NationStates Jolt Archive

So if we defend ourselves we would appear like we are trying to kill people. I thought the world was less screwed up then that.

My friend, "United Statians" are a hated lot right now. We are a conservative stronghold in an increasingly liberal world. Of course we'll be hated. People are naturally evil and will look to put what is different down. Right now, conservatism is different.

I think the topic was military training not country bashing. I'm also surprised and somewhat dismayed that a Sandhurst graduate didn't include the United States. After all, all American service academies are designed on the British model and many of the traditions including the training aspect reflect this lineage. I personally served 12 years active duty as an American Navy Diver. I believe I saw someone from Panama City in this thread. He can probably attest to the two schools as well as the Experimental Dive Unit located there. All we did was constantly train. I had the opportunity to travel around the world and work with most of the foreign militaries listed here as well as others. My personal top trained list would be and not in any specific order:



United States
Great Britain
Australia
South Korean Marines
German GSG9 (considered Police however)

not with this tsunami, after a couple of min their were "BIG" disturbances. they could have alerted the people around 5-10 min. before it hit. it would have made a difference.

You cannot warn against something lightly, cause if you screw up, the next one WILL be ignored. There was no conclusive evidence to warrent a warning. You listen to the news too much, they exaggerate it all.

And by the way, you are an American by birth. You are subject to the same hatred the rest of us receive. And to wish the destruction of your own nation is worse than cowardice. It is TREASON. You are one of the lowest forms of humanity. You've betrayed your own people.

yes, the oldest civ. were mesopotaims, egyptians, greeks, romans. britain didn't came until later.

the british of that time were not what they are today. when we think britian we think england ( or aleast i do ) that was built by Saxons and Angles that came from north germany. the britons were a celtic people much like the gauls

My friend, "United Statians" are a hated lot right now. We are a conservative stronghold in an increasingly liberal world. Of course we'll be hated. People are naturally evil and will look to put what is different down. Right now, conservatism is different.

Are you a hobbesists? Seems that way due to the naturally evil.
Locke was a joke, humans good sure thats why semolians kill everyone.

Semolian military training is probably the best, give a 5 year old a gun and he goes killing people his whole life

Are you a hobbesists? Seems that way due to the naturally evil.
Locke was a joke, humans good sure thats why semolians kill everyone.

Semolian military training is probably the best, give a 5 year old a gun and he goes killing people his whole life

A hobbesist?

the british of that time were not what they are today. when we think britian we think england ( or aleast i do ) that was built by Saxons and Angles that came from north germany. the britons were a celtic people much like the gauls

Celts originated from Ireland and spoke galieg?(not galiec as populary believed), some called Scotties(They spoke galiec) moved to Scotland and thats how it got its name. Werent Britons left over from roman occupation?

You cannot warn against something lightly, cause if you screw up, the next one WILL be ignored. There was no conclusive evidence to warrent a warning. You listen to the news too much, they exaggerate it all.

And by the way, you are an American by birth. You are subject to the same hatred the rest of us receive. And to wish the destruction of your own nation is worse than cowardice. It is TREASON. You are one of the lowest forms of humanity. You've betrayed your own people.

lol lol lol. own people? give me a break!!!! i am not an americain at all as you claim even though i was born here. yeah "TREASON"? yeah, ok, whatever. give me a freaking break and go back to your military barracks with high-school dropouts and car companies that the car catches on fire in the garage with the engine turned off. :sniper:

A hobbesist?

Hobbesist- One who believes in hobbes theory of humans are innately evil in anarchy and should be controlled by a powerful leader which supported absolutism. Hobbes was influenced from the thirty years war which is from 1618 to 1648 ended with peace of westphaliea which splat up germany, ended war of the religions and other things.

Hobbes is the opposite of Locke- Humans innately good in anarchy and will continue to do good which supports democracy

Hobbes supporting of ab mon is like a conservative as locke is like a liberal

lol lol lol. own people? give me a break!!!! i am not an americain at all as you claim even though i was born here. yeah "TREASON"? yeah, ok, whatever. give me a freaking break and go back to your military barracks with high-school dropouts and car companies that the car catches on fire in the garage with the engine turned off. :sniper:

You were born here whether you like it or not. I'm German-Italian, yet because of my birth in American, I am American. Regardless of YOUR heritage, you were born and raised American. You owe this nation and her flag your life. And yet you so casually turn your back on what has defended you. I didn't want to resort to insults, but you disgust me.

I pledge allegience to the flag
Of the United States of America.
And to the Republic for which it stands,
One nation under God,
Indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.

You were born here whether you like it or not. I'm German-Italian, yet because of my birth in American, I am American. Regardless of YOUR heritage, you were born and raised American. You owe this nation and her flag your life. And yet you so casually turn your back on what has defended you. I didn't want to resort to insults, but you disgust me.

I pledge allegience to the flag
Of the United States of America.
And to the Republic for which it stands,
One nation under God,
Indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.

nope, i am not an americain at all. pledge of alligence is stupid. in school in the morning when we say it, i refuse to say it and stand up. my teacher says stand up and say it, but i still refuse and claim i have the right to do that.

lol lol lol. own people? give me a break!!!! i am not an americain at all as you claim even though i was born here. yeah "TREASON"? yeah, ok, whatever. give me a freaking break and go back to your military barracks with high-school dropouts and car companies that the car catches on fire in the garage with the engine turned off. :sniper:

If you are born in a country you are that nationality. If you were born in germany you are german. When we had soc together that one year our teacher said that. Ethnicality does not influence nationality. That is from the Black Chinese Jew example

nope, i am not an americain at all. pledge of alligence is stupid. in school in the morning when we say it, i refuse to say it and stand up. my teacher says stand up and say it, but i still refuse and claim i have the right to do that.

Than you are indeed the lowest form of humanity. To not even support your own nation. If you hate us so, than GET OUT. Why should she protect you undeserving, bastard ass? You give none of yourself to her. You're nothing but a free-loader, draining our tax dollars. Leave her immedeatly, and never return. If I were the US's leader, I would EXECUTE traitors like you who so willingly receive her opportunities, yet show such contempt in return!

Hobbesist- One who believes in hobbes theory of humans are innately evil in anarchy and should be controlled by a powerful leader which supported absolutism. Hobbes was influenced from the thirty years war which is from 1618 to 1648 ended with peace of westphaliea which splat up germany, ended war of the religions and other things.

Hobbes is the opposite of Locke- Humans innately good in anarchy and will continue to do good which supports democracy

Hobbes supporting of ab mon is like a conservative as locke is like a liberal

Then yes, I suppose I am. I am also Lutheran. Luther also said that all humans are damned from birth, and following Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Than you are indeed the lowest form of humanity. To not even support your own nation. If you hate us so, than GET OUT. Why should she protect you undeserving, bastard ass? You give none of yourself to her. You're nothing but a free-loader, draining our tax dollars. Leave her immedeatly, and never return. If I were the US's leader, I would EXECUTE traitors like you who so willingly receive her opportunities, yet show such contempt in return!

i said "i do not consider myself an americain" for the last time, and it is just a matter of time till US is bye-bye. lowest form of humanity? tell that to those military soliders that kill many innocent iraqis. and also you got serious problems dude, i think u have been spending too much time watching subliminal US television programs. US is a nation of idiotic conservative religious fundamentalists who don't want to advance science. get a life dude. seriously.

Then yes, I suppose I am. I am also Lutheran. Luther also said that all humans are damned from birth, and following Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Lutheranism is probably the only protestant religion I dont dislike, Anglicanism was made so the dude can do stuff, Calvinism is just stupid saying i am damn or not and no matter what it would never change meaning a saint could be in hell while hilter and stalin are in heaven, Johevo witnesses are just annoying, and the one that doesnt acknowledge the trinity doesnt make sense and those are all i know

Congratulations, you guys amaze me, you didnt add eachother to your ignore list...yet or could it be you dont know how to?

Congratulations, you guys amaze me, you didnt add eachother to your ignore list...yet or could it be you dont know how to?

adding your opponent to ignore list just proves that you are weak.

Oh and a lil hint for you, Drunk Commies is an atheist. This makes sense when you see his puppet Jesussaves and how it is a joke :)

adding your opponent to ignore list just proves that you are weak.

Nope, someone added me to an ignore list since i said democracy was a myth

Oh and a lil hint for you, Drunk Commies is an atheist. This makes sense when you see his puppet Jesussaves and how it is a joke :)

haha. i'm an atheist too. :)

Voted Hungary because I'm proud of my heritage, and because I already voted Israel in the other thread.

i said "i do not consider myself an americain" for the last time, and it is just a matter of time till US is bye-bye. lowest form of humanity? tell that to those military soliders that kill many innocent iraqis. and also you got serious problems dude, i think u have been spending too much time watching subliminal US television programs. US is a nation of idiotic conservative religious fundamentalists who don't want to advance science. get a life dude. seriously.

DONT WANT TO ADVANCE SCIENCE? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT I'M CURRENTLY WORKING FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE YOU INSOLENT BASTARD!! MY ONLY LIFE IS TO SUPPORT GOD AND MY COUNTRY!!! AND THE ONLY TELEVISION I WATCH ISN'T GOVERNMENT RELATED!! KILLING INNOCENT IRAQIS? IT'S WAR!! PEOPLE DIE!! YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR NEO-LIBERALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS!! I DARE YOU TO STEP INTO A WAR ZONE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!

DONT WANT TO ADVANCE SCIENCE? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT I'M CURRENTLY WORKING FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE YOU INSOLENT BASTARD!! MY ONLY LIFE IS TO SUPPORT GOD AND MY COUNTRY!!! AND THE ONLY TELEVISION I WATCH ISN'T GOVERNMENT RELATED!! KILLING INNOCENT IRAQIS? IT'S WAR!! PEOPLE DIE!! YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR NEO-LIBERALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS!! I DARE YOU TO STEP INTO A WAR ZONE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!

It's offical, pschycotic has lost his cool. support god, country? religious fundamentalist right their. and the killing of innocent people in cases was just a "miss fire". lol. give me a break.

DONT WANT TO ADVANCE SCIENCE? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT I'M CURRENTLY WORKING FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE YOU INSOLENT BASTARD!! MY ONLY LIFE IS TO SUPPORT GOD AND MY COUNTRY!!! AND THE ONLY TELEVISION I WATCH ISN'T GOVERNMENT RELATED!! KILLING INNOCENT IRAQIS? IT'S WAR!! PEOPLE DIE!! YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR NEO-LIBERALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS!! I DARE YOU TO STEP INTO A WAR ZONE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!

Are you working on weapons or civilian tech?

If weapons look into antimatter's potential
For civilian try to get antimatter based powerplants

Nope, someone added me to an ignore list since i said democracy was a myth

I agree. Even though I've supported my country, I believe that democracy is ruining it. Another election like last, and we'll have another civil war.

It's offical, pschycotic has lost his cool. support god, country? religious fundamentalist right their. and the killing of innocent people in cases was just a "miss fire". lol. give me a break.

You want china to go into a nuclear war with america that is sure to get more civilian casualties

I agree. Even though I've supported my country, I believe that democracy is ruining it. Another election like last, and we'll have another civil war.

this country isn't exactly democratic. the gov't has violated certain consitutional amendments.

You want china to go into a nuclear war with america that is sure to get more civilian casualties

of course, it's a "nuclear" war!

I agree. Even though I've supported my country, I believe that democracy is ruining it. Another election like last, and we'll have another civil war.

Plus our votes dont count, only electorial which is the people already in office and they dont have to vote with the popular

And for democracy we would have to have everyone of everyage forced to vote.

Are you working on weapons or civilian tech?

If weapons look into antimatter's potential
For civilian try to get antimatter based powerplants

I work in astronomy and astrophysics.

klashonite, how old are you?

this country isn't exactly democratic. the gov't has violated certain consitutional amendments.



of course, it's a "nuclear" war!

YOU ARE YELLING AT HIM FOR CAUSALTY KILLS WHICH IS THE LOWEST IT EVER WAS!

