraq will turn into another Somalia.

We are much more militarized, that is true. Some of that is because of the Cold War, much of it simply reflects our position of massive influence (for better or for worse) in the world. If we were not present in today's balance of power, I imagine Europe would have more military than they do now, to fill the vaccuum.

I'm a US citizen.

You'd have to ask the majority of Iraqis who wish the 'insurgents' would stop blowing them up.
Well said. The very silent majority is held at gunpoint by the tiny extremist minority.

Gee, what was it before we went in? Oh, right, a shithole infested with terrorists and islamofascists who grossly violated people's human rights.

You obviously didn't get what I was saying. I agreed 100% with the invasion of Afghanistan, but I didn't agree with leaving it alone after the military action was over.

Ein Deutscher']From all countries in the world, the U.S. spend the most for their military. They have a population of 288,369 Mio. and are spending 417,5 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ (2005) for their military.

The entire EU spends 130 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ and the NATO countries, without the US spend 138 Mrd (Billion) US-$.

The US has 4 clearly divided, yet very large, parts of military: The US Navy, the US Army, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps (which has it's own boats, air craft, helicopters, etc.)

The homeland of the US is being defended by the National Guard and the Coast Guard, which are again divided in 3 separate parts.

Combined, the US have approx. 2.8 Million people in their military (armed) - in 1991 it was 3.7 Million.

Additionally to this, the US have 4 forms of reserves:

the Selected Reserves
the Individual Ready Reserves
the Inactive Guard
the Ready Reserve = the sum of Selected Reserve and IRR and Inactive Guard
the Standby Reserve


Do you think that the US military is too large or that the US are too militarized? The effect of this being, that realisticly, no other country could at this time challenge the US or enforce anything against the US - be it international law or sanctions of any form. In fact, the US can take the liberty to act anywhere on the globe, in it's sole discretion, in any way it sees fit. This can reach from partaking and oftentimes leading UN peacekeeping missions to flat out illegal warfare as was seen with the Iraq war in 2003.

Additionally to the omnipresent military, many people from the US who are posting on this forum, seem to have a very militarized way of thinking. The result being that objectors to warfare which is deemed illegal by the international community, are judged as if they committed murder. People who are against the war are frequently denounced as un-american or unpatriotic or even insulted. In extreme cases some anti-war protesters were mistreated or had their life threatened - even by US police. Many cases of such behaviour were documented by www.democracynow.org

Is this unquestioning support of the US troops, no matter what they do in the world, justifiable? Is the absolute obedience of soldiers when given illegal orders or immoral orders in the US military accepted? Otherwise things like Abu Ghraib would not be possible. Do soldiers who shame the US in front of the world with such actions, receive punishments appropriate to their crimes or do they get away too easily most of the time?

Is the excemption of US citizens and US soldiers from the International Criminal Court justifiable?

democracynow is a liberal/socialist propaganda site.

Things the United States military has done for the world:

1)Large (perhaps the main) reason why Hitler was defeated in World War II. The effects of Hitler's defeat can perhaps be better realized by looking at Europe WITH Hitler in power. Now there's a case for a small US military and isolationist/laissez faire policy!

2)Freed the people of Iraq from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein [so much for your idea of an "illegal war". Do you hate freedom? No? Then give the US/coalition forces (namely the British) some credit.] We did basically the same thing for Afghanistan, ousting the despotic Taliban.

3)Defeated the USSR in the Cold War (think about that... imagine all of europe under communist rule from Moscow). Of course we defeated them with our economy (free enterprise beats the crap out of communism/socialism any day), but the reason they didn't ATTACK you was because we were there.. with our big military.

4)Helped to keep South Korea from becoming a Red state. Of course we haven't gotten much thanks for that. (no good deed goes unpunished)

so that's FOUR things (there are many more, but these are colossal imo) the US military has done to help the world in a very major way.

Let's not forget, while we're at it, that much of the reason we've had to spend so much in this war on terror is that Bill Clinton cut our military during his reign. So if you hate the huge defense spending of late, part of your fury should be pointed at Clinton.

You obviously didn't get what I was saying. I agreed 100% with the invasion of Afghanistan, but I didn't agree with leaving it alone after the military action was over.
Ok, sorry. I agree with you then. We should be putting alot more money and manpower into building a modern infrastructure there so the people don't have to make ends meet by producing heroin.

4)Helped to keep South Korea from becoming a Red state. Of course we haven't gotten much thanks for that. (no good deed goes unpunished)

Oh, the irony.

Ok, sorry. I agree with you then. We should be putting alot more money and manpower into building a modern infrastructure there so the people don't have to make ends meet by producing heroin.

And they shouldn't die just from drinking the water.

I propose that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. We should've kept up Afghanistan. That place is a polluted shit hole, now.
Thats right... the 13,000-odd American troops in Afghanistan are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts growing opium.

JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T IN THE NEWS DOESN'T MEAN NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!! Quite the contrary, it means that Afghanistan has too few gruesome scandalous stories for the sensationalist media.

Did you know that they had democratic elections months and months ago? Probably not. Our media ignored it.

Ein Deutscher']And how exactly does serving in the military build character and help the nation? Personally I found my time in the military to be a waste of time when I would have most needed it to have a successful start in life.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a German citizen who served in the German military.
It should be easy to notice that the American military is not the German military and therefore your experience in the German military is not indicative of an American in the American military.
I'd suggest that you stop making so many assumptions about people you know little of.

Things the United States military has done for the world:

1)Large (perhaps the main) reason why Hitler was defeated in World War II.

2)Freed the people of Iraq from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein

3)Defeated the USSR in the Cold War

4)Helped to keep South Korea from becoming a Red state.


Well said. The point being made (I think) is that the US is not a nation to sit back and "appease." Americans are about action. Sometimes that action comes in the form of violence. And when it does we will be ready to kick your ass.

Ein Deutscher']From all countries in the world, the U.S. spend the most for their military. They have a population of 288,369 Mio. and are spending 417,5 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ (2005) for their military.

The entire EU spends 130 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ and the NATO countries, without the US spend 138 Mrd (Billion) US-$.

The US has 4 clearly divided, yet very large, parts of military: The US Navy, the US Army, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps (which has it's own boats, air craft, helicopters, etc.)

The homeland of the US is being defended by the National Guard and the Coast Guard, which are again divided in 3 separate parts.

Combined, the US have approx. 2.8 Million people in their military (armed) - in 1991 it was 3.7 Million.

Additionally to this, the US have 4 forms of reserves:

the Selected Reserves
the Individual Ready Reserves
the Inactive Guard
the Ready Reserve = the sum of Selected Reserve and IRR and Inactive Guard
the Standby Reserve


Do you think that the US military is too large or that the US are too militarized? The effect of this being, that realisticly, no other country could at this time challenge the US or enforce anything against the US - be it international law or sanctions of any form. In fact, the US can take the liberty to act anywhere on the globe, in it's sole discretion, in any way it sees fit. This can reach from partaking and oftentimes leading UN peacekeeping missions to flat out illegal warfare as was seen with the Iraq war in 2003.

Additionally to the omnipresent military, many people from the US who are posting on this forum, seem to have a very militarized way of thinking. The result being that objectors to warfare which is deemed illegal by the international community, are judged as if they committed murder. People who are against the war are frequently denounced as un-american or unpatriotic or even insulted. In extreme cases some anti-war protesters were mistreated or had their life threatened - even by US police. Many cases of such behaviour were documented by www.democracynow.org

Is this unquestioning support of the US troops, no matter what they do in the world, justifiable? Is the absolute obedience of soldiers when given illegal orders or immoral orders in the US military accepted? Otherwise things like Abu Ghraib would not be possible. Do soldiers who shame the US in front of the world with such actions, receive punishments appropriate to their crimes or do they get away too easily most of the time?

Is the excemption of US citizens and US soldiers from the International Criminal Court justifiable?
There are so many things wrong with this post that I scarcely know where to begin!

There is no "unquestioning support of the US troops." There are many, many people here who have repeatdly and loudly voiced their disagreement and even contempt for the US military.

US soldiers can be courtmartialed for obeying "illegal orders."

"Democrary Now" is not a credible source.

US soldiers are always prosecuted under the UCMJ when they perform illegal acts. And the punishment meted out is almost always greater than what would be imposed by a civilian court.