I work in astronomy and astrophysics.

See astronomy also deals with antimatter.

Ingredients for a black hole:
4 atomsmashers that would collide in the center
4 uranium atoms
Chocolate (in all reciepes)
Bake for a half hour or until it passes the fork test (also in all recipies)

What is the thing that the sun shoots off its entire outer shell? Its not a solar flare and i think it begins with a c

YOU ARE YELLING AT HIM FOR CAUSALTY KILLS WHICH IS THE LOWEST IT EVER WAS!

i don't even know what the hell are you saying. lol

What is the thing that the sun shoots off its entire outer shell? Its not a solar flare and i think it begins with a c

Well, I know that a planetary nebula is similar to this, but it occurs only in very old stars larger than the sun.

i don't even know what the hell are you saying. lol

You are yelling at him for civilians killed but you plan on killing the whole world in nuclear winter. The civilian kills is the lowest it ever was.

lets pick this up tommorrow lets say 5 est since i have to go now.

Well, I know that a planetary nebula is similar to this, but it occurs only in very old stars larger than the sun.

Actually, planetary nebluas form from stars LIKE the sun. LArger stars form Novas and Supernovas.

He's thinking of either the solar wind, a constant stream of particles from its surface, or a coronal mass ejection, which is a release of a huge amount of plasma and partcles.

lets pick this up tommorrow lets say 5 est since i have to go now.

Can we make it 7 est? I get off work late tomorrow, and my roomate (I live in an apartment) ties up the internet for ages, but I agree, it's late, even for an astronomer.

i never said about predicting any earthquakes. i said that the US satellites picked up a distrubance in the water flow in SE asia and they did squat about it. and also, i am .000000000000000000001% americain and the only reason for that is cause i was born here.

There are disturbances in the water every day. Why the hell is it our job to keep the whole world safe 24/7? You mentioned all these other booming economies. Why didn't anyone else warn SE Asia about one of the hundreds of disturbances that occured that day?

what? i was somewhere else.

forget it. i don't want to argue with people that miss the true point of things anymore. it's just a waste of time.


You are yelling at him for civilians killed but you plan on killing the whole world in nuclear winter. The civilian kills is the lowest it ever was.


1st of all, we don't even know if a nuclear winter will occur
2nd of all, it isn't happenining right now
3rd of all, the issue i brought up about inn. civ. being killed was in iraq, how did we get from that to millions of civ. being killed in the future by a nuclear winter????


There are disturbances in the water every day. Why the hell is it our job to keep the whole world safe 24/7? You mentioned all these other booming economies. Why didn't anyone else warn SE Asia about one of the hundreds of disturbances that occured that day?


this didn't happen 3 AM in the morning, it happended at a time where people were awake.

There are disturbances in the water every day. Why the hell is it our job to keep the whole world safe 24/7? You mentioned all these other booming economies. Why didn't anyone else warn SE Asia about one of the hundreds of disturbances that occured that day?

As my last post of the night, I suggest you don't go there. We've all been arguing for the past hour, and I'm tired. Heed my warning, don't start.

Where's the US?!?! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
definately NOT france :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

As my last post of the night, I suggest you don't go there. We've all been arguing for the past hour, and I'm tired. Heed my warning, don't start.

i'm shaking in fear. :rolleyes:

i'm shaking in fear. :rolleyes:

Not directed toward you, shithead. PAY ATTENTION!! :rolleyes:

Not directed toward you, shithead. PAY ATTENTION!! :rolleyes:

i know that was directly towards him, but you probably meant that to me also i bet. ;)

about 150 posts ago you guys forgot what the thread was about.

First off, let me affirm that the US military is the most powerful military in the world. If it goes 1v1 on an equal battleground, it will win against any foe. However, that is not how I judge the best military. The US combines high numbers, high cash, and decent equipment in order to achieve its position.

Britain and Israel deserve high spots, of course. However, Israel holds no real force projection, and also has a form of compulsory military service, which is never good for a military.

Britain takes second. It has good experience from Iraq, the IRA, and others. It has good equipment, the Challanger 2E is a good tank for what it was meant to be, it had adopted a Bullpup as its standard arm(and those nasty problems are gone, so I've heard), and its navy is still pretty good(though declining in power).

However, I voted France. In terms of training, it is excellent. The Foreign legion is often noted for its great training, and as well, its regular military is very well trained also. They are constantly in action around the world, from the ivory coast, to afghanistan. The French Daguet division in the gulf war showed itself to be very well trained, and it took an incredibly small number of casualties.

Equipment wise, its top notch. The Rafale is already in service, while the Eurofighter and F-22 are still in testing, and the F-22 is looking more and more like an overpriced jet, compared to other planes. The French have long been strong in the helicopter field, the Dauphin being a great transport helicopter, even for its age, and the Eurotiger being much better than anything out or soon to come. Also, while not strictly French, the A400 is looking to be a great replacement for the C-130.

The Leclerc is top of the line, the best tank in the world in terms of mobility and firepower(due to the fast rate of fire with the autoloader, and the great stabilization while on the move). Its armour is not the best, but french laser rangefinders are seen as the best in the world by many, and it has first-fire capability on other modern Main Battle tanks. The AMX-10RC and ERC-90 are nice IFV's in their own right, the french have long dominated the field of ATGM's, and the Caesar is looking to be an incredible artillery system, though pricey.

The Famas G2 is one of the best smallarms in the world. High ROF on automatic, while incredible accuracy(for its size) on semi-auto, its only real fault is the sighting, though Red-dot scopes easily make up for the sight problem. The Eryx is a powerful infantry AT weapon, while the Milan is extremely powerful and crew served. The french use FN Minimi's intead of the older AAT-52, which serve the world all over(the minimi, i mean). The Fr F2, the Mini-hectate, and the Hectate II are some of the worlds best sniper rifles, and for special operations, the French use the Sig-552.

Since the Algerian conflict, the French military has shown nothing but exemplary service, despite the widely held myth that they are a bad military. It only takes one to look over the lies, toward the actual facts, to see that France is one of the top militaries in the world, if not the best, in terms of equipment and training at least.

I think he was trying to save me the brain cells. Never argue with a fool because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I also am seriously wondering about the ages of some of you ex-patriots. I've noticed on a certain occasion you mentioned saying the pledge of allegiance in class (or refusing too more precisley). I haven't done that since grade school, and have never had to since that time (of course I am not inferring I don't). You also made mention that it was a recent occurence.Therefore I must conclude you and your friends are nothing more then inexperienced children with much angst. This is also apparent given your rudimentary mastery of grammar. In the future, if you want to argue with people who are more experienced in the ways of the world you are going to need to substansiate what you say with facts rather than cussing and strong opinions. I haven't seen a single reference to a single fact in your whole misguided discussion. If you want me to consider your position that America is doomed then please show me some evidence.

Just wondering if anyone else found the humor in this thread.

I read about 5 of the 20 pages before stopping. A few things to consider:

Sandhurst, which Botrosox claims to have attended, is akin to saying "West Point with more class and tradition." Very good school, very fine graduates, and I place it as a notch above any US Military school. So why is it Botrosox'es posts are filled with spelling and grammar errors? Ah, that's right, he said attended, not graduated .

Seriously, though, why put the US on the poll at all? Those of us who have been on the sharp end know the ability of the American military. We have nothing to prove to a smarmy, shandy-swilling git of a Brit anyhow. ;) Fact is, for training on an individual and small unit level, I'd have to go IDF, UK, Canada, Poland, Swiss, US. And I'm a multiple war combat vet from the US Army.

For gear, I'd have to say US, UK, IDF, Canada.

So as long as you keep a fight down to a single division....

it comes down to UK-IDF 5-6 odds and pick 'em. :)

For the folks that said China... get realistic. They admit to losing at least a million men in Korea; the actual numbers are likely closer to 3-5 million. And how many did they kill? Their effectiveness against small, virtually unarmed countries is only slightly better. The PLA is good only for keeping the people they claim to liberate in line.

Fahrs, that was 55 years ago. Would you rate the US army in 1945 by its ability in 1890?

Just wondering if anyone else found the humor in this thread.

I read about 5 of the 20 pages before stopping. A few things to consider:

Sandhurst, which Botrosox claims to have attended, is akin to saying "West Point with more class and tradition." Very good school, very fine graduates, and I place it as a notch above any US Military school. So why is it Botrosox'es posts are filled with spelling and grammar errors? Ah, that's right, he said attended, not graduated .

Seriously, though, why put the US on the poll at all? Those of us who have been on the sharp end know the ability of the American military. We have nothing to prove to a smarmy, shandy-swilling git of a Brit anyhow. ;) Fact is, for training on an individual and small unit level, I'd have to go IDF, UK, Canada, Poland, Swiss, US. And I'm a multiple war combat vet from the US Army.

For gear, I'd have to say US, UK, IDF, Canada.

So as long as you keep a fight down to a single division....

it comes down to UK-IDF 5-6 odds and pick 'em. :)

For the folks that said China... get realistic. They admit to losing at least a million men in Korea; the actual numbers are likely closer to 3-5 million. And how many did they kill? Their effectiveness against small, virtually unarmed countries is only slightly better. The PLA is good only for keeping the people they claim to liberate in line.


Well put, here was my reply a bit earlier before the children started...

I think the topic was military training not country bashing. I'm also surprised and somewhat dismayed that a Sandhurst graduate didn't include the United States. After all, all American service academies are designed on the British model and many of the traditions including the training aspect reflect this lineage. I personally served 12 years active duty as an American Navy Diver. I believe I saw someone from Panama City in this thread. He can probably attest to the two schools as well as the Experimental Dive Unit located there. All we did was constantly train. I had the opportunity to travel around the world and work with most of the foreign militaries listed here as well as others. My personal top trained list would be and not in any specific order:



United States
Great Britain
Australia
South Korean Marines
German GSG9 (considered Police however)

However, I voted France. In terms of training, it is excellent. The Foreign legion is often noted for its great training, and as well, its regular military is very well trained also. They are constantly in action around the world, from the ivory coast, to afghanistan. The French Daguet division in the gulf war showed itself to be very well trained, and it took an incredibly small number of casualties.

Equipment wise, its top notch. The Rafale is already in service, while the Eurofighter and F-22 are still in testing, and the F-22 is looking more and more like an overpriced jet, compared to other planes. The French have long been strong in the helicopter field, the Dauphin being a great transport helicopter, even for its age, and the Eurotiger being much better than anything out or soon to come. Also, while not strictly French, the A400 is looking to be a great replacement for the C-130.

The Leclerc is top of the line, the best tank in the world in terms of mobility and firepower(due to the fast rate of fire with the autoloader, and the great stabilization while on the move). Its armour is not the best, but french laser rangefinders are seen as the best in the world by many, and it has first-fire capability on other modern Main Battle tanks. The AMX-10RC and ERC-90 are nice IFV's in their own right, the french have long dominated the field of ATGM's, and the Caesar is looking to be an incredible artillery system, though pricey.

Since the Algerian conflict, the French military has shown nothing but exemplary service, despite the widely held myth that they are a bad military. It only takes one to look over the lies, toward the actual facts, to see that France is one of the top militaries in the world, if not the best, in terms of equipment and training at least.

Selected quotes about the French military power.

French artillery is what gave me the scar on my chin in Iraq. Because their training was so poor they shelled the location of the Americans spotting fire for them instead of the emeny pointed out by us. I should point out that the person responsible was dealt with properly by his superiors. Some French soldiers are superb, but the training is not uniform.

Sorry, I disagree with the comments on the Rafale and the LeClerc. The autoloader of the LeClerc is considered to be a liability by experienced tankers. if for no other reason than it is another piece of gear to break on the vehicle. Further, a loader can always sub for a gunner or driver if there are wounded, eliminating the loader is a questionable practice which proved the undoing of many Soviet designed tanks. Give me a late model F15 or F14 over a Rafale... As a ground pounder, I still think the best plane ever made is the A10, anyhow.