The primary reason the US spends more on its military than most other nations is because of expensive weaponry, not because of troop strength, and US military personnel are paid better than those in most other nations. Another reason the US spends so much on its military is that we provide a protective unbrella for many other nations, regardless of what many may say. Another reson is extensive research and development. And long logistics lines, and ... and ... and!

There is no such thing as an "illegal war." It's an oxymoron.

There's nothing suggesting that democracynow.org is not a credible source. All the reports from them that I've seen were accurate and in most cases, mirroring the news from other sites such as www.reuters.com or www.cnn.com.

They usually feature credible people - especially of the US media - who talk without fear of being censored by the corporate networks they're otherwise dependent of.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/21/1455245 -> Interview with Greg Palast

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/24/1446244 -> Interview with Phil Donahue of MSNBC

democracynow is a liberal/socialist propaganda site.

Things the United States military has done for the world:

and
Ein Deutscher']There's nothing suggesting that democracynow.org is not a credible source. All the reports from them that I've seen were accurate and in most cases, mirroring the news from other sites such as www.reuters.com or www.cnn.com.

They usually feature credible people - especially of the US media - who talk without fear of being censored by the corporate networks they're otherwise dependent of.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/21/1455245 -> Interview with Greg Palast

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/24/1446244 -> Interview with Phil Donahue of MSNBC

Propaganda site, yes. Propaganda doesn't have to be false, just one-sided. I believe that side qualifies.

Sorry... the Russians won WWII. They broke Hitler's back when he invaded them. Eerily similar to Napoleon 130 years earlier... Anyway, By D-Day, Hitler was already losing the war. Cold war propaganda downplayed the Russian role and glorified the American role.

What we DID do was keep the Russians from dominating all of Europe at the end of the war. We all are familiar with the hardships endured by the people of Eastern Europe for 40 years.


Another reason for having a big military: China.

and


Propaganda site, yes. Propaganda doesn't have to be false, just one-sided. I believe that side qualifies.


democracynow.org is not saying untruthful things, thus they're not a propaganda site. They are a lobby site - for the anti-war movement and a non-corproate media outlet. They're quite good at reporting things that the mainstream media refuse to say.

Sorry... the Russians won WWII. They broke Hitler's back when he invaded them.

I don't think you can call it a *win* if they put him into a loosing position. It isn't until the forces are actually shut down and stop fighting that a *win* is established. Agreed that it was a collection of forces that produced the *win* but I don't think anyone can downplay the significance of D-Day and the role the US played in removing Hitler from power.

Ein Deutscher']democracynow.org is not saying untruthful things, thus they're not a propaganda site. They are a lobby site - for the anti-war movement and a non-corproate media outlet. They're quite good at reporting things that the mainstream media refuse to say.
They're quite good at toeing "the party line." I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw the lot of them.

Ein Deutscher']democracynow.org is not saying untruthful things, thus they're not a propaganda site. They are a lobby site - for the anti-war movement and a non-corproate media outlet. They're quite good at reporting things that the mainstream media refuse to say.
Propaganda, by definition, does not have to be untrue.
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that DemocracyNow.org is a propaganda website. A lobby site obviously has a cause to forward, and a cause to oppose. The information they put forward is obviously intended to further their own cause and/or damage that which they oppose.

Out of curiosity, did they do any reporting on the Afghan Election? I know that the sensationalist mainstream media ignored it in favor of bloody and scandalous stories.

and

Anyway, By D-Day, Hitler was already losing the war. Cold war propaganda downplayed the Russian role and glorified the American role.

What we DID do was keep the Russians from dominating all of Europe at the end of the war. We all are familiar with the hardships endured by the people of Eastern Europe for 40 years.


We didn't join the war effort on D-Day.. Operation Torch and the N. African campaigns made it possible, among other things. As for Russia, where would they be if we hadn't defeated the Japanese? If the Japanese had attacked Russia, as was Hitler's original plan, would they still have beaten the Germans? I don't see any way it would've been possible.

We may have overstated things during the Cold War, but the massive sacrifices made by Russians as far as population killed don't equal the significance of their contribution.. 80% of Germans were killed on the Russian front, but without the Japanese taken care of, there might've been no Germans on the Russian front to begin with.

Sorry to go off-topic.. I just didn't understand the original statement.

In regard to the role of Russia in WWII, it cannot be denied that their pressure on the eastern german front had a lot to do with the success of the US offensive. Remember, Japan was more or less occupied with fighting the US, and had we not kept up the pacific war, it would have been only a matter of time before they attacked Russia. Eastern Russia, like Manchuria, was rich in natural resources which would have helped Japan tremendously.
So, it can probably be said that both the US and Russia had equal bearing on the outcome of World War 2.

The only thing I would spend more money on than the military is space exploration. And hell, I want to militarize space!!! Huge space cruisers loaded to the hilt with cannon and small fighter ships!! You can never have enough firepower.
All those rogue planets like "Jupiter" and "Mercury" turning their noses up at us, flaunting their planetness in our faces. We'd show them a thing or two!!

The only thing I would spend more money on than the military is space exploration. And hell, I want to militarize space!!! Huge space cruisers loaded to the hilt with cannon and small fighter ships!! You can never have enough firepower.
All those rogue planets like "Jupiter" and "Mercury" turning their noses up at us, flaunting their planetness in our faces. We'd show them a thing or two!!

You think Jupiter and Mercury are bad? We all know that Uranus is the real threat.

Regarding WWII: Valid arguments all around.

Also, we contributed immensely to the survival of Britain, even before we entered the war.

I was simply pointing out that it would be wrong to say "AMERICA SAVED EUROPE FROM HITLER." It would be much more correct to say "AMERICA SAVED EUROPE FROM STALIN"

You think Jupiter and Mercury are bad? We all know that Uranus is the real threat.

Damn Uranus, spreading their vile lies and propaganda. Once the blockade is in effect we can begin to plan our eventual rule and harsh occupation. They will howl under our boots.

Well, I'm not sure if Russia would have finished off Hitler alone. With no US attacking on the west, the large numbers of soliders would have all been sent to the east, and the atlantic wall would have removed much of the english air threat. Remember the Battle of the Bulge: At the time of their initial attack, the Germans had more than 30 infantry and seven panzer divisions, with nearly 1,000 tanks and almost 2,000 guns, and 200000 soldiers, not to mention large amounts of air support.

The sad irony about the US military is, while their air and naval forces are superb (without doubt the strongest on the globe), their ground forces are suprisingly weak (see Iraq). :(

The sad irony about the US military is, while their air and naval forces are superb (without doubt the strongest on the globe), their ground forces are suprisingly weak (see Iraq). :(
They are not weak. They are overconfident and not suitable for this kind of occupation. Guerilla warfare cannot be fought with common military, since it is impossible to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Many people who apologized for the various atrocities that have happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, claim that the US troops are not trained for these situations and thus are overburdened with their duty. I completely agree with this - however it does not justify what has happened.

Regarding the strength of the air force or navy - I think that it does not take all that much skill to fly a bomber over a location and drop a few big ass bombs that flatten everything below you.

Well, I'm not sure if Russia would have finished off Hitler alone. With no US attacking on the west, the large numbers of soliders would have all been sent to the east, and the atlantic wall would have removed much of the english air threat. Remember the Battle of the Bulge: At the time of their initial attack, the Germans had more than 30 infantry and seven panzer divisions, with nearly 1,000 tanks and almost 2,000 guns, and 200000 soldiers, not to mention large amounts of air support.

I think Russia would have won alone, sooner or later. They had way more forces and material - despite their massive losses early on. The Allied Invasion in the west did however significantly speed things up. Also, a big difference is that the western half of Europe was spared of Communism later.

They did have considerable material advantage, and I agree, but the odds of their success would have probably been much lower. Still, a large amount of the damage done to the German industrial base would not have happened, since the Americans did a large amount of bombing (along with the British) and this industry would have been able to produce material and close the advantage.

Oh, the irony.
Not that ironic, the news stations switched colors. Blue used to be conservative and red liberal, but in Clinton's first? election they changed them.

Russia wouldn't have done nearly as well as it did against Germany without all of the logistical support provided by the United States.

Ein Deutscher']They are not weak. They are overconfident and not suitable for this kind of occupation. Guerilla warfare cannot be fought with common military, since it is impossible to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Many people who apologized for the various atrocities that have happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, claim that the US troops are not trained for these situations and thus are overburdened with their duty. I completely agree with this - however it does not justify what has happened.

Regarding the strength of the air force or navy - I think that it does not take all that much skill to fly a bomber over a location and drop a few big ass bombs that flatten everything below you.

I agree that they are not weak. Modern military power just doesn't reside in how big your army is, as it did until WWII. Air power is the key, and we sure have air power. Naval supremacy lets us move our aircraft carriers where we wish.

One could argue that firing a gun does not take as much skill as fighting with a broadsword. Crossbows are easier than longbows. Longbows are easier than throwing spears. Technology: the practical application of science to make stuff easier.

Not that ironic, the news stations switched colors. Blue used to be conservative and red liberal, but in Clinton's first? election they changed them.

Funny, I thought it was Red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans.

Down with dualist thinking!! End the polarization of society!!

Contribute to the Independent National Committee today! :P

All those rogue planets like "Jupiter" and "Mercury" turning their noses up at us, flaunting their planetness in our faces. We'd show them a thing or two!!


/hug

what an awesome saying

The sad irony about the US military is, while their air and naval forces are superb (without doubt the strongest on the globe), their ground forces are suprisingly weak (see Iraq). :(
1500 casualties on our side to 10's of thousands on theirs?

Ein Deutscher']democracynow.org is not saying untruthful things, thus they're not a propaganda site. They are a lobby site - for the anti-war movement and a non-corproate media outlet. They're quite good at reporting things that the mainstream media refuse to say.

And if we we are now identifiying media outlets and if these are the requirements for a media outlet not to be considered a propaganda site.. then hell.. Fox News is as trust worthy as Democracy now... a lobby network for American nationalism and freedom :p

Arammanar, I agree. The US military has improved its combat techniques since Vietnam, and the lopsided numbers of casualties confirms the quality and equipment of the army. 1500 casualties is by anymeans a sad loss, but it could have been worse. Then again, it would have been 0 had we not gone in at all.

1500 casualties on our side to 10's of thousands on theirs?

Yes, and? What about all that guerillia warfare? Did you really think that "announcing the end of official combat actions" would solve everything? It will take many years until Iraq will be finally at peace, and many more soldiers will have to die until then. :(

And if we we are now identifiying media outlets and if these are the requirements for a media outlet not to be considered a propaganda site.. then hell.. Fox News is as trust worthy as Democracy now... a lobby network for American nationalism and freedom :p
Why not statements by the President himself?

Yes, and? What about all that guerillia warfare? Did you really think that "announcing the end of official combat actions" would solve everything? It will take many years until Iraq will be finally at peace, and many more soldiers will have to die until then. :(
And most of those who die will be their guys and not ours. That, in my book, is what having a good Army means.

democracynow is a liberal/socialist propaganda site.

Things the United States military has done for the world:

1)Large (perhaps the main) reason why Hitler was defeated in World War II.

2)Freed the people of Iraq from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein [so much for your idea of an "illegal war". Do you hate freedom? No?

3)Defeated the USSR in the Cold War (think about that... imagine all of europe under communist rule from Moscow).

4)Helped to keep South Korea from becoming a Red state.

so that's FOUR things (there are many more, but these are colossal imo) the US military has done to help the world in a very major way.

Ignorance is bliss.

1. The Soviet Union was the primary force responsible for Hitler's downfall. Look at how Hitler divided his army; count the causalities from the Battle of Stalingrad (considered the turning point of WWII). The US was primarily at war with Japan, or have you forgotten? US support in Europe was immaterial.

2. Continued Saddam's torture at Abu Gharib, and ultimately denied the Iraqi people the opportunity to settle their own affairs. I suppose after the claims of WMD have proven to be false, you have to pull something out of your ass to save face. At the moment, it is unclear if Iraq will be better off, and even that misses the point. It wasn't as if civil war broke out against Saddam and the US assisted. The US imposed its will on the Iraqi people. Talk about freedom hating.

3. Please discount entirely the actions of the people living there; Big Bro USA manages the downfall of the Iron Curtain from the comfort of its lazyboy. Gorbachev was just Reagan's bitch. Think about the EU forming in part to protect Europe from undue American influence. Whoa, irony.

4. Keep in mind Korea is a divided nation today primarily from actions of the US. Kim Il Sung was a war hero from the Sino-Japanese war and was likely to be favored even without Soviet/Chinese support. US involvement effectively ended that just for sake of backstabbing our previous Soviet ally. Won't even mention US involvement at Kwangju

Other things the US has done for the world:

Supported more psychopathic puppet governments than I even care to list (and given the past history, there is no reason to believe Iraq will/ has been any different).

The US is the only country I know of that has been formally tried for terrorism (World Court- US vs. Nicaragua). Again, irony.

Before you start touting the beneficence of the US, you might try looking at its failures and quit believing your own propaganda. The uninformed arrogance tends to tick a lot of other countries off.

But hey, the one, two, three finish at Lemans was still pretty cool.
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif
Talking

Yes, and? What about all that guerillia warfare? Did you really think that "announcing the end of official combat actions" would solve everything? It will take many years until Iraq will be finally at peace, and many more soldiers will have to die until then. :(
And?

The insurgency isn't about to explode in size. Especially not after the recent raids (by Iraqi forces) killing about 100 insurgents and capturing a training camp. Our army and the Iraqi army will only get better at dealing with the insurgency.

You just can't argue that there have been massive unbearable casualties. The casualty rate has been pretty low considering that this has been a shooting war for 2 or 3 years now.

Arammanar, I agree. The US military has improved its combat techniques since Vietnam, and the lopsided numbers of casualties confirms the quality and equipment of the army. 1500 casualties is by anymeans a sad loss, but it could have been worse. Then again, it would have been 0 had we not gone in at all.
And more Iraqi civilians would have died from their own leader, and Libya would still have a nuclear program, and Lebanon would still have a government. Maybe. Who knows? What's done is done, I supported this way at the beginning, and do now. Maybe it will ultimately be a mistake, but no one can say that now.

No. In fact, this is one of the few times in US history where the military is not dominant in public life. Just twenty years ago, the military was much larger, and took about 6% of the US's GDP. Besides, no one goes to the military after high school these days. There has not only been a drop with those in the military, but also a total increase in teens.

No. In fact, this is one of the few times in US history where the military is not dominant in public life. Just twenty years ago, the military was much larger, and took about 6% of the US's GDP. Besides, no one goes to the military after high school these days. There has not only been a drop with those in the military, but also a total increase in teens.
I'm in college and I'm in the military...almost everyone in the military goes in after college these days.

I'm in college and I'm in the military...almost everyone in the military goes in after college these days.
Interesting. Well, that represents a trend. You are the type of recruits that are needed these days: academic officers, not stupid grunts. The grunts had their day. This is your turn.
Still, there has been a rise in the general population.

Interesting. Well, that represents a trend. You are the type of recruits that are needed these days: academic officers, not stupid grunts. The grunts had their day. This is your turn.
Still, there has been a rise in the general population.
I dunno about many other trends, but most soldiers have at least some college. It's almost a requirement to get to the higher ranking NCO posistions.

Ignorance is bliss.

1. The Soviet Union was the primary force responsible for Hitler's downfall. Look at how Hitler divided his army; count the causalities from the Battle of Stalingrad (considered the turning point of WWII). The US was primarily at war with Japan, or have you forgotten? US support in Europe was immaterial.

2. Continued Saddam's torture at Abu Gharib, and ultimately denied the Iraqi people the opportunity to settle their own affairs. I suppose after the claims of WMD have proven to be false, you have to pull something out of your ass to save face. At the moment, it is unclear if Iraq will be better off, and even that misses the point. It wasn't as if civil war broke out against Saddam and the US assisted. The US imposed its will on the Iraqi people. Talk about freedom hating.

3. Please discount entirely the actions of the people living there; Big Bro USA manages the downfall of the Iron Curtain from the comfort of its lazyboy. Gorbachev was just Reagan's bitch. Think about the EU forming in part to protect Europe from undue American influence. Whoa, irony.