The French do make fine helicoptors and ATGMs, though, no argument there. :)

Finally, fill in my missing history of French military victories since 1954. Other than service in the First Gulf War and sundry peacekeeping operations (more suitable for heavily armed police than real soldiers, which is why so many of them fail) where has France actually won contest on the field of battle?

While France certainly is better armed than many other countries out there, they really don't get in the top five spots. At least IMHO. But maybe that's my scar talking. ;)

Selected quotes about the French military power.

French artillery is what gave me the scar on my chin in Iraq. Because their training was so poor they shelled the location of the Americans spotting fire for them instead of the emeny pointed out by us. I should point out that the person responsible was dealt with properly by his superiors. Some French soldiers are superb, but the training is not uniform.

Sorry, I disagree with the comments on the Rafale and the LeClerc. The autoloader of the LeClerc is considered to be a liability by experienced tankers. if for no other reason than it is another piece of gear to break on the vehicle. Further, a loader can always sub for a gunner or driver if there are wounded, eliminating the loader is a questionable practice which proved the undoing of many Soviet designed tanks. Give me a late model F15 or F14 over a Rafale... As a ground pounder, I still think the best plane ever made is the A10, anyhow.

The French do make fine helicoptors and ATGMs, though, no argument there. :)

Finally, fill in my missing history of French military victories since 1954. Other than service in the First Gulf War and sundry peacekeeping operations (more suitable for heavily armed police than real soldiers, which is why so many of them fail) where has France actually won contest on the field of battle?

While France certainly is better armed than many other countries out there, they really don't get in the top five spots. At least IMHO. But maybe that's my scar talking. ;)

Don't let isolated incidents sunder your opinion. America has its share of friendly fire incidents, so you might now want to get into that.

As for the Leclerc, the loader problem is more of a myth than anything. Its vulnerability is exaggerated by many, and looking at current conflicts, such as Iraq or kosovo, there are few cases where only one crew member is disabled, while the rest of the vehicle is fine. The advantage of high, sustainable ROF and great stability override the chance of only the loader being damaged.

For the Rafale, you can prefer what you want, but unless you want to give some reasons, there is no real point. Of course, the current Rafale is in its beginning stages, and will become much improved in the following years.

Refresh my memory. Since 1954, what conflicts has France lost? It won the algerian conflict, though choosing to leave algeria later. It has had success in desert storm, afghanistan, all over africa, etc. You could say somalia was a loss, but the americans get whatever victory conditions the french do, in that case.

It seems you are heavily biased, and while thats not inately disqualifying, you provide little statistics or even evidence to back yourself up. The Leclerc thing was at least factual, though.

Hey, I originally came from Vietnam, and my father fought the Americans in what we call our civil war (Vietnam to you guys), And common sense would tell you that even though the Americans had to withdraw (they didnt lose) The Americans would kick the hell outta everybody's ass. But you should try looking at the Vietnamese military today, which technically has the world's largest active force with over 4.700M active troops and is regarded as one of Asia's most combat ready defensive force, constantly training for possible encounters with Thailand, China, The US, Taiwan, and Japan who are the most threatening forces that side of the world, And the Vietnamese military has a sizable amount of jungle training too

Finnish army. Even though we lost the last two wars we had, we did stop the soviets. It could have been worse.

And post-war Finland has been a major contributor to peacekeeping operations across the world :mp5:

Even thought it's typical for people to side with their own nations... I'm going to have to go with Greece. During WWII we held both the Italians and Germans off for over a year, in fact once the Germans did break through, they were shocked to see how few men were actually manning the front lines, especially the Metaxas line. Wherever the Germans fought, they always assumed they were fighting a rather large force, but once they eventually overcame that force, all they found were a few soldiers. I remember reading in a Greek book on WWII how 2 Greek soldiers up in a building held up an entire German column, and actually managed to put a dent in their unit. Once the Germans finally got into the building they captured the soldiers, and before executing them, since they killed so many of their German comrades, they saluted them for their bravery and patriotism.

Anyway, especially now after the Olympic games, the entire military and police forces are extremely well trained. Hell, even bus drivers were trained how to get out of terrorist situations, which were actually used by an Athenian bus driver when 2 Albanian terrorists took a bus hostage for ransom (this is after the Olympic Games of course).

The Greek Air Force is in the air everyday with their F-16's trying to keep turkish fighters from invading Greek airspace, with the turks seem to love doing. Same with the Cypriot Air Force and Army.

Plus we have a pretty impressive history when it comes to military also :).

Wow, I excel at killing any and all threads :gundge:

USA. More troops, tanks, planes and ships than most countries, better trained personell than almost any country, more advanced technology than any nation. The US military kicks ass.
Wrong, Israel kicks butt. Once you outa high school you are in militarry for..what like 2 years? USA has bad stuff like Vietnam and Korea and Rosie O Donnel..Isreal has the Six Day War.

Wrong, Israel kicks butt. Once you outa high school you are in militarry for..what like 2 years? USA has bad stuff like Vietnam and Korea and Rosie O Donnel..Isreal has the Six Day War.

We also had the War in the Pacific, we won Korea(and that was U.N. troops, not just U.S. troops), we kicked the Iraqi's BIG TIME in the First Gulf War, we crushed the Spanish in 1898, we kicked the Mexicans arse, we tied with the brits in 1815(which was a rare occurance back then), and won our independence!

People also claim that Cuba doesn't have a Navy. Hog-wash! The Cubans are some of the most creative ship-builders around. If Castro ordered it, a navy could be made overnight. It would be made up of floating cars, tin-can's with fans on them, and many other cheap and ingenious vehicles :).
This reminds me of a joke. What happens when a Cuban gets a flat tire?



He drowns!

The american army is made up of high school dropouts
Really? How did so many of them get college degrees after dropping out of high school?

the marines are not part of the army , they are part of the navy
They're actually a separate branch of the military. You got your Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Oh, and Coast Guard. I guess they count too.

i never said about predicting any earthquakes. i said that the US satellites picked up a distrubance in the water flow in SE asia and they did squat about it. and also, i am .000000000000000000001% americain and the only reason for that is cause i was born here.
Oh, you must be what they're talking about when they say the US educational system is failing in it's duty to educate it's students.

The average height of a tsunami at sea is 1 cm. Ripples caused by the wind are heigher. On average, NOAA bouys pick up scores of "disturbances" each year. Hurricanes and storms on the other side of the globe trigger "disturbances" higer than what was detected.
We should just alert people every time such a disturbance is detected. Imagine evacuating the coasts of numerous nations several times per week.

not with this tsunami, after a couple of min their were "BIG" disturbances. they could have alerted the people around 5-10 min. before it hit. it would have made a difference.
5-10 minutes would have made a difference? Ok, the phone call would have eaten up at least three minutes. Now one guy in Atjeh knows what's going on. It takes him at least two minutes to explain to the guys in his office. Then they have to get the word out to the people on the coastline. That takes at least an hour or two. Good job buddy. You're really on top of things.

Apparently, everyone forgot Poland! :confused: :upyours:

nope, i am not an americain at all. pledge of alligence is stupid. in school in the morning when we say it, i refuse to say it and stand up. my teacher says stand up and say it, but i still refuse and claim i have the right to do that.
I hope you get deported to a nice place like Nigeria.

klashonite, how old are you?
He's 12. 15 tops.

Don't know, which soldiers are best trained.
The best military is that of Burkina Faso probably. It's the least likely they do me any harm.
For that reason the US military is the worst.
:rolleyes:

Why the best military are the Space Marines who serve their Emperor to the end, as well as the holy inquistion which insures the loyalty of all the Emperor's underlings... :D

Well, I know that a planetary nebula is similar to this, but it occurs only in very old stars larger than the sun.

A Corona.

If I may add something to this thread...

I agree that the US would very probably win any large conflict against any other nation, based on a combination of very good tech, average training and high numbers.
That was not the original question posed - the original question was "which force is the best trained"

And my answer to this is simple - for grunts, it is a good tie between Israel and the UK, but for the elite troops I am not aware of any force in the world that can equal the SAS/SBS - the American marines may be good, but compared with the UK's Special services, they are a group of neophytes. This is from someone who has had the dubious honour of seeing them in action.

A Corona.

I wan't sure wht they meant. Did the quote say that the layer was shed by the sun or if it just surrounded it?

If I may add something to this thread...

I agree that the US would very probably win any large conflict against any other nation, based on a combination of very good tech, average training and high numbers.
That was not the original question posed - the original question was "which force is the best trained"

And my answer to this is simple - for grunts, it is a good tie between Israel and the UK, but for the elite troops I am not aware of any force in the world that can equal the SAS/SBS - the American marines may be good, but compared with the UK's Special services, they are a group of neophytes. This is from someone who has had the dubious honour of seeing them in action.

US Marines are not a special ops force.

To my knowledge US Special Forces consist of:

Delta Force (the cream of the crop of every branch's special operators)
Army Green Berets (Army Special Operations)
Navy SEALs (Navy Special Ops)
Air Force Special Ops
Marine Force Recon (Marine Special Ops)

I would imagine that these (at least Delta) are as well-trained and lethal as SAS.

SEALs are trained to fight on land and in the water and may be the best all-terrain fighting group in the world (all due respect to SAS, who may be the SEALs' equal).

Of course I'd love to hear from someone in the US military concerning this.

Ok, a few things here:

1) IMO, nationality means nothing. I may have lived in Australia all my life, but I am GERMAN. I'm a hardcore German nationalist, and I have embraced the culture.

2) The US army is NOT the best trained in the world. my father fought in the Australian Army in Vietnam, and noted the stupidy of the US troops. They walked on the tracks, goddamnit! They're also poorly disciplined. Remember that soldier who said "It's fun to kill people" on TV? It's not fun, it's an indication that the US can't grapple with the concept of "Killing is bad".

3) The US needs a war every 10 years to stimulate it's economy. Europe has no such problems, because the mix of co-operative nations allows them to spend their budget on industry and economy, while the large European Allied armies keep the US/Russia/China in check.

im not a patriot, but i have to say from what i know/have seen british troops seem to be the most intelligent individual soldiers. from news reports etc, the americans always come across as macho pshycos, whereas british soldiers are always quiet and professional about things. of course this is a sweeping generalisation, but its the impression i get.

SEALs are trained to fight on land and in the water and may be the best all-terrain fighting group in the world (all due respect to SAS, who may be the SEALs' equal).

Of course I'd love to hear from someone in the US military concerning this.

An interesting side point is that the SAS do get some water training, but probably not as much as the SEALs (to my knowledge at least), whilst the SBS (Special Boat Service for anyone who isnt aware of them) as seen by many as the best force on the ocean. The SAS are more land/air based. I suppose it could just be some bias, but the specials are seen as near legendary to us - most of the regulars I have served with have high admiration for them. They are also tricky little devils - the majority of them I have met tend to be on the small side and slight of frame. Makes you think...

Ok, a few things here:

1) IMO, nationality means nothing. I may have lived in Australia all my life, but I am GERMAN. I'm a hardcore German nationalist, and I have embraced the culture.

2) The US army is NOT the best trained in the world. my father fought in the Australian Army in Vietnam, and noted the stupidy of the US troops. They walked on the tracks, goddamnit! They're also poorly disciplined. Remember that soldier who said "It's fun to kill people" on TV? It's not fun, it's an indication that the US can't grapple with the concept of "Killing is bad".

3) The US needs a war every 10 years to stimulate it's economy. Europe has no such problems, because the mix of co-operative nations allows them to spend their budget on industry and economy, while the large European Allied armies keep the US/Russia/China in check.
The US army in Vietnam was a conscript army, not the professional all-volunteer army we have today. You're comparing apples and oranges. The US military today is among the best trained in the world. Also we don't have wars to stimulate our economy. No nation does. Wars COST money. They don't MAKE money.

Very poorly trained and poorly led though, and a shocking intelligence agency to provide bad info. ;)


This is an extremely stupid statement. Thier training is viewed to be well above average and as a result, many of the countries on your list model themselves after our units and utilize our advisors. One United States Navy Carrier group- destroyers and frigates, a carrier, a submarine, etc, plus of course the assortment of fighters bombers helicopters and Marines, on its own is enough to challenge many of the countries on your list. And how many of those does the US have?
Nice bait though.
Stop trying to annoy people.

The US army in Vietnam was a conscript army, not the professional all-volunteer army we have today. You're comparing apples and oranges. The US military today is among the best trained in the world. Also we don't have wars to stimulate our economy. No nation does. Wars COST money. They don't MAKE money.

Wars do cost money, but the expanded production brought on by the conflict stimulates the economy.

An interesting side point is that the SAS do get some water training, but probably not as much as the SEALs (to my knowledge at least), whilst the SBS (Special Boat Service for anyone who isnt aware of them) as seen by many as the best force on the ocean. The SAS are more land/air based. I suppose it could just be some bias, but the specials are seen as near legendary to us - most of the regulars I have served with have high admiration for them. They are also tricky little devils - the majority of them I have met tend to be on the small side and slight of frame. Makes you think...

And many SEALS and SAS/SBS treat each other like brothers, often taking part in the same exercises and deployments. A relief they are each other's closest allys and not enemies.

Wars do cost money, but the expanded production brought on by the conflict stimulates the economy.
And the expanded production can only be brought about by an expensive overseas expedition? Nope, sorry. Government projects, subsidies and tax cuts do that job much more efficiently.

The US army in Vietnam was a conscript army, not the professional all-volunteer army we have today. You're comparing apples and oranges. The US military today is among the best trained in the world. Also we don't have wars to stimulate our economy. No nation does. Wars COST money. They don't MAKE money.


surely this war is only about making money?

He's 12. 15 tops.


probably hates his parents too. He doesnt respect the blood that was shed so he could chose to be a belligerant little hump and deliberately mock the Pledge.

surely this war is only about making money?
Which war?

Which war?

the war on terrorism

You know why you Americans are so stubborn? You still have Cold War mentality.

Face it, the US isn't the heroic saviour of the world anymore. The Cold War is over, Russia is an ally, the remaining communist nations are either shams or laughing stocks and Europe is capable of taking care of itself.

Sure, you're a great trading partner, and it'd be good to have you as an ally in a war, but it's time to face the music; we just don't need you as much as we used to.

Bullshit. US troops get more realistic training than almost any other country. They shoot more rounds in training than almost any other country. Anyone who knows anything about military matters knows that.

Shooting more rounds does not make better soldiers. Anyone who knows anything about millitary knows that. Also in terms of training, the British rank and file are trained to the same level as American special forces.

If I may add something to this thread...

I agree that the US would very probably win any large conflict against any other nation, based on a combination of very good tech, average training and high numbers.
That was not the original question posed - the original question was "which force is the best trained"

And my answer to this is simple - for grunts, it is a good tie between Israel and the UK, but for the elite troops I am not aware of any force in the world that can equal the SAS/SBS - the American marines may be good, but compared with the UK's Special services, they are a group of neophytes. This is from someone who has had the dubious honour of seeing them in action.

Then you'll never be able to judge the US SEAL teams as their "action" is rarely seen.

the war on terrorism
No, it's about striking back at those who would attack US civilians at home and abroad.

You know why you Americans are so stubborn? You still have Cold War mentality.

Face it, the US isn't the heroic saviour of the world anymore. The Cold War is over, Russia is an ally, the remaining communist nations are either shams or laughing stocks and Europe is capable of taking care of itself.

Sure, you're a great trading partner, and it'd be good to have you as an ally in a war, but it's time to face the music; we just don't need you as much as we used to.
I haven't seen much stubbornness on this thread except from those who insist that US troops are idiots even when shown evidence that contradicts their position.

You know why you Americans are so stubborn? You still have Cold War mentality.

Face it, the US isn't the heroic saviour of the world anymore. The Cold War is over, Russia is an ally, the remaining communist nations are either shams or laughing stocks and Europe is capable of taking care of itself.

Sure, you're a great trading partner, and it'd be good to have you as an ally in a war, but it's time to face the music; we just don't need you as much as we used to.


Why dont you give it a rest? Russia is an "ally" because the US never relented, in spite of anything europe did. europe is not able to take care of itself-I know thats a tough pill for you to swallow. Its not "good" to have the US as an ally in a war-its absolutely necessary. The reverse is hardly true because we didnt have much of your support in the current Iraq/Afghanistan situation, but we'll end it succesfully IN SPITE of most of europe.

Shooting more rounds does not make better soldiers. Anyone who knows anything about millitary knows that. Also in terms of training, the British rank and file are trained to the same level as American special forces.
1 Shooting more rounds makes you a better marksman. Practice makes perfect. In my post I was responding to a guy who said that Pakistani forces were better marksmen than US.

2 No, British rank and file are absolutely not trained to the same level as US special forces. They may be trained a bit better than rank and file US troops, I don't know for a fact if they are or are not, but not nearly as well as US special forces. Most US special forces lose 50% or more of the people who try out. They can't handle the demands of training.

No, it's about striking back at those who would attack US civilians at home and abroad.

thats what youre told, personally i have no doubt that this is a war which will never end, just so that the powers that be can control us, and the rest of the world. im really not scared of terrorists, and if there is a threat we would do far better to eradicate poverty than bomb them. you cant fight fire with fire.

I haven't seen much stubbornness on this thread except from those who insist that US troops are idiots even when shown evidence that contradicts their position.


You cant show these ignoramuses proof, they'll tell you its manufactured by the US propaganda agency.
What makes them all think we give a crap what they think? Thats the best part. Their self-important idea that we need their approval.

For some reason, every time the (Irish) Army Ranger Wing is mentioned, it's called one of the best special forces in the world... And our army is pretty good too, has been in quite a few peacekeeping operations, so it's somewhat combat-experienced. So, to be all patriotic, they get my vote. Realistically though, I'd say, probably the Israelis. And all the US bashing? Well, I must prefix this remark by stating that I dislike the unilateralism of US foreign policy, and the right-wing conservatism I see, but I think the US military is largely a highly professional force. To the troll who said they were all hish-school dropouts - as far as I know, most people who join the military do so to get an education.
Dunno what all the big fuss about combat experience for the British Army in the North is though. After the seventies, there was a huge drawdown in Army presence there - they were replaced with the Ulster Defence Regiment. Most of the time, serving there was more like police duty. scary shit, I would imagine, but not tremendously war-like. I'd imagine being in Iraq is similar. And it has been more than a decade since there was anything vaguely approaching Iraq-like situations there. And Manchester was never 'flattened' by the IRA - the worst atrocity in the entirety of the Troubles was in Omagh, where 29 people died and one street was torn apart. The bomb in Manchester wasn't even that bad.
And about the tsunami: the governments of some countries were warned in time to do something about it, but they didn't. It would have made no difference for Indonesia - they got hit 15 minutes after the quake. And that's where most of the casualties were.
What wars have the French lost? Well, how about Vietnam? I'd count that a loss. A loss for the Americans too.
Jibea, please get a grip on history! No offence, but your misunderstanding of what happened is astounding. The Celts did not come from Ireland, they came from Central Europe, and ended up in Ireland about 500 BC. Gaelic or Gallic is what they speak in Scotland, and Gaeilge is the Irish for... well, Irish. People from Northern Ireland conquered Scotland in the 9th century AD. The Celts in Britain were conquered/replaced by Germanic tribes sometime after the fall of the Roman Empire and before 800 AD.

thats what youre told, personally i have no doubt that this is a war which will never end, just so that the powers that be can control us, and the rest of the world. im really not scared of terrorists, and if there is a threat we would do far better to eradicate poverty than bomb them. you cant fight fire with fore.
Some enemies need to be killed. Islamofascist terrorists for instance. Eradicating poverty won't eradicate them.

I'm not scared of terrorists either. They may hit us again, they may be stopped. Either way life goes on. Just not for them.

US Marines are not a special ops force.

To my knowledge US Special Forces consist of:

Delta Force (the cream of the crop of every branch's special operators)
Army Green Berets (Army Special Operations)
Navy SEALs (Navy Special Ops)
Air Force Special Ops
Marine Force Recon (Marine Special Ops)

I would imagine that these (at least Delta) are as well-trained and lethal as SAS.

SEALs are trained to fight on land and in the water and may be the best all-terrain fighting group in the world (all due respect to SAS, who may be the SEALs' equal).

Of course I'd love to hear from someone in the US military concerning this.

I'm not in the military, but this was the same understanding I had.

Why dont you give it a rest? Russia is an "ally" because the US never relented, in spite of anything europe did. europe is not able to take care of itself-I know thats a tough pill for you to swallow. Its not "good" to have the US as an ally in a war-its absolutely necessary. The reverse is hardly true because we didnt have much of your support in the current Iraq/Afghanistan situation, but we'll end it succesfully IN SPITE of most of europe.

Actually, Russia is an ally because the Soviets went broke first. Europe can easily defend itself, partly because there's no real threat, but mainly because since the Cold War ended, the Europe is more or less all allied, with every nation looking out for each other.

Iraq/Afghanistan wasn't anything special. Had a large NATO force been the aggressors instead of the US, the war would have gone exactly the same way... except with less US-hating...

No, it's about striking back at those who would attack US civilians at home and abroad.

Ed Sackley

We're not making money on this war... lmao.

We've had to spend a ton -- in the wake of Clinton's downsizing of the US military -- to be battle-ready to take on this task.

Before you jump to negative conclusions, consider that we've freed two countries from despotic dictators (or dictatorial groups -- Taliban) and are hunting some very unsavoury characters who could, one day -- if we don't kill or detain them first -- knock your towers down.


I don't know if our troops need thanks from foreigners... but i would bet they would bristle at misguided opinions like "the war in Iraq is for oil" or "the war on terror is being fought for money".

Apparently, everyone forgot Poland! :confused: :upyours:


I dont know much about Poland's military training or capabilities, but I know they are a staunch ally of The US and have to assume that they are a high quality.

I haven't seen much stubbornness on this thread except from those who insist that US troops are idiots even when shown evidence that contradicts their position.

What about those of you who believe that the US is invincible, and not even god himself could bring them down?

Actually, Russia is an ally because the Soviets went broke first. Europe can easily defend itself, partly because there's no real threat, but mainly because since the Cold War ended, the Europe is more or less all allied, with every nation looking out for each other.

Iraq/Afghanistan wasn't anything special. Had a large NATO force been the aggressors instead of the US, the war would have gone exactly the same way... except with less US-hating...

A large NATO force would have been comprised mainly of Americans, probably...

and forget about the UN doing anything to help the people of Iraq or the Afghans... we know how decisive they are.

A large NATO force would have been comprised mainly of Americans, probably...

and forget about the UN doing anything to help the people of Iraq or the Afghans... we know how decisive they are.

The UN are idiots. The only reason they work is because the allies let it exist. It's only purpose is to (try) to prevent WWIII.

And NATO was probably a bad choice of organisations. Let's pretend I said "Allied European".

Some enemies need to be killed. Islamofascist terrorists for instance. Eradicating poverty won't eradicate them.

I'm not scared of terrorists either. They may hit us again, they may be stopped. Either way life goes on. Just not for them.

but if this war is about taking the moral high ground (stop me if its not), then surely if we didnt take revenge on them, and helped to eradicate the support they have in their own countries by making, or allowing these countires to become rich we would be the moral victors? because at the minute i think the USa and britain are the biggest terrorists in the world.

1 Shooting more rounds makes you a better marksman. Practice makes perfect. In my post I was responding to a guy who said that Pakistani forces were better marksmen than US.

Depends on what you are shooting. If its a machine gun or anything semi-automatic then you could easily shoot of a great deal of rounds


2 No, British rank and file are absolutely not trained to the same level as US special forces. They may be trained a bit better than rank and file US troops, I don't know for a fact if they are or are not, but not nearly as well as US special forces. Most US special forces lose 50% or more of the people who try out. They can't handle the demands of training.

Its true, the rank and file of the British army are trained to similiar standards of American special forces. The reason we can do that is we have a far smaller and more specialised army and can therefore direct resorces and training more effectively than the US.