4. Keep in mind Korea is a divided nation today primarily from actions of the US. Kim Il Sung was a war hero from the Sino-Japanese war and was likely to be favored even without Soviet/Chinese support. US involvement effectively ended that just for sake of backstabbing our previous Soviet ally. Won't even mention US involvement at Kwangju

Other things the US has done for the world:

Supported more psychopathic puppet governments than I even care to list (and given the past history, there is no reason to believe Iraq will/ has been any different).

The US is the only country I know of that has been formally tried for terrorism (World Court- US vs. Nicaragua). Again, irony.

Before you start touting the beneficence of the US, you might try looking at its failures and quit believing your own propaganda. The uninformed arrogance tends to tick a lot of other countries off.

But hey, the one, two, three finish at Lemans was still pretty cool.
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif
Talking


1) Without the US helping in Europe, Germany would have been able to pull a significant part of it troops from the western theater to help in the east. Without the US tying up Japan in the Pacific theater, The Japanese would have been able to attack from the east. Not many nations during that time would have won out from an attack on two sides from two of the World's Super Powers.

2) The torture that Saddam put his people through far out do anything that a handful of US soldiers did. Lets keep it in perspective shall we, 1000's upon 1000's die at the hands of Saddam sons, compared to a couple handful that are humiliated by wearing underwear on their head. Let’s also not forget that the said military personal that did this are now sitting in prison for violation of US Military Law.

Yes the Iraqis got to hold an honest vote for a Government of their choice. I guess the cards with Saddam marked count as democracy to the Liberals/Socialist/Communist in the world now days. Of course you understand a true democracy and how the will of the people work.

3) Without Reagan and his arms race, Russia wouldn't of bankrupt it's self so fast. You see Communism/Socialism can not compete with capitalism in the efforts of making money. Oh wait I am sorry I am crapping all over one of the liberals heroes. Sorry Gorbie

4) South Korea wanted to be free to choose its leaders, not be dictated who to lead them. Let’s consider how many people have died in North Korea with such a dictator at the helm shall we? How many are starving now because their leader wishes to threaten the Worlds only super power?

Maybe you should try to look at things a bit more even and not be so blinded by your hate and propaganda from your schooling.

Of course I can guess the thing that ticks you off the most is the fact that no one can really do anything to the US. How unfair is it that all that wealth and prosperity is located in a nation that believes in Capitalism.

Oh and I am US citizen and I believe the US needs more military, but close every base across the world and not get involved at all with world affairs. Pull out of the defunct UN and NATO. Keep all that hard earned American Tax dollars at home for our problems.

The USA is no more militarized than many other countries, and considerably less so than some. The problem is not them being over militarised but:
1. The insistence that other parts of the world need to live according to their ideology.
2. The absolute refusal to listen to criticism, without it being described as USA bashing, even when it is constructive.
3. Their refusal to see the economic disaster that is hanging by a frayed thread over their heads.

If they could actually listen to the opinions of other nationalities, they may learn something of interest to them. What has happened in Iraq is in the past. It can not be undone. The challenge now is how to create the best possible future. This will require international co-operation, particularly from other states in the Middle East in setting up a system and constitution that fits the culture there. Just copying an existing Western system is not going to work given the sectarian nature of the society.
The US should put its financial house in order. Deal with the deficit, do something about the unfair trade practices and subsidies. (This last applies to the EU as well). There appears to be a general feeling outside the USA that there is so much belligerence to distract from the internal problems. Shout loud enough about one problem and no-one will notice a different one.

No, the USA is not over militarized, but it is over belligerent. (at the moment)

Ignorance is bliss.

1. The Soviet Union was the primary force responsible for Hitler's downfall. Look at how Hitler divided his army; count the causalities from the Battle of Stalingrad (considered the turning point of WWII). The US was primarily at war with Japan, or have you forgotten? US support in Europe was immaterial.

2. Continued Saddam's torture at Abu Gharib, and ultimately denied the Iraqi people the opportunity to settle their own affairs. I suppose after the claims of WMD have proven to be false, you have to pull something out of your ass to save face. At the moment, it is unclear if Iraq will be better off, and even that misses the point. It wasn't as if civil war broke out against Saddam and the US assisted. The US imposed its will on the Iraqi people. Talk about freedom hating.

3. Please discount entirely the actions of the people living there; Big Bro USA manages the downfall of the Iron Curtain from the comfort of its lazyboy. Gorbachev was just Reagan's bitch. Think about the EU forming in part to protect Europe from undue American influence. Whoa, irony.

4. Keep in mind Korea is a divided nation today primarily from actions of the US. Kim Il Sung was a war hero from the Sino-Japanese war and was likely to be favored even without Soviet/Chinese support. US involvement effectively ended that just for sake of backstabbing our previous Soviet ally. Won't even mention US involvement at Kwangju

Other things the US has done for the world:

Supported more psychopathic puppet governments than I even care to list (and given the past history, there is no reason to believe Iraq will/ has been any different).

The US is the only country I know of that has been formally tried for terrorism (World Court- US vs. Nicaragua). Again, irony.

Before you start touting the beneficence of the US, you might try looking at its failures and quit believing your own propaganda. The uninformed arrogance tends to tick a lot of other countries off.

But hey, the one, two, three finish at Lemans was still pretty cool.
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif
Talking

WWII: There have been many recent arguments asserting the major role of the US in the downfall of Hitler. Shipments of arms and food to Britain before we entered the war. Shipments of arms and food to Britain and Russia during the war. We fought Japan in the Pacific, preventing them from engaging Russia over resource rich Manchuria. We along with the Brits bombed the crap out of the German industry that powered Hitler's war effort. The Russians stopped Hitler's victory streak and sent him packing, but they did it with our help.

Iraq: There's a reason they weren't rising up against Saddam. Look at the last few times they tried: they were crushed by Saddam's well-oiled mechanisms of staying in power. Do you think we removed Saddam against their will? What Iraqi citizens have you been talking to? I haven't seen any of them calling for Saddam's return. Many object to the US presence in their country, but most don't support the insurgency. The biggest number I've heared is 200,000 active supporters of the insurgency out of 25,000,000 people in Iraq. You do the math. The insurgents are a tiny extremist minority, not representative of the wishes of the broader population of Iraq.

Fall of the USSR: Yes, we take too much credit for it. But we don't get enough credit for keeping the USSR from swallowing up the rest of Europe shortly after the war when Europe was weak.

Korea: North Korea is the harshest totalitarian dictatorship on the planet, thanks to the Kims. Are you saying South Korea would be better off as a part of it? Okay, the Kims were popular. Hitler was popular with the Germans up until the end. Hell, the Olsen twins were popular:P. Find a better reason.

"Backstabbing" the USSR: Are you saying we should have tolerated their invasions of neighboring countries, abuses of human rights, dictatorship, oppression, and totalitarian attempts to control people's lives?

Support for dictatorships: I don't deny it. It doesn't justify anything, but it's worth noting that much of that support was intended to oppose the USSR (see above). Also, some of it was motivated by our dysfunctional political system. Nobody wanted to be seen as "losing" a country to Communism.

We're not perfect. But the US isn't the great satan that many portray us as. Let's try to be balanced.

I dunno about many other trends, but most soldiers have at least some college. It's almost a requirement to get to the higher ranking NCO posistions.
It's exactly what we need these days. I personally feel that any major will do. Got a doctorate on studying Tennyson? Good. You can be a peacekeeper.
This is what defense anylyst Dr. Thomas Barnett sees as a shift happening in the military. It is dividing into two forces. One is the "Leviathan" we all know and love: they go in, kill people, then get out. The other is what he calls "System Administration". This will be the fun one, as it revolves around occupation and peacekeeping. They will learn other cultures, be experts at gathering intelligence, and still retain the knowledge to kill insurgents (but the Leviathan force will be around). It's what he believes is a new defense model for the 21st century. The British used it to maintain their empire, albeit with their traditional British snootiness that prevented too much interaction.

We're not perfect. But the US isn't the great satan that many portray us as. Let's try to be balanced.


Understood, but let's be fair. The response was specific to someone giving a rather glowing appraisal of the US involvement in foreign affairs, omitting all the heinous things that have gone on. Does that make the US the great Satan? Hardly, but it doesn't mean we are above criticism or that our victories are as rosy as presented. Balance.

WWII: Ya know, it’s not like the US stopping the Japanese was some small feat, some minor role in the redemption of mankind. Tens of millions of Chinese, Koreans, etc. killed in prison camps would tend to disagree, or the test subjects of unit 731. Do we need to claim we were "...perhaps the main reason why Hitler was defeated in World War II" as well (post I was originally responding to)? Nobody wants to take credit for stopping Itay. ;)

Nothing I previously stated concerning WWII is untrue or nearly as close to hyperbole than claiming the US was solely responsible for stopping Hitler. Tell me again about balance?

Specific to everything else: there is a common theme of the US butting its nose in the affairs of other countries. Good intentions not withstanding: I doubt the US would stand for Canada's gentle guidance concerning all of our ills. What makes you think any other country is any different? If 200,000 insurgents are capable of keeping the US on its toes, do you really think a popular rebellion against Saddam would have been impossible?

The point is it wasn't the US's decision to make. All politics are local. Even Korea: can you assure me a totalitarian regime would have come about if Korea hadn't been divided? Keep in mind at the time neither the USSR nor China wanted anything to do with North Korea. Law of unintended consequence.

And you are certainly right about how the US helped to keep Europe from being a nice addition to the USSR, but the Soviets are gone now and most of Europe are socialist *shrugs*

I fail to see where I claimed the US was the great Satan.

On principle I believe that America spends too much on it's military budget, especially in comparison to education, healthcare and social programs. However, I think your description of the military budget of the European nations indicates something important: the U.S. is the military bulwark of West. Most military and police actions abroad will, in the future, have to be taken care of by the U.S., for the most part.

So I can understand why we spend too much - we're the West's army.

I don't think we're militarized enough. We need more troops so that situations like the Iraq insurgency can be handled more efficiently. Also I think a manditory term in the military for all young adults (in non-combat roles) would be a great thing to build character and serve the nation.


Never thought I would agree with Drunk Commies. But spot on.

The sad irony about the US military is, while their air and naval forces are superb (without doubt the strongest on the globe), their ground forces are suprisingly weak (see Iraq). :(
What are you smoking? Our armor is fantastic, our infantry are highly trained and among the best in the world. Did you notice that Saddam's military was pretty much wiped out in just a matter of days? That wasn't all done with airpower. Tanks and troops did much of the work.

Ein Deutscher']They are not weak. They are overconfident and not suitable for this kind of occupation. Guerilla warfare cannot be fought with common military, since it is impossible to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Many people who apologized for the various atrocities that have happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, claim that the US troops are not trained for these situations and thus are overburdened with their duty. I completely agree with this - however it does not justify what has happened.

Regarding the strength of the air force or navy - I think that it does not take all that much skill to fly a bomber over a location and drop a few big ass bombs that flatten everything below you.
How much skill does it take to fly an F-16 while being shot at and drop a precision guided bomb that flattens only the enemy position? Millions of dollars are spent on training pilots. They have to react very quickly, and control a machine weighing several tons that moves faster than the speed of sound and do it under fire. Not an easy job.

Ein Deutscher']
the Selected Reserves
the Individual Ready Reserves
the Inactive Guard
the Ready Reserve = the sum of Selected Reserve and IRR and Inactive Guard
the Standby Reserve


False. People registered by the Selective Service are not part of any "reserve".

There is no such thing as the "Inactive Guard".

We have

IRR (Individual Ready Reserve)
Active Reserves
National Guard
Active Military

Get your facts straight.

I think that you're too focused on our military. But, you might want to protest in your own country first, because German troops are patrolling alongside the Americans in Afghanistan.

I think you're one of those anti-nuclear protesters who was paid 40 marks an hour to protest against nuclear weapons - paid by the Soviets.

False. People registered by the Selective Service are not part of any "reserve".

There is no such thing as the "Inactive Guard".

We have

IRR (Individual Ready Reserve)
Active Reserves
National Guard
Active Military

Get your facts straight.

I think that you're too focused on our military. But, you might want to protest in your own country first, because German troops are patrolling alongside the Americans in Afghanistan.

I think you're one of those anti-nuclear protesters who was paid 40 marks an hour to protest against nuclear weapons - paid by the Soviets.
Whatever. Get a life instead of flaming me all the time.

Ein Deutscher']Whatever. Get a life instead of flaming me all the time.

None of what I posted is flaming.

Ein Deutscher']Whatever. Get a life instead of flaming me all the time.

I would point out that if your posts about American policy and the American military are so erroneous as to be laughable, then if I point out your grossly inaccurate posting, it's not flaming.

Please post something that's accurate. Pulling names of reserves out of the air just because you believe it is not useful.

I definitely think that we're too militarized. We could cut our armed forces drastically without a drop in our military power, all while cutting taxes.

I respectfully disagree. Yes, we spend a lot of money on our military, but drastically cutting funding would give us the most expensive luxury in the world - a second-best military.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with how our current administration is using (or mis-using, as the case may be) our military, but I'm both nationalistic and patriotic enough to want our young men and women under arms to have the firepower and support they need to survive whatever hare-brained, quixotic misadventures the Bush-Cheney junta throws them into.

I also want to clarify my vote on this poll - I don't think the people of the US put too much emphasis on our military, but I do think the ruling elite in this country, on both sides of the aisle, do.

I'm both nationalistic and patriotic enough to want our young men and women under arms to have the firepower and support they need to survive whatever hare-brained, quixotic misadventures the Bush-Cheney junta throws them into.


You might also want them to have the firepower and support they need to survive whatever hare-brained, quixotic misadventures that a Democratic administration would send them into at the request of the UN - like Somalia.

BTW, about the European countries...
I'd love it if they spent more on their military. Most of the combined budget in the EU is to pay salaries and pensions, and not to buy new systems or something of the like. The same applies for Canada. Japan has no military except a small force to use only for territorial self defense.
The reason for this gap is the end of the Cold War. After that, all the militaries of the world started to scale down. The US, on the other hand, did it slower than some other nations. That's because the other nations assumed that the US military would be there at their beck and call, just like they would be for the Cold War. Unlike during the Cold War, there was no imminent threat of an attack on Europe, Canada, or Japan. The US was left holding the bag.
The various nations need to remilitarize. Since the end of the Cold War, massive parts of the "third world" are collapsing, resulting in a security threat. Afghanistan harbored terrorists, and while the camps are gone, terrorists still operate there. Somalia, Djibouti, and Yemen are no better. This new disease is spreading, yet the US military alone could never hope to keep up, even if Iraq was never invaded. That's why other countries need to help. After all, Europe and Japan will feel the full effects longer than the US does.

BTW, about the European countries...
I'd love it if they spent more on their military. Most of the combined budget in the EU is to pay salaries and pensions, and not to buy new systems or something of the like. The same applies for Canada. Japan has no military except a small force to use only for territorial self defense.
The reason for this gap is the end of the Cold War. After that, all the militaries of the world started to scale down. The US, on the other hand, did it slower than some other nations. That's because the other nations assumed that the US military would be there at their beck and call, just like they would be for the Cold War. Unlike during the Cold War, there was no imminent threat of an attack on Europe, Canada, or Japan. The US was left holding the bag.
The various nations need to remilitarize. Since the end of the Cold War, massive parts of the "third world" are collapsing, resulting in a security threat. Afghanistan harbored terrorists, and while the camps are gone, terrorists still operate there. Somalia, Djibouti, and Yemen are no better. This new disease is spreading, yet the US military alone could never hope to keep up, even if Iraq was never invaded. That's why other countries need to help. After all, Europe and Japan will feel the full effects longer than the US does.
European nations have decided on a different strategy for fighting terror. They appease the terrorists as long as they don't act within the borders of a European nation. If they do, as was the case in Madrid, law enforcement handles the problem. It's a cheap strategy, but it's one that will never end the threat.

European nations have decided on a different strategy for fighting terror. They appease the terrorists as long as they don't act within the borders of a European nation. If they do, as was the case in Madrid, law enforcement handles the problem. It's a cheap strategy, but it's one that will never end the threat.
Law enforcement works fine if the criminals in question operate in an area where the state has control. However, they have trouble outside.
By definition, appeasement can't work. There's no one to appease. Instead, they do not realize the problem failed states propose. Worse yet, some do, and give solutions that often failed. Tony Blair, for example, just wants to throw money at failed states. The US does, too, but at least it has a strict criteria.