Actually, Russia is an ally because the Soviets went broke first. Europe can easily defend itself, partly because there's no real threat, but mainly because since the Cold War ended, the Europe is more or less all allied, with every nation looking out for each other.

Iraq/Afghanistan wasn't anything special. Had a large NATO force been the aggressors instead of the US, the war would have gone exactly the same way... except with less US-hating...

The soviets went broke trying to keep up with the US during the cold war. And as a result, european countries dont need to worry about Soviet tanks ever rolling in again. Now the Russians are free to buy all the crap europe produces, so its good for europe's economy. Also, europe only has to host US bases to enjoy our protection and dollars for support logistics-food water laundry etc.
europe defends itself against no one with the US there. they arent "looking out for each other" they are a squabbling gaggle of geese.
A large Nato force would never have been the aggressors instead of the US. They would be so mired down bickering, they would be run all over.
Never has a hostile country been taken out of commission as fast as Afghanistan or Uraq with such low civilian casualties and so few non military targets damaged.
We are held to a much hire standard than the rest of you, but its ok, because we are capable.

What about those of you who believe that the US is invincible, and not even god himself could bring them down?
I haven't heard that point of view expressed here. I have heard that we have the best overall military in the world right now. Guess what? It's true.

but if this war is about taking the moral high ground (stop me if its not), then surely if we didnt take revenge on them, and helped to eradicate the support they have in their own countries by making, or allowing these countires to become rich we would be the moral victors? because at the minute i think the USa and britain are the biggest terrorists in the world.

Britain's not so bad because it's only the politicians who wage war. But I'm quite disgusted by the number of Americans who support this pointless and baffling conflict.

A couple things missed. First and foremost, Bangladesh (yes that Bangladesh) is putting together a small but very well-trained and equipped fighting force.

Secondly, no one truly knows Canada's or France's military level of training, since those armies rarely participate in actual armed conflict anywhere. (inspite of their NATO agreements)

What about those of you who believe that the US is invincible, and not even god himself could bring them down?


If there were one of us that actually believed that, it would make that person as much of a blithering imbecile as yourself.
We believe in ourselves and we believe in God too, and thats probably the main reason the rest of you are so jealous and self loathing.

but if this war is about taking the moral high ground (stop me if its not), then surely if we didnt take revenge on them, and helped to eradicate the support they have in their own countries by making, or allowing these countires to become rich we would be the moral victors? because at the minute i think the USa and britain are the biggest terrorists in the world.
The enemie's motivation isn't to get rich or alleviate poverty. It's to destabilize the middle east, establish a government there based on their violent and hatefull vision of Islam, and gradually expand it's territory to encompass the whole world. Look at who the terrorists are and which muslim scholars they favor. They're rich people like Osamma and the Wahabi clerics of Saudi Arabia and the upper middle class hijackers of 9/11. They look to the writings of people like Ibn Tayymia and that guy who started the muslim brotherhood (what's his name, al banna or something?) who advocate using violence to establish a world-wide sharia government.

because at the minute i think the USa and britain are the biggest terrorists in the world.


good thing your well founded opinion doesnt matter to anyone with a rationally thinking brain.

Depends on what you are shooting. If its a machine gun or anything semi-automatic then you could easily shoot of a great deal of rounds



Its true, the rank and file of the British army are trained to similiar standards of American special forces. The reason we can do that is we have a far smaller and more specialised army and can therefore direct resorces and training more effectively than the US.
1 US troops are taught to fire aimed shots. Many other armies' troops "spray and pray". US troops fire many rounds on semi-auto and 3 round burst at targets. It's not like squeezing off a couple hundred machine gun rounds randomly. If you knew military weapons you would know that.

2 You are simply wrong on that point. You haven't seen how US special forces train.

The soviets went broke trying to keep up with the US during the cold war. And as a result, european countries dont need to worry about Soviet tanks ever rolling in again. Now the Russians are free to buy all the crap europe produces, so its good for europe's economy. Also, europe only has to host US bases to enjoy our protection and dollars for support logistics-food water laundry etc.
europe defends itself against no one with the US there. they arent "looking out for each other" they are a squabbling gaggle of geese.
A large Nato force would never have been the aggressors instead of the US. They would be so mired down bickering, they would be run all over.
Never has a hostile country been taken out of commission as fast as Afghanistan or Uraq with such low civilian casualties and so few non military targets damaged.
We are held to a much hire standard than the rest of you, but its ok, because we are capable.

1) The US may have been indirectly involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but you say it as if American troops were goosestepping through Moscow in 1990.

2) The US bases in Europe are mainly for American interest. Sure, the economic boost is appreciated, but we no longer need you defence.

3) Europeans are working together on a EU constitution to united Europe futher. Besides, any minor bickering would be put aside in the face of a powerful enemy.

And you should probably know that it's just about impossible for an armed forces the size of America's to be the best in the world. But if it is, it's probably diverting funds from welfare, education and social progression programs.

If there were one of us that actually believed that, it would make that person as much of a blithering imbecile as yourself.
We believe in ourselves and we believe in God too, and thats probably the main reason the rest of you are so jealous and self loathing.
I don't beleive in god. I'm an atheist. American doesn't = christian.

Just once instance of friendly-fire by the US military. It shows severe lack of judgement in my view. Even though they hadn't been told that the Canadians were there (and the Air Force had been informed, and should have told them), then they should have firstly seen that the fire wasn't actually coming at them, and secondly followed up their plan to see that it wasn't friendlies, which they apparently never did. Of course, it is only one incident:

On the night of April 17, when the two pilots spotted the fire, they had been in the air for six hours and were preparing to make the three-hour flight back to an airfield in Kuwait.

"Boss man," Maj. Schmidt says to the AWACS, "this is Coffee 52. I've got tally in the vicinity. Request permission to lay down some 20 mike [20 mm cannon]." "Let's just make sure it's not friendlies. That's all," says Maj. Umbach.

Maj. Schmidt: "When you've got a chance, put it on the spy. You've got a good hack on it." (The "spy" is a sensor.)

Later, Maj. Umbach, the lead pilot, says, "Check my sparkles. Check my sparkles. See if it looks good."

Maj. Schmidt: "I'm copying your sparkles well." ("Sparkle" is an infrared point to signify a ground target. The pointer is visible only through night-vision goggles.)

At this point, the AWACS says, "Hold fire. I need details on safire," a reference to surface-to-air fire. "I've got some men on a road, and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us," says Maj. Schmidt, who had begun evasive maneuvers. "I am rolling in in self-defense."

"Boss man copies," responds the AWACS.

Maj. Schmidt and Maj. Umbach then use lasers to pinpoint the target, and Maj. Schmidt releases the bomb.

"Shack," Maj. Schmidt exclaims as the bomb hits the target

"Can you confirm they were shooting us?" he asks.

"You're cleared. Self-defense," the controller responds.


There is a fuller treatment of the issue here:

http://www.geocities.com/jaredperi/fallen/archives.html


I don't claim any special personal knowledge about which army is the best trained (though an awful lot of people here seem to be making their views very strongly heard despite apparently knowing no more than I do about it), but people I know in the British Army (that's about three people, including one who was in the SAS) don't have much regard for the US military in general, though Delta Force has a good reputation. The word is that the British usually beat the Americans in war games.

If there were one of us that actually believed that, it would make that person as much of a blithering imbecile as yourself.
We believe in ourselves and we believe in God too, and thats probably the main reason the rest of you are so jealous and self loathing.

We're not jealous. We are the land of culture, the land of philosophy, art, music and science. The land of progressive thought and free thought and speech.

America, on the other hand, is the land of primative superstition, disturbing criminal culture, outdated social and political views and obesity.

The enemie's motivation isn't to get rich or alleviate poverty. It's to destabilize the middle east, establish a government there based on their violent and hatefull vision of Islam, and gradually expand it's territory to encompass the whole world.

Whoops, thought you were talking about the US for a minute there! j/k ;)

Ed Sackley

We're not making money on this war... lmao.

We've had to spend a ton -- in the wake of Clinton's downsizing of the US military -- to be battle-ready to take on this task.

Before you jump to negative conclusions, consider that we've freed two countries from despotic dictators (or dictatorial groups -- Taliban) and are hunting some very unsavoury characters who could, one day -- if we don't kill or detain them first -- knock your towers down.


I don't know if our troops need thanks from foreigners... but i would bet they would bristle at misguided opinions like "the war in Iraq is for oil" or "the war on terror is being fought for money".

as an american, you are somewhat rightly biased because of september the 11th. but looking from my point of view, i see the idea that this war is dishing out justice as the thin veneer that hides its real objective. i am absolutely convinced that the war is maintained for american economic reasons. take afghanistan as an example. in the eighties (i think, the details of this are almost certainly wrong) an american company wanted to build a natural gas pipeline from the caspian sea across afghanistan, but it couldnt happen (sorry ive forgotten the reason why, but it hink this is all in a michael moore book). fast forward to 2001, and the war on terrorism starts. as soon as the taliban is defeated, the pipeline deal is signed. now, some might say (you included i would assume) that this is a way to help develop the country after the war. but others (like me) think that there is a possibility that september the 11th was jumped upon as a marvellous oppertunity for american companies, as during a war you can usually get away with anything, as long as you say its for the war effort.

We're not jealous. We are the land of culture, the land of philosophy, art, music and science. The land of progressive thought and free thought and speech.

America, on the other hand, is the land of primative superstition, disturbing criminal culture, outdated social and political views and obesity.
Apparently you're the land of bigotry too.

We're not jealous. We are the land of culture, the land of philosophy, art, music and science. The land of progressive thought and free thought and speech.

America, on the other hand, is the land of primative superstition, disturbing criminal culture, outdated social and political views and obesity.

..........don't you have a dog to go kick, or an old lady to rob or something?

1 US troops are taught to fire aimed shots. Many other armies' troops "spray and pray". US troops fire many rounds on semi-auto and 3 round burst at targets. It's not like squeezing off a couple hundred machine gun rounds randomly. If you knew military weapons you would know that.

They may be told to do that. Still, I read an article a few months ago where a US officer, who was lauding the benefits of cooperation between the armies in Iraq, who said that one of the valuable things that the British had taught them was to use their fire more economically and effectively.

Apparently you're the land of bigotry too.

Yes, we're generally biased against barbarians.

..........don't you have a dog to go kick, or an old lady to rob or something?


You must have me mistaken for an American...

DrunkCommies, I heard the same thing too about British Infantry being trained to the same level as American Special Forces... Just because the training is of the same standard, doesn't mean they are as good. Better soldiers could be given the training, or hey could do more of it...
Oh, and I think that the US military is the most powerful in the world. Best? I don't think so. Too big to devote the same level of training to each guy, I think...

They may be told to do that. Still, I read an article a few months ago where a US officer, who was lauding the benefits of cooperation between the armies in Iraq, who said that one of the valuable things that the British had taught them was to use their fire more economically and effectively.
They're not just told to do that they're trained to do that. The officer in question may have been from a national guard unit or some non-combat infantry unit who recieved less training. The front line troops are very well trained.

Yes, we're generally biased against barbarians.




You must have me mistaken for an American...

.....no I didn't. We wouldn't have you!

Kieven Prussia

You make me ashamed to be a european

That is all

:mad: :headbang:

Don't let isolated incidents sunder your opinion. America has its share of friendly fire incidents, so you might now want to get into that.

As for the Leclerc, the loader problem is more of a myth than anything. Its vulnerability is exaggerated by many, and looking at current conflicts, such as Iraq or kosovo, there are few cases where only one crew member is disabled, while the rest of the vehicle is fine. The advantage of high, sustainable ROF and great stability override the chance of only the loader being damaged.

For the Rafale, you can prefer what you want, but unless you want to give some reasons, there is no real point. Of course, the current Rafale is in its beginning stages, and will become much improved in the following years.

Refresh my memory. Since 1954, what conflicts has France lost? It won the algerian conflict, though choosing to leave algeria later. It has had success in desert storm, afghanistan, all over africa, etc. You could say somalia was a loss, but the americans get whatever victory conditions the french do, in that case.