European nations have decided on a different strategy for fighting terror. They appease the terrorists as long as they don't act within the borders of a European nation. If they do, as was the case in Madrid, law enforcement handles the problem. It's a cheap strategy, but it's one that will never end the threat.

Why, bombing a country does? :rolleyes:


Curiously, I'm also in favor of more military spending by Europe.. first, get military independence: Leave Nato. Then, get more efficiency: One single European army.

BTW, about the European countries...
I'd love it if they spent more on their military. Most of the combined budget in the EU is to pay salaries and pensions, and not to buy new systems or something of the like. The same applies for Canada. Japan has no military except a small force to use only for territorial self defense.
The reason for this gap is the end of the Cold War. After that, all the militaries of the world started to scale down. The US, on the other hand, did it slower than some other nations.

The US military is substantially smaller in both conventional and nuclear force size than it was in 1991. But...

The US has invested in extremely advanced weaponry - that most other nations have not bothered with. So that even a smaller US force can outperform a larger US force from 10 years ago.

The whole idea behind the Future Combat System is to develop an even smaller force, with even less manpower, that is even more capable than today's force. That's also why FCS is heavily investing in robotic aircraft, ships, and vehicles - so that you won't need many soldiers.

A robotic vehicle is also cheaper, smaller, lighter, and more disposable than one that requires a human crew. A robotic fighter plane, for the same mission and payload, is 1/3 the size of a human crewed fighter plane - and costs substantially less. It can perform maneuvers that would kill a human occupant, has a faster reaction time than any human, and is of no propaganda value to an enemy if shot down - no human is taken prisoner or killed.

Fewer soldiers and smaller equipment also means that a US force 10 years from now will be able to deploy and fight overnight - not weeks into the crisis. There will be substantially fewer US casualties - even lower than the current improvement - further reducing the political risks at home. Combined with the US fascination with less-lethal weapons, there may even be fewer enemy casualties (collateral damage casualties are the lowest in US military history).

Curiously, I'm also in favor of more military spending by Europe.. first, get military independence: Leave Nato. Then, get more efficiency: One single European army.
As it currently stands, NATO can go. It is outdated, and exists for purely symbolic reasons. However, at the very least, a security forum should exist between the US and Europe.

As it currently stands, NATO can go. It is outdated, and exists for purely symbolic reasons. However, at the very least, a security forum should exist between the US and Europe.

As a political entity, NATO is far more effective than the UN. You could rename it and make it the formal security apparatus between the US and EU to act elsewhere.

The UN showed its impotence with the Balkans - and NATO stepped in.

The US military is substantially smaller in both conventional and nuclear force size than it was in 1991. But...

The US has invested in extremely advanced weaponry - that most other nations have not bothered with. So that even a smaller US force can outperform a larger US force from 10 years ago.

The whole idea behind the Future Combat System is to develop an even smaller force, with even less manpower, that is even more capable than today's force. That's also why FCS is heavily investing in robotic aircraft, ships, and vehicles - so that you won't need many soldiers.

A robotic vehicle is also cheaper, smaller, lighter, and more disposable than one that requires a human crew. A robotic fighter plane, for the same mission and payload, is 1/3 the size of a human crewed fighter plane - and costs substantially less. It can perform maneuvers that would kill a human occupant, has a faster reaction time than any human, and is of no propaganda value to an enemy if shot down - no human is taken prisoner or killed.

Fewer soldiers and smaller equipment also means that a US force 10 years from now will be able to deploy and fight overnight - not weeks into the crisis. There will be substantially fewer US casualties - even lower than the current improvement - further reducing the political risks at home. Combined with the US fascination with less-lethal weapons, there may even be fewer enemy casualties (collateral damage casualties are the lowest in US military history).
That's great, and I do wish that further improvement continues in that area. However, it is not best suiited for today's needs. These systems seem to primarily address conventional combat, not occupation or peacebuilding. Whenever there is a problem, the Pentagon uses its favorite solution: throw money at a more advanced weapons system. Sometimes it works, but it isn't nessisarily the best. If the military wants to succeed, it needs smarter soldiers as well as smarter weapons.

As a political entity, NATO is far more effective than the UN. You could rename it and make it the formal security apparatus between the US and EU to act elsewhere.

The UN showed its impotence with the Balkans - and NATO stepped in.
I agree with that, but their is little purpose left with NATO. It was formed to a.) prevent Germany from becoming hostile after WWII, and b.) keep the Soviets out. Now, there isn't even a large scale security conflict left on the European continent. As you suggested, reform it. But its current form is to fight an enemy that no longer exists.

That's great, and I do wish that further improvement continues in that area. However, it is not best suiited for today's needs. These systems seem to primarily address conventional combat, not occupation or peacebuilding. Whenever there is a problem, the Pentagon uses its favorite solution: throw money at a more advanced weapons system. Sometimes it works, but it isn't nessisarily the best. If the military wants to succeed, it needs smarter soldiers as well as smarter weapons.

We already have smarter soldiers. 3 out of 4 enlisted infantrymen are college graduates.

The Future Combat System is also placing most of its emphasis on the individual soldier. They are building something called "Objective Force Warrior".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ofw.htm

BTW, there is a lot of training on dealing with "peacekeeping" situations. The idea that US soldiers are somehow only trained to kill is disinformation.

Why, bombing a country does? :rolleyes:


Curiously, I'm also in favor of more military spending by Europe.. first, get military independence: Leave Nato. Then, get more efficiency: One single European army.
Bombing terrorist training camps wherever they're found will drastically reduce the effectiveness of the terrorist organizations. Plus it hurts their recruiting. Most people won't volunteer to fight if they're pretty certain they'll be killed during basic training.

We already have smarter soldiers. 3 out of 4 enlisted infantrymen are college graduates.

The Future Combat System is also placing most of its emphasis on the individual soldier. They are building something called "Objective Force Warrior".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ofw.htm

BTW, there is a lot of training on dealing with "peacekeeping" situations. The idea that US soldiers are somehow only trained to kill is disinformation.
I see all of those things starting. I just read in one of my magazines about a game that DARPA developed, which allows the soldier to practice Arab customs and etiquette. Such things as the thumbs up are offensive there, as it is considered to be like flipping the bird. This game probably isn't perfect, but it is a big improvement.
However, more can be done. I am especially dismayed at the military's rotation practices. Just when the troops have a good handle at how to solve the problems and interact with the locals, they withdraw, and are replaced by troops that are starting from scratch. I think that we should follow the British army's model for empire management: send troops to specific locations for large parts of their career. As such soldiers as T.E. Lawrence and others iproved, this may tuurn the soldiers into valuable assets in learning other cultures, researching them, and in T.E. Lawrence's case, using them against enemies.

The term is "war economy". At the end of the Cold War, the USSR abandoned it. The US didn't.

The term is "war economy". At the end of the Cold War, the USSR abandoned it. The US didn't.

There's a reason for that.

The USSR went broke because their couldn't keep pace with the spending. Their system wasn't geared to reward that kind of spending.

Ours was rewarded by that kind of spending. We were also rewarded politically - our long time enemy was politically vanquished. So we see the rewards in having a great deal of ability to project military power.

Each time we win, we are further rewarded.

Ein Deutscher']From all countries in the world, the U.S. spend the most for their military. They have a population of 288,369 Mio. and are spending 417,5 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ (2005) for their military.

The entire EU spends 130 Mrd. (Billion) US-$ and the NATO countries, without the US spend 138 Mrd (Billion) US-$.

The US has 4 clearly divided, yet very large, parts of military: The US Navy, the US Army, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps (which has it's own boats, air craft, helicopters, etc.)

The homeland of the US is being defended by the National Guard and the Coast Guard, which are again divided in 3 separate parts.

Combined, the US have approx. 2.8 Million people in their military (armed) - in 1991 it was 3.7 Million.