It seems you are heavily biased, and while thats not inately disqualifying, you provide little statistics or even evidence to back yourself up. The Leclerc thing was at least factual, though.


Okay, let's start again.

I don't debate the friendly fire problems of US forces. The US killed more Brits in Desert Storm than the Iraqis. But the French artillery that hit us did so with such stupidity that I'll never forget it. Yeah, it makes me biased. but if I were to let it get to me, I wouldn't ranks France as high as I do. The fact is, France is competent in military matters. But they haven't had a great military leader in a long time (The LeClerc of tank name fame was pretty damned good, though. Patton thought the world of him, so he had to be agressive, smart and lucky.)

I've never met a French comapny grade officer worthy of his troops. Despite a lifetime of growing up in Europe.. Despite years of working with NATO forces. French soldiers are fine (except a certain group of artillerymen) it is some of their officers I find lacking. And not all of them mind you. Remember, I didn't say France bites militarily, only that it isn't in the top five.

As far as the Rafale, once it has proven itself by actually shooting something down that can shoot back, come back to me on it. The F14, F15, F16 and others have proven track records. For its job, the British Harrier is pretty good too, and the Tornado isn't flak bait, either.

The LeClerc, well, the autoloader "myth" has born out time and time again. Complicated bits of machinery break. An extra human helps in crisis situations. The fact is no MBT with an autoloader has had a great combat record. For fighting an M1 without another M1, I'd say LeoII, Challenger, Merkava, in that order, with a LeClerc coming in a disatant fourth. And I've seen combat. Honestly, I think the Challenger might actually be a better tank. There are just so many M1s. I disagree with the contention that it is usually a total kill on a tank now. Casualty figures of tank crews show that commanders and drivers are injured far more often than an entire tank is taken out. Until you get into city fighting, which, quite frankly, most likely means someone is misusing their armor...

French military victories. Funny, you didn't name any. Algeria was a LOSS. Just as Vietnam was for both France and the US. (Yes, folks, the USA lost in Vietnam.) No amount of painting these wars as anything else will ever work. Further, France retreated out of every colony (excuse me, "granted independance" to after "winning") they used to hold. The victories in Desert Storm and Afghanistan have not included a major battle where French troops actually fought all on their own. And the phrase "all over Africa" refers to peacekeeping operations, which, again, aren't major balltes.

Don't get me wrong. France has a decent military. Their special operations troops are on par with the SAS, SBS and the American Hodge Podge of "special" troops. The French just aren't the best military, IMHO.

If I were a general leading a multinational force I'd use UK/Polish/IDF/US forces for the main body; Germans and Canadians to cover the flanks (German and Canadian scout forces are bloody excellent); and keep the French, Aussies and Spanish in the rear to provide security and POW treatment (I'd honestly trust them more with prisoners, both in properly guarding them and in not abusing them, than US forces.)

I wouldn't use Russians or troops from any Middle Eastern SW or SE Asian country or China at all. South Koreans would make a decent reserve force, especially if bolstered with some Czechs and Dutch or Danish troops (the latter three also would make great security troops and POW guards.)

Anyhow, to sum it up:

I'm not saying France bites or that US troops are best. I am saying that France isn't the best. But I also said that about the US, so how biased am I? :)

Yes, we're generally biased against barbarians.





No, you're biased against the strong and decisive. Calling us barbarians makes you feel better because you know you can't compete. Your attitude is a common symptom of lack of balls.

Britain's not so bad because it's only the politicians who wage war. But I'm quite disgusted by the number of Americans who support this pointless and baffling conflict.


here here!

They're not just told to do that they're trained to do that. The officer in question may have been from a national guard unit or some non-combat infantry unit who recieved less training. The front line troops are very well trained.

You might be right. Do you have quotes to support that though? Or stats? Anything at all?

DrunkCommies, I heard the same thing too about British Infantry being trained to the same level as American Special Forces... Just because the training is of the same standard, doesn't mean they are as good. Better soldiers could be given the training, or hey could do more of it...
Oh, and I think that the US military is the most powerful in the world. Best? I don't think so. Too big to devote the same level of training to each guy, I think...

It's impossible to just call it "the best". There are different types of best.

For example, the US army is large and very well equipped. However, this means that is it very expensive to maintain, and that, as you mentioned, each soldier cannot be given the same level for individual training. Plus, the US is too isolated to wage war on any real power, hence their not going after Iran or Korea DPR.

in ww2 the three western nations involved were britain, canada and the u.s but when you think on it, only britain and the us were super powers, canada had a fledgling army AND YET WHO WAS IT THAT HELD THEIR GROUND WHEN THE SUPER POWERS FLED, IT WAS CANADA. ha, super powers my ass, that's a joke, and still today canadian troops hold their ground when every other army runs to the hills, think on that before dissing my country again

It's impossible to just call it "the best". There are different types of best.

For example, the US army is large and very well equipped. However, this means that is it very expensive to maintain, and that, as you mentioned, each soldier cannot be given the same level for individual training. Plus, the US is too isolated to wage war on any real power, hence their not going after Iran or Korea DPR.

Arf. Thats true. I meant best-trained when I said best.

No, you're biased against the strong and decisive. Calling us barbarians makes you feel better because you know you can't compete. Your attitude is a common symptom of lack of balls.

Death penalty. Anti-science (unless it blows stuff up). Primitive superstition. Lack of human rights.

That could sum up two different groups: The ancient Germanic barbarians that I am descent from, and the US today.

good thing your well founded opinion doesnt matter to anyone with a rationally thinking brain.

well its nice to see were having a proper debate, not just throwing insults.

and to say that im not thinking rationally, and you are, is beyond a joke.

1) The US may have been indirectly involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but you say it as if American troops were goosestepping through Moscow in 1990.

2) The US bases in Europe are mainly for American interest. Sure, the economic boost is appreciated, but we no longer need you defence.

3) Europeans are working together on a EU constitution to united Europe futher. Besides, any minor bickering would be put aside in the face of a powerful enemy.

And you should probably know that it's just about impossible for an armed forces the size of America's to be the best in the world. But if it is, it's probably diverting funds from welfare, education and social progression programs.


There was no more direct reason that communism's inabilty to keep the pace the US capitalist economy allowed. Thats it. Case closed. without the US, most of europe would be hosting Soviet troops.
US bases are purely for American interests, of course. The benefit of our presence is a major benefit to europe. You do need our defence. you should be used to it by now.
Your last point is perhaps the most foolish I've heard. If our military is the best, its because we are shortchanging someone else? thats what you'd like to believe. You can never spend enough on education, true. If welfare and "social progression" were better anywhere else, the people suffering here would be flocking to your Utopia. Or maybe they wouldnt, as most other countries wont welcome the down-trodden masses like the US does.
You may have all this negative feeling toward the US, but its something inside of you, nothing we did or didnt do.

Although I can see the points being made...How is it that people can seriously consider the United States military to be the best trained?

During the Iraq War I was a correspondent on the ground, part of an Atheist organisation which has been offering Muslims an alternative to that faith which they were indoctrinated into in their youth. Although I do not claim to be a soldier, I saw American, British and even Polish troops in action.

Of the above, the American soldiers were the best equipped but they also seemed to be the worst trained. They 'sprayed' their rounds off rather than aiming, and this is obviously why they have such a strong record of blue on blue casualties and leave civilian death tolls behind them. In comparison, particularly the British rifle was used effectively via the skills of marksmanship.

In addition to this, I have friends in the military who speak very lowly of the American soldier's training. Not the soldier himself, nor the technology with which he is equipped but his training. Apparently the training course isn't as broad, or nearly as rigorous as that of other nations.

I'm not saying that Marksmanship= good training, but from what I've seen it is the Americans who 'spray and pray' rather than taking an aim.

I voted for the British military not because I was born in britain, but because it is very selective. It doesn't take any old 'jack', even those at the lowest levels have to pass considerably difficult aptitude tests. In the face of a destructive and idiotic government, the British military seems to have maintained its reputation for the best trained (infantry, certainly) troops in the world. This aside, purely on spec ops acumen it seems to me the Brits have it: The SAS and SBS are at the forefront of special operations, it was they who first came across Osama in Afghanistan, they who went in before the rest of the coalition forces (in Iraq, and almost every conflict that the UK has been involved in since WW2) and it is they who the other special forces seem to learn from. I cite in particular that the top American Special forces are based (not only structurally) but almost entirely on the SAS. The SAS trains these Americans, and teaches them the various tricks of the trade. As with every such situation, the SAS is bound not to tell them everything so one can assume that the masters know the best secrets which others do not...thus making them more effective.

Of course Britain could never invade the USA or hope to defeat America in a conventional military conflict...but this is because America has the best technology and probably the best equipped troops. At the same time, this doesn't mean they are better trained as a military force and from what I have seen and experienced the average american soldier is not.

well its nice to see were having a proper debate, not just throwing insults.

and to say that im not thinking rationally, and you are, is beyond a joke.

Word.

Drunk commies reborn and Carnivorous Lickers, you might as well discard all the words you've typed and type out "amrica ruulez!!1!1!" and you'd be sending the same message.

No offense, but I come from a highly intelligent community of internet users, and what I've seen from you two doesn't exactly rank high in the smart-o-meter.

There was no more direct reason that communism's inabilty to keep the pace the US capitalist economy allowed. Thats it. Case closed. without the US, most of europe would be hosting Soviet troops.
US bases are purely for American interests, of course. The benefit of our presence is a major benefit to europe. You do need our defence. you should be used to it by now.
Your last point is perhaps the most foolish I've heard. If our military is the best, its because we are shortchanging someone else? thats what you'd like to believe. You can never spend enough on education, true. If welfare and "social progression" were better anywhere else, the people suffering here would be flocking to your Utopia. Or maybe they wouldnt, as most other countries wont welcome the down-trodden masses like the US does.
You may have all this negative feeling toward the US, but its something inside of you, nothing we did or didnt do.

Dude, it's not that they don't want to come to Europe, it's that WE don't want them to come to Europe.

There was no more direct reason that communism's inabilty to keep the pace the US capitalist economy allowed. Thats it. Case closed. without the US, most of europe would be hosting Soviet troops.
US bases are purely for American interests, of course. The benefit of our presence is a major benefit to europe. You do need our defence. you should be used to it by now.
Your last point is perhaps the most foolish I've heard. If our military is the best, its because we are shortchanging someone else? thats what you'd like to believe. You can never spend enough on education, true. If welfare and "social progression" were better anywhere else, the people suffering here would be flocking to your Utopia. Or maybe they wouldnt, as most other countries wont welcome the down-trodden masses like the US does.
You may have all this negative feeling toward the US, but its something inside of you, nothing we did or didnt do.

Your military is not the best. If British/Israeli/Even Polish troops numbered as many as American, America would be in SERIOUS trouble. Spray and Pray doesn't make you better.

swedish they have the best weapons in the world (or is it the swiss i cant remeber) , but i would rather vote for my dear russia

in ww2 the three western nations involved were britain, canada and the u.s but when you think on it, only britain and the us were super powers, canada had a fledgling army AND YET WHO WAS IT THAT HELD THEIR GROUND WHEN THE SUPER POWERS FLED, IT WAS CANADA. ha, super powers my ass, that's a joke, and still today canadian troops hold their ground when every other army runs to the hills, think on that before dissing my country again

...........oh, really? I think instead of being in the coalition (where NATO allies should be right now), your army is right in Toronto, "holding their ground"! Trust me, I'm one american who wants you're pantywaste army to stay in Canada, too!

.........in protest to your stupidity, I'm boycotting canadian bacon. I'd like to boycott hockey, but you beat me to it!

Your military is not the best. If British/Israeli/Even Polish troops numbered as many as American, America would be in SERIOUS trouble. Spray and Pray doesn't make you better.

Combined, they already do.

The alliance system is truly a sight to behold. If each European nation trains about 200,000 troops each, combined they would be about equal in number to the US, but would have superior training because each nation did their part.

Combined, they already do.

The alliance system is truly a sight to behold. If each European nation trains about 200,000 troops each, combined they would be about equal in number to the US, but would have superior training because each nation did their part.
and so why do people hate the EU

Death penalty. Anti-science (unless it blows stuff up). Primitive superstition. Lack of human rights.

That could sum up two different groups: The ancient Germanic barbarians that I am descent from, and the US today.


anti science? I thought even a simpleton like you would appreciate the development of BOTH the polio and smallpox vaccines? They didnt blow anything up. Among countless other past inventions and developments, present and future.

The enemie's motivation isn't to get rich or alleviate poverty. It's to destabilize the middle east, establish a government there based on their violent and hatefull vision of Islam, and gradually expand it's territory to encompass the whole world. Look at who the terrorists are and which muslim scholars they favor. They're rich people like Osamma and the Wahabi clerics of Saudi Arabia and the upper middle class hijackers of 9/11. They look to the writings of people like Ibn Tayymia and that guy who started the muslim brotherhood (what's his name, al banna or something?) who advocate using violence to establish a world-wide sharia government.

oh yes, theres no doubt the leaders and figureheads of the terrorists are nasty bits of work, but they will always be able to get support from the normal people in their countries far easier than the US or britain. attack them just exaserbates this situation. this is why, if our leaders really wanted to stop terrorism, they would eradicate poverty, which would show the normal people how nice the US is, when the clerics etc are telling them how evil it is.

and so why do people hate the EU

Because many people see it as an attempt to take away their sovereignty.

anti science? I thought even a simpleton like you would appreciate the development of BOTH the polio and smallpox vaccines? They didnt blow anything up. Among countless other past inventions and developments, present and future.

Past inventions do not make you civilized today.

Your military is not the best. If British/Israeli/Even Polish troops numbered as many as American, America would be in SERIOUS trouble. Spray and Pray doesn't make you better.


Thats not nearly close to being true, but, since they are all allies, I'm far from concerned. "Spray and pray" is not part of any US military training or practice its something from the comic book in your back pocket.

Past inventions do not make you civilized today.


I guess you got me there, junior. Maybe we should just quit now. We are poorly trained against your hordes of mutant nit-wits.

Thats not nearly close to being true, but, since they are all allies, I'm far from concerned. "Spray and pray" is not part of any US military training or practice its something from the comic book in your back pocket.

The way I see it, you just can't accept the fact that there are nations besides the US that have armies...

As a European, I would also like to distance myself from Kievan-Prussia's ranting. The final straw was when he started supporting the EU. If the EU was a business all its leaders would be in jail for corruption. It hasn't had its accounts signed off for ten years now, because they're completely made up.

Anyway, I would like to thank the USA for it contributions to science, which I believe is second only to Britain's ;).

I guess you got me there, junior. Maybe we should just quit now. We are poorly trained against your hordes of mutant nit-wits.

Mu... tants? Sorry, I don't understand. My entire clan is pure Germanic and Slavic.

Past inventions do not make you civilized today.

.......as proven by your posts!

No, you're biased against the strong and decisive. Calling us barbarians makes you feel better because you know you can't compete. Your attitude is a common symptom of lack of balls.


This is well said. You were able to make the concise point my rambling couldnt.

As a European, I would also like to distance myself from Kievan-Prussia's ranting. The final straw was when he started supporting the EU. If the EU was a business all its leaders would be in jail for corruption. It hasn't had its accounts signed off for ten years now, because they're completely made up.

Anyway, I would like to thank the USA for it contributions to science, which I believe is second only to Britain's ;).

The EU obviously have monetary problems, they're, oh, I dunno, STILL REBUILDING 75% OF THE CONTINENT!

.......as proven by your posts!

What the hell do past inventions have to do with my posts? You might as well say "I know you are, but what I'm I?"

Switzerland seems like it has a very well trained military, but it hasn't see any action so I couldn't make a decent judgement on theirs. I'll go for Israel. Their special forces especially are second to none and they lead the way in urban warfare.

Switzerland seems like it has a very well trained military, but it hasn't see any action so I couldn't make a decent judgement on theirs. I'll go for Israel. Their special forces especially are second to none and they lead the way in urban warfare.

Well, technically, the Swiss have a militia...

Mu... tants? Sorry, I don't understand. My entire clan is pure Germanic and Slavic.

Don't you read this trash before you post it? It's ludicrous. You are PURE........but Germanic AND Slavic.

Thanks for the hearty chuckle!

Israel may not be the most powerful, but considering the circumstances it does better with what it has than any other nation on Earth.

It spends more per capita and $GDP than any other nation on Earth and it has compulsory military service between the ages of 18 and 22 (I think those are the ages, not sure). With a paltry 4 million people in the nation and an economy that barely outpaces the weakest in Europe, they regualarly kick the butt of the entire middle east. Hell, little Israel could probably take on most world powers as it is. Just let the French and Israelies battle for a bit and see what happens. Oh wait, too easy...

Don't you read this trash before you post it? It's ludicrous. You are PURE........but Germanic AND Slavic.

Thanks for the hearty chuckle!

They're both Indo-European races... learn your history.

Oh, and because we're two races, we're not pure? SIEG HEIL!

The way I see it, you just can't accept the fact that there are nations besides the US that have armies...


No-you're impression is wrong. The whole debate was who felt what country had the best trained army-and instead of touting your opinion, you tried to make the US bad. Which really was the whole intent of this thread.
The US is bad-and you are good? My question is, if we are so terrible-one of the other posters even reffered to the US as terrorists- why arent any of your countries doing something about it? I guess you were leaving it to the actual terrorists, huh? But now you see the US going to were the terrorists are bred and killing them and taking and breaking their stuff and somehow that is bad too.
We dont need you acceptance or approval and I hope we continue to do what is right FOR US in spite of you.

Americans, I address you politely.

While I am far from supportive of your country's foreign policy, and have serious issues with certain aspects of American 'culture' (fundamentalist christians, the culture of 'ignorance' found in the rural south and Northern ghettoes, fast food etc.) I would like to point out that I don't really hate any peoples. I would concede that while your military is far from the best trained, it is still a productive and powerful force.

The point is, that the EU and the USA are really as bad as one another. On paper, both are excellent ideas...but in practise? No. The USA has a lot to answer for, and should really be careful about letting fundamentalists taking a permanent grip on power. At the same time, I would like us all to remember that the EU is riddled with a variety of problems- it is an cooperative trade Union taken too far. I can't say I like America, but I can't say I'm a fan of French foreign policy either, nor Tony Blair's.

Being British, I like to think I have an objective view of both institutions. Both have their good points and bad, and I think what we have in britain is a decent balance between European Compassion and Hobbesian American Attitudes. I don't think that warmongering is the right answer, but neither is total apathy.

AS a final point, I'd like to apologise. Although I don't believe Americans are particularly well educated (which is strange, because the Ivy League is second only to Oxbridge as an educationary institute) most Europeans don't think you're all stupid, Christian and obese. Yes, more of you are obese than us, and yes you're mosly Christian BUT to suggest you're uncivilised is unfair and inaccurate. Like every country, there are good and bad people and although America (at the moment) can't compare culturally to Europe we must remember it is a former colony and a very young country.

Stop flaming one another, just debate logically if at all.

The EU does do some good work. Mostly it just swallows money. Most of the EU budget goes on the Common Agricultural Policy, which is an idiotic protectionist measure that benefits only farmers, while costing everyone else money and doing untold damage to 3rd-world food producers. Some of its budget goes into the pockets of officials, hence the failure to sign off its accounts. Some of its budget goes on deciding whether bananas are in the same category as apples for the purpose of trade barriers (answer - no, because people without teeth can only eat bananas and not apples. I kid you not).

A small part of the EU budget goes into enforcing free trade and developing poorer regions. That does not include 3/4 of the continent, so I have no idea where that came from. Germany, the UK, France, Benelux and the other richer countries are all net contributors, so I don't see how that can be the case. Still, what it does do is worthwhile.

What the hell do past inventions have to do with my posts? You might as well say "I know you are, but what I'm I?"

My point being that as people become more and more civilized, they generally become more intelligent (or at least more educated). Your posts have proven that is not the case with you! NOW, can you understand it, or should I write it in bigger letters?

Americans, I address you politely.

While I am far from supportive of your country's foreign policy, and have serious issues with certain aspects of American 'culture' (fundamentalist christians, the culture of 'ignorance' found in the rural south and Northern ghettoes, fast food etc.) I would like to point out that I don't really hate any peoples. I would concede that while your military is far from the best trained, it is still a productive and powerful force.

The point is, that the EU and the USA are really as bad as one another. On paper, both are excellent ideas...but in practise? No. The USA has a lot to answer for, and should really be careful about letting fundamentalists taking a permanent grip on power. At the same time, I would like us all to remember that the EU is riddled with a variety of problems- it is an cooperative trade Union taken too far. I can't say I like America, but I can't say I'm a fan of French foreign policy either, nor Tony Blair's.

Being British, I like to think I have an objective view of both institutions. Both have their good points and bad, and I think what we have in britain is a decent balance between European Compassion and Hobbesian American Attitudes. I don't think that warmongering is the right answer, but neither is total apathy.

AS a final point, I'd like to apologise. Although I don't believe Americans are particularly well educated (which is strange, because the Ivy League is second only to Oxbridge as an educationary institute) most Europeans don't think you're all stupid, Christian and obese. Yes, more of you are obese than us, and yes you're mosly Christian BUT to suggest you're uncivilised is unfair and inaccurate. Like every country, there are good and bad people and although America (at the moment) can't compare culturally to Europe we must remember it is a former colony and a very young country.

Stop flaming one another, just debate logically if at all.


They are uncivilized though. They kill people who kill people to proved killing is wrong. Explain that to me, would you?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they all have a better military than the slacking US-otherwise, we would be occupying all of them.And forcing our type of government on them and taking all of their natural resources. Like we are accused of doing in Iraq. Shooting innocent civilians all day and sneaking all the oil out at night.

The EU does do some good work. Mostly it just swallows money. Most of the EU budget goes on the Common Agricultural Policy, which is an idiotic protectionist measure that benefits only farmers, while costing everyone else money and doing untold damage to 3rd-world food producers. Some of its budget goes into the pockets of officials, hence the failure to sign off its accounts. Some of its budget goes on deciding whether bananas are in the same category as apples for the purpose of trade barriers (answer - no, because people without teeth can only eat bananas and not apples. I kid you not).

A small part of the EU budget goes into enforcing free trade and developing poorer regions. That does not include 3/4 of the continent, so I have no idea where that came from. Germany, the UK, France, Benelux and the other richer countries are all net contributors, so I don't see how that can be the case. Still, what it does do is worthwhile.

You don't see the 3/4?

Rich nations: UK, France, Benelux, Spain, Portugal, Britain, Italy. Denmark, the Nords, Germany.

Poor nations: Everyone else.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they all have a better military than the slacking US-otherwise, we would be occupying all of them.And forcing our type of government on them and taking all of their natural resources. Like we are accused of doing in Iraq. Shooting innocent civilians all day and sneaking all the oil out at night.

And now you're seeing my point of view.

A real military isn't measured by how many nations it can get into, but by how many nations it can keep out.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they all have a better military than the slacking US-otherwise, we would be occupying all of them.And forcing our type of government on them and taking all of their natural resources. Like we are accused of doing in Iraq. Shooting innocent civilians all day and sneaking all the oil out at night.

oh actually it seems you are thinking rationally.

You don't see the 3/4?

Rich nations: UK, France, Benelux, Spain, Portugal, Britain, Italy. Denmark, the Nords, Germany.

Poor nations: Everyone else.

Spain is actually proportionally poorer than Poland and Hungary. Portugal is poorer than all of the Eastern European countries. The point you have made is ill-informed and invalid.