Additionally to this, the US have 4 forms of reserves:

the Selected Reserves
the Individual Ready Reserves
the Inactive Guard
the Ready Reserve = the sum of Selected Reserve and IRR and Inactive Guard
the Standby Reserve


Do you think that the US military is too large or that the US are too militarized? The effect of this being, that realisticly, no other country could at this time challenge the US or enforce anything against the US - be it international law or sanctions of any form. In fact, the US can take the liberty to act anywhere on the globe, in it's sole discretion, in any way it sees fit. This can reach from partaking and oftentimes leading UN peacekeeping missions to flat out illegal warfare as was seen with the Iraq war in 2003.

Additionally to the omnipresent military, many people from the US who are posting on this forum, seem to have a very militarized way of thinking. The result being that objectors to warfare which is deemed illegal by the international community, are judged as if they committed murder. People who are against the war are frequently denounced as un-american or unpatriotic or even insulted. In extreme cases some anti-war protesters were mistreated or had their life threatened - even by US police. Many cases of such behaviour were documented by www.democracynow.org

Is this unquestioning support of the US troops, no matter what they do in the world, justifiable? Is the absolute obedience of soldiers when given illegal orders or immoral orders in the US military accepted? Otherwise things like Abu Ghraib would not be possible. Do soldiers who shame the US in front of the world with such actions, receive punishments appropriate to their crimes or do they get away too easily most of the time?

Is the excemption of US citizens and US soldiers from the International Criminal Court justifiable?

The Military is one of the few things the United States has always done well-even during the wreckage of the 1970's, (and again under the Clinton Administration), when U.S. units were operating "in the red" on their budgets and (occasionally) stealing parts from each other to remain operational, American soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have been competent, effective, and efficient.
Are we too militarized? Well... when the "International Commuh-nity" has had, and will have, a thinly-if-ever-disguised contempt for the United States...
No.
No, we're not.

Look at it this way: Bosnia. Kosovo. Srebenice, Haiti, Mogadishu, East Timor.

Not one of those places factored in any way, shape, or form, as being actions beneficial to the United States. At the behest of the U.N., and with the drawdowns and cutbacks tearing into units from every service, American Soldiers were sent to 'peacekeep' in hellholes under foreign direction with rules of engagement that almost guaranteed casualties.

Even under those, that's a 70% success rate under the most abusive President the military has ever suffered.

You don't get that by adopting the EU's military model-you get that by using the model the U.S. uses.

Under the current administration, Units have ammunition to train with, budget for training, retention, improved living conditions when at their bases, and sufficient spares to actually face a deployment without robbing the junkyards for things that are on the TO&E (armouring wasn't on it for Humvees prior to 2003, by the way).

The purpose of any Military is to act in the interest of its nation, as defined by the legitimate authorities in charge of that nation, and in accordance with the Regulations imposed by that nation.

Military force is not the "Global Community's" responsibility-particularly if you look at how 'responsible' most of that 'global community' has been over the last fifty years.
(I don't know about you, but Genocide makes me ill, thanks.)

The American Defensive strategy since 1902 has been to pre-empt threats to our territory. While this may not have always worked (Pearl Harbour, WTC1, WTC2, USS Cole...) the way it's supposed to, it's much more effective than, say, trying to rely on a line of concrete fortresses on the border, designed by a fellow named "Maginot" as a strategy.

You might also take a moment, and note that we tried to let Europe deal with the situation in the Former Yugoslavia on their own, and only became involved when it was clear that neither the U.N., nor NATO, were up to the task- the EU was, if anything, botching the job so badly that there was a real danger of the conflict spilling over into neighbouring states in an uncontrolled manner-this after five years of constant conflict in that particular piece of hell.

One might, based on conflicts right on the doorstep of the EU, draw the further conclusion that the Western European Powers aren't nearly Militarized Enough, and that they need American forces to maintain their own commitments.

It's interesting to note that the German government was quite keen on the Withdrawal of the U.S. 1st Division, until the U.S. Government Agreed to do it. The backpedaling was quite amusing for a little while, before Terry Schiavo blew it off the news wires.

Over the last fifty years, the United States has exported nearly every industry it used to be first-in-the-world in, except... Soldiers. For some reason, we're good at soldiering, even though we've haemorraged every other sector of our economy-often to enemies like Communist China.

Since buying the world off with our technology, prosperity, and industry has not worked, if anything this should be a clear indication that you can't buy friends, therefore, having a big-ass stick to hit your enemies with is kind of a vital issue.

Understood, but let's be fair. The response was specific to someone giving a rather glowing appraisal of the US involvement in foreign affairs, omitting all the heinous things that have gone on. Does that make the US the great Satan? Hardly, but it doesn't mean we are above criticism or that our victories are as rosy as presented. Balance.
And your original post gave a rather demonizing appraisal of the US involvement in foreign affairs, omitting all the positive contributions that have gone on. Balance.


WWII: Ya know, it’s not like the US stopping the Japanese was some small feat, some minor role in the redemption of mankind. Tens of millions of Chinese, Koreans, etc. killed in prison camps would tend to disagree, or the test subjects of unit 731. Do we need to claim we were "...perhaps the main reason why Hitler was defeated in World War II" as well (post I was originally responding to)? Nobody wants to take credit for stopping Itay. ;)

Nothing I previously stated concerning WWII is untrue or nearly as close to hyperbole than claiming the US was solely responsible for stopping Hitler. Tell me again about balance?
Earlier in this thread I took the position that the Russians deserve the most credit for defeating Hitler. My opinion was changed by some very compelling arguments that came up. If you have the time, look back at some of them.

If 200,000 insurgents are capable of keeping the US on its toes, do you really think a popular rebellion against Saddam would have been impossible?
Yes. The US happens to object to mass murder of innocents, the use of chemical weapons, and extensive torture. Saddam had no qualms about using these meathods of intimidation and opppression. Whatever US abuse existed is another argument. Our population and government just don't sanction or practice the extreme and lethal tortures Saddam used.

I fail to see where I claimed the US was the great Satan.You didn't. I use the phrase to describe those who object to everything and anything the US has done or might do. I used it wrongly.
Peace.

Gee, what was it before we went in? Oh, right, a shithole infested with terrorists and islamofascists who grossly violated people's human rights.

as opposed to now where its infested with capitalist fucktards who dont really wanna be there anymore

as opposed to now where its infested with capitalist fucktards who dont really wanna be there anymore
No, now it's a nation with a democratically elected government that's trying to develop a real economy and join the world of civilized nations.

Well said. The point being made (I think) is that the US is not a nation to sit back and "appease." Americans are about action. Sometimes that action comes in the form of violence. And when it does we will be ready to kick your ass.


You have got to be taking the piss, the US is responsible for countless crimes against humanity, they destroyed man's best hope for unity and equity, namely communism, they continue to bully third world economies into dropping all trade barriers while maintaining their own, they illegally subsidise their own farmers thus keeping millions in poverty

For those that are interested Panorama did a program about this a few weeks ago. It is esimated that US subsidies on certain textiles produced in the US benefits 25,000 already rich farmers while keeping 25 million farmers in Africa and South America under the dollar a day absolute poverty line. America is a stain on humanity and should be removed from the position of holding any sort of power. But of couse it wont be because it has an army of mindlessly patroitic drones to defend it. The US spends 10% of its GDP on defense, thats a phenominal sum, only Isreal and the Soviet Union have spend more in the last 50 years, The money the US spends on finding new ways to kill people could solve the entire problem of absolute poverty (ie people being so poor they're in danger of starving to death) practically over night.

Frankly the US disgusts me and I support any organisation which seeks to lessen its power provided it doesnt include civilians in its list of targets.

No, now it's a nation with a democratically elected government that's trying to develop a real economy and join the world of civilized nations.

what is this obsession with economy and democracy? its the imperialist enforcement of one culture on another simple as that

what is this obsession with economy and democracy? its the imperialist enforcement of one culture on another simple as that
And I'm damn proud of it. Some cultures are better than others when judged by the standard of equal rights and personal freedom. Western civilization is far better than Islamofascism.

I have no argument to counter that sort of absolute bigotry

You have got to be taking the piss, the US is responsible for countless crimes against humanity, they destroyed man's best hope for unity and equity, namely communism

communism ? you mean Stalins authoriarian regime... if that was mans one best hope for unity and EQUITY !?!?! humanity can live without it ! I may never have been given the "PRVILIAGE" to live in that utopia you so claim America destroyed.. but i know, if i dont like the political party in power now.. i dont have to worry about being taken away in the middle of the night :rolleyes:

For those that are interested Panorama did a program about this a few weeks ago. It is esimated that US subsidies on certain textiles produced in the US benefits 25,000 already rich farmers while keeping 25 million farmers in Africa and South America under the dollar a day absolute poverty line. America is a stain on humanity and should be removed from the position of holding any sort of power. But of couse it wont be because it has an army of mindlessly patroitic drones to defend it. The US spends 10% of its GDP on defense, thats a phenominal sum, only Isreal and the Soviet Union have spend more in the last 50 years, The money the US spends on finding new ways to kill people could solve the entire problem of absolute poverty (ie people being so poor they're in danger of starving to death) practically over night.

but its not the US's job to solve the entire worlds problems.. is it. As you say yourself that would be imperialism (telling people how to live).

You could throw all the money you want at Africa, it would be just as corrupt and impoverished as it is today. The only way Africa will ever find peace is if every one of those corrupt governments and warlords are taken out.

quite frankly.. to think otherwise is to be niave..

Frankly the US disgusts me and I support any organisation which seeks to lessen its power provided it doesnt include civilians in its list of targets.

You just think of Bosnia, Somolia, Sudan and all that we have and are doing today to help those people.. you just think of all the money the US gives to other impoverished nations around the world yearly (The greatest contributor in the world). You dont have to love the US.. but you should atleast recognize its good as well as its bad.

Gee, what was it before we went in? Oh, right, a shithole infested with terrorists and islamofascists who grossly violated people's human rights.
Whom the US government assisted to help push out the Russians:

throughout the 1980s, successive US administrations spent billions of dollars funding the Islamic holy war or jihad by Mujaheddin fighters against the Moscow-backed regime in Kabul in order to undermine the Soviet Union. Moreover, until the late 1990s, the US turned a blind eye to the Islamic fundamentalism and regressive social policies of the Taliban

Or did you conveniently forget that fact?

The US spends 10% of its GDP on defense, thats a phenominal sum,

Sadly, this is not true. The US spends around 3-3.5% of its GDP on defense.

I wish is was 10%, (which we could afford by cancelling those useless medicare and medicaid programs).

Whom the US government assisted to help push out the Russians:

throughout the 1980s, successive US administrations spent billions of dollars funding the Islamic holy war or jihad by Mujaheddin fighters against the Moscow-backed regime in Kabul in order to undermine the Soviet Union. Moreover, until the late 1990s, the US turned a blind eye to the Islamic fundamentalism and regressive social policies of the Taliban

Or did you conveniently forget that fact?

Okay, now what is your problem with the U.S. cleaning up the resulting mess again, please?
If you Truly have a problem with the American support of the Afghans against the imperialism of the Soviets, then you should be pushing for more american involvement in the region. After all, based on your quote above, you seem rather offended by the prior actions of the American policy.

Okay, now what is your problem with the U.S. cleaning up the resulting mess again, please?
If you Truly have a problem with the American support of the Afghans against the imperialism of the Soviets, then you should be pushing for more american involvement in the region. After all, based on your quote above, you seem rather offended by the prior actions of the American policy.
Perhaps you should take the time to read the post I was responding to before jumping to conclusions?

I have no argument to counter that sort of absolute bigotry
Based on your previous posts, the above statement is quite the pot and the kettle.

...the US is responsible for countless crimes against humanity, they destroyed man's best hope for unity and equity, namely communism, they continue to bully third world economies into dropping all trade barriers while maintaining their own, they illegally subsidise their own farmers thus keeping millions in poverty


Do you know anything about Farming or Agribusiness? Siberia had bumper-crops of wheat, but the Soviet Union had to import American and Candadian grain-why? because the "Just and merciful" Communist regime couldn't put together a working infrastructure to get the food out of the fields and onto the tables. (unless, like technology and a few other tidbits, the Soviets were lying about their agricultural output..?) Give you a hint: in Agriculture, the producers are Price Takers, and production levels are high enough that, barring a famine, most of your production is a loss-leader.


Frankly the US disgusts me and I support any organisation which seeks to lessen its power provided it doesnt include civilians in its list of targets.


Whatever. the U.S. military doesn't target civilians, and hasn't since 1945, even at that time, we weren't aiming at neighbourhoods, but at industrial infrastructure (and so were your precious Communists.) Further, American military personnel are conditioned to avoid civilian casualties whenever and wherever possible-this is in direct contrast to virtually everyone we've fought in the last forty or fifty years. (depending on whether you count Korea as an American, or United Nations, excercise.)

In short, sir, you are talking out your fourth point of contact (that portion that is in direct contact with the seat of your chair.)

The term is "war economy". At the end of the Cold War, the USSR abandoned it. The US didn't.
The US was never in a war economy since WWII. The USSR came out of it when Gorbachev came to power.

You have got to be taking the piss, the US is responsible for countless crimes against humanity, they destroyed man's best hope for unity and equity, namely communism, they continue to bully third world economies into dropping all trade barriers while maintaining their own, they illegally subsidise their own farmers thus keeping millions in poverty

For those that are interested Panorama did a program about this a few weeks ago. It is esimated that US subsidies on certain textiles produced in the US benefits 25,000 already rich farmers while keeping 25 million farmers in Africa and South America under the dollar a day absolute poverty line. America is a stain on humanity and should be removed from the position of holding any sort of power. But of couse it wont be because it has an army of mindlessly patroitic drones to defend it. The US spends 10% of its GDP on defense, thats a phenominal sum, only Isreal and the Soviet Union have spend more in the last 50 years, The money the US spends on finding new ways to kill people could solve the entire problem of absolute poverty (ie people being so poor they're in danger of starving to death) practically over night.

Frankly the US disgusts me and I support any organisation which seeks to lessen its power provided it doesnt include civilians in its list of targets.
If communism is your utopia, I can't argue with you about that. I do assume that you mean IDEAL communism. As opposed to the practical communism we witnessed in the USSR. Practical communism was not the path to utopia, unity or equality.

Why the US? I don't say this to rag on Europe, but to prove the point that you are being unreasonable in your mindless opposition to the US. Europe, specifically Britain, France, Belguim, Germany, and Italy, is responsible for "crimes against humanity" that far eclipse anything and everything the US has ever done. Remember Africa from about 1860-1960? 100 years of colonial oppression. Between about 1880 and 1914, 3-8 million people died in the Belgian Congo, reducing the local population by half.

Perhaps you should be disgusted by Europe at least somewhat? Do you oppose European power?

I have no argument to counter that sort of absolute bigotry
So you're saying that the Taliban's ideal culture that oppressed women back into the middle ages, cracked down on dissent and freedom of speech, and imposed religious beliefs and requirements on others is acceptable, nay, equal to Western culture (not just America, but Europe too)?

You could throw all the money you want at Africa, it would be just as corrupt and impoverished as it is today. The only way Africa will ever find peace is if every one of those corrupt governments and warlords are taken out.

quite frankly.. to think otherwise is to be niave..
I disagree. Africa is in the devastated state we see today because its natural development was interrupted in about 1870, when Europe colonized it. In the last forty years, Africans have been learning how to best govern themselves. They do not have the benefit of experience with governance (imported from Europe) that we had in 1775. All they have known is how to live under European governance.

Time and support for free democratic countries is the only way to bring peace and stability to Africa.

Whom the US government assisted to help push out the Russians:

throughout the 1980s, successive US administrations spent billions of dollars funding the Islamic holy war or jihad by Mujaheddin fighters against the Moscow-backed regime in Kabul in order to undermine the Soviet Union. Moreover, until the late 1990s, the US turned a blind eye to the Islamic fundamentalism and regressive social policies of the Taliban

Or did you conveniently forget that fact?
This argument keeps coming up.

Yes, the US is responsible for shortsightedly supporting the elements that became the Taliban. Does that mean we have to sit back and watch the Taliban continue to oppress the Afghans?

IMO, this is all the more reason to fix it. The Taliban, in this light, was artificially imposed on the Afghans by the US, albeit unintentionally. Why not liberate them from our mistake? Your point is accurate, but I don't see how it relates to whether or not we should have gone to war in Afghanistan.

Id say being Militiristic and throwing your weight around are 2 different things!