In addition to this, no one said the American military slacked. We simply suggested it wasn't the best trained in the world. This doesn't mean that it's not the most powerful. I think it's a hard thing to judge, in the eyes of Americans they're doing the right thing but in the eyes of everyone else they are not. So can we actually say that their are evil intentions? No, we can't BUT we can say that the intentions which they think to be good ARE EVIL. So it is not the American people at fault, but the dogma which they follow. Ergo, people are not to blame, the institutions and government are.

Americans, I address you politely.

While I am far from supportive of your country's foreign policy, and have serious issues with certain aspects of American 'culture' (fundamentalist christians, the culture of 'ignorance' found in the rural south and Northern ghettoes, fast food etc.) I would like to point out that I don't really hate any peoples. I would concede that while your military is far from the best trained, it is still a productive and powerful force.

The point is, that the EU and the USA are really as bad as one another. On paper, both are excellent ideas...but in practise? No. The USA has a lot to answer for, and should really be careful about letting fundamentalists taking a permanent grip on power. At the same time, I would like us all to remember that the EU is riddled with a variety of problems- it is an cooperative trade Union taken too far. I can't say I like America, but I can't say I'm a fan of French foreign policy either, nor Tony Blair's.

Being British, I like to think I have an objective view of both institutions. Both have their good points and bad, and I think what we have in britain is a decent balance between European Compassion and Hobbesian American Attitudes. I don't think that warmongering is the right answer, but neither is total apathy.

AS a final point, I'd like to apologise. Although I don't believe Americans are particularly well educated (which is strange, because the Ivy League is second only to Oxbridge as an educationary institute) most Europeans don't think you're all stupid, Christian and obese. Yes, more of you are obese than us, and yes you're mosly Christian BUT to suggest you're uncivilised is unfair and inaccurate. Like every country, there are good and bad people and although America (at the moment) can't compare culturally to Europe we must remember it is a former colony and a very young country.

Stop flaming one another, just debate logically if at all.

Very well said........a point well taken, my British friend!

I don't claim any special personal knowledge about which army is the best trained (though an awful lot of people here seem to be making their views very strongly heard despite apparently knowing no more than I do about it), but people I know in the British Army (that's about three people, including one who was in the SAS) don't have much regard for the US military in general, though Delta Force has a good reputation. The word is that the British usually beat the Americans in war games.

Hardly a large selection to base your opinion on. However, I've already agreed that UK forces are better than US forces. :) Sorry for my fellow Americans that don't want to hear it, but we really aren't the best at war. We are allied with them, though.

I remember wargames in Germany back in 1989 where we got our heads handed to us a couple of days in a row. I asked my CO (I was temporarily assigned as the old man's driver/translator for my sin of letting folks know I knew the area from childhood and speak fair German) if I could try to get some face back by doing something very stupid. His response was that he didn't hear that because he'd already turned in for the night.

So, I gathered my old tac-int team and the 12 of us went skulking through the woods to the British HQ armed with red laundry markers and firecrackers. Three sentries all received red lines accross their throats for their failure to take guard duty seriously during a wargame. On making it to the command tent and hearing the voice of the Brigadier inside, we tossed in the firecrackers and walked in after the pops with our empty M16s held at our hips.

The RSM smiled at me, snapped to and said something close to this:

"Sir! I regret to inform you that we've been killed by the Yank's bloody driver!"

We lost the games, but that was the only time either CO got "killed" in the entire "war." I really felt sorry for the sentries. Red laundry markers take a long time to wear off skin. But, if you treat training as a game, you tend to bleed real blood later. I got a green hornet out of it, so it was worth it for me.

We had an informal dinner (thankfully not a "dining in") after all was said and done and I had the dubious honor of being one of three enlisted men at a table filled with brass (me, our CSM and the Brit RSM were the NCOs.) Noting my last name (Peterson), the Brigadier asked me if I was Swedish or, if typical to America, I was of "mixed heritage." Such a delicate way to put it. I replied that my family was actually mostly German with some Native American (Haida Nation, thank you very much) and a tad of Scottish in there too.

His reply: "Scottish!! I thought you moved like a poacher!"

Mine: "Actually, Sir, they were sheep rustlers. The poachers in my family were the Indians."

His: "Quite. You haven't got another marker up your sleeve, have you?"

Man. I hadn't thought of that in years. :)

Again. I'd have to say for best military it is UK or IDF. 6-5 odds and pick em.

Americans, I address you politely.

While I am far from supportive of your country's foreign policy, and have serious issues with certain aspects of American 'culture' (fundamentalist christians, the culture of 'ignorance' found in the rural south and Northern ghettoes, fast food etc.) I would like to point out that I don't really hate any peoples. I would concede that while your military is far from the best trained, it is still a productive and powerful force.

The point is, that the EU and the USA are really as bad as one another. On paper, both are excellent ideas...but in practise? No. The USA has a lot to answer for, and should really be careful about letting fundamentalists taking a permanent grip on power. At the same time, I would like us all to remember that the EU is riddled with a variety of problems- it is an cooperative trade Union taken too far. I can't say I like America, but I can't say I'm a fan of French foreign policy either, nor Tony Blair's.

Being British, I like to think I have an objective view of both institutions. Both have their good points and bad, and I think what we have in britain is a decent balance between European Compassion and Hobbesian American Attitudes. I don't think that warmongering is the right answer, but neither is total apathy.

AS a final point, I'd like to apologise. Although I don't believe Americans are particularly well educated (which is strange, because the Ivy League is second only to Oxbridge as an educationary institute) most Europeans don't think you're all stupid, Christian and obese. Yes, more of you are obese than us, and yes you're mosly Christian BUT to suggest you're uncivilised is unfair and inaccurate. Like every country, there are good and bad people and although America (at the moment) can't compare culturally to Europe we must remember it is a former colony and a very young country.

Stop flaming one another, just debate logically if at all.


I was so impressed and humbled by your pompous attitude toward us until, alas, you made up the word "educationary". Then I snapped back into reality and remembered what british smiles look like and sorry-cant accept your overblown oratory, picturing a mouth that looks like its been eating stool.
Neither myself, nor anyone in my family is obese. We have all had an above average education, even by your lofty standards. And my little world enjoys quite a bit of culture. I know its hard for you to imagine,with your outstanding cuisine and superior intellect.

You might be right. Do you have quotes to support that though? Or stats? Anything at all?
in support of the fact that non-front line troops don't get the same marksmanship training http://strategypage.com/search.asp?target=c:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\20030916.htm&search=marksmanship%20training

Without knowing which officer, which unit he's in, or any other details about the interview I was responding to I can't provide any other support for my supposition. Why don't we get a source from the guy who posted the interview first?

Death penalty. Anti-science (unless it blows stuff up). Primitive superstition. Lack of human rights.

That could sum up two different groups: The ancient Germanic barbarians that I am descent from, and the US today.
The death penalty doesn't exist in every state. In many of those where it does exist it's not used. Anti-science? Don't judge the whole country by the example of the bible belt. Europe has superstitions too. How about the popularity of homeopathy, astrology, etc.? And we do have human rights. One is free in the US to even espouse Nazi points of view. More than I can say for some European nations.

most definitely the british, they have the most advaceced technology, and definitely the most well-trained personell, for example, the SAS, the royal marines, royal navy etc etc etc
proof? they owned half the world

Word.

Drunk commies reborn and Carnivorous Lickers, you might as well discard all the words you've typed and type out "amrica ruulez!!1!1!" and you'd be sending the same message.

No offense, but I come from a highly intelligent community of internet users, and what I've seen from you two doesn't exactly rank high in the smart-o-meter.
Actually I've made reasonable claims and reasonable arguments. You're too blinded by your bigotry to recognize them, so you see them as "amrica ruulez"

Thank you for telling me how highly intelligent your community is. Apparently to you intelligence is measured by how closely one's opinion matches your own.

I was so impressed and humbled by your pompous attitude toward us until, alas, you made up the word "educationary". Then I snapped back into reality and remembered what british smiles look like and sorry-cant accept your overblown oratory, picturing a mouth that looks like its been eating stool.
Neither myself, nor anyone in my family is obese. We have all had an above average education, even by your lofty standards. And my little world enjoys quite a bit of culture. I know its hard for you to imagine,with your outstanding cuisine and superior intellect.

Your demonstration of supreme ignorance reminds me of exactly why it is I feel I am at liberty to look down my nose at the average American. Your statement sums up what is wrong with a great many Americans:

1. You think in stereotypes: British people had bad teeth in the 1700s....but then so did everyone? The fact that you continue to believe we have bad teeth for one reason or another is foolish and absurd. We have good teeth, I don't know anyone with yellow, mangled incisors. Sorry, but stereotype doesn't cut it.

2. You may have above average education, but this is still an American education. To me, a decent education is one which is also WELL ROUNDED. Americans are educated with America in mind, which is why they often come across as very ignorant of world affairs and other cultures. As you yourself have shown to be the case.

3. British people actually have a much higher average IQ than Americans, if you want to pull some kind of loose 'superior intellect' argument out of the blue. Before you argue how one nation can be more intelligent than another, you should really look at the evidence (however false) beforehand.

4. British cuisine may not be the greatest, but how can someone who has been brought up in the land of burgers, onion rings and fried chicken POSSIBLY be at leisure to criticise? At least British food is wholesome, even if it isn't to your tastes. To me, there's no better breakfast than a full English and no better pudding than one from England.

Your military is not the best. If British/Israeli/Even Polish troops numbered as many as American, America would be in SERIOUS trouble. Spray and Pray doesn't make you better.
No, none of those nations have a navy that can truly project force. Our troops' training is among the best. You claim that we're not the best because only our numbers make us strong. Even if you were right, so what. We'd still be the best because we would be the strongest. BTW, we don't spray and pray. We aim our rounds.

The death penalty doesn't exist in every state. In many of those where it does exist it's not used. Anti-science? Don't judge the whole country by the example of the bible belt. Europe has superstitions too. How about the popularity of homeopathy, astrology, etc.? And we do have human rights. One is free in the US to even espouse Nazi points of view. More than I can say for some European nations.

Which is fucking retarded, and should be banned. Thanks for shooting your own argument in the butt.

No, none of those nations have a navy that can truly project force. Our troops' training is among the best. You claim that we're not the best because only our numbers make us strong. Even if you were right, so what. We'd still be the best because we would be the strongest. BTW, we don't spray and pray. We aim our rounds.

Actually, again a short-sighted observation. While you have a large navy, the British navy has a far greater spread across the globe. There's an RN ship in every commonwealth port. You really need to do some research.

They are uncivilized though. They kill people who kill people to proved killing is wrong. Explain that to me, would you?

I never got why we love the death penalty so much. I'm considering running as a libertarian in my for my state legislature, and I'm conflicted as to whether or not to put something against the death penalty in my platform. I'm not sure how Mississippians feel about the issue. There was a bill introduced into our senate this year to ban the death penalty in the state, but it was defeated. A lot of Mississippians like the death penalty, and when the supreme court ruled that executing minors was against the constitution there seemed to be more outrage than anything. So I think if I want to have any chance I'm just going to have to cover up the issue...

oh yes, theres no doubt the leaders and figureheads of the terrorists are nasty bits of work, but they will always be able to get support from the normal people in their countries far easier than the US or britain. attack them just exaserbates this situation. this is why, if our leaders really wanted to stop terrorism, they would eradicate poverty, which would show the normal people how nice the US is, when the clerics etc are telling them how evil it is.
I disagree with you. You seem to think that all conflicts are over economics and fair treatment. You don't seem to be able to envision an enemy who wants to kill you or subjugate you because he thinks his god told him to. I've done some independant study of islamist terror, and my conclusion is that it's rooted not in inequality, but in the beleif in a violent and hatefull religious ideology.

Actually I've made reasonable claims and reasonable arguments. You're too blinded by your bigotry to recognize them, so you see them as "amrica ruulez"

Thank you for telling me how highly intelligent your community is. Apparently to you intelligence is measured by how closely one's opinion matches your own.

...

Are you psychotic? Your entire argument consists of telling us how wrong we are, and how righteous and powerful America is.

I disagree with you. You seem to think that all conflicts are over economics and fair treatment. You don't seem to be able to envision an enemy who wants to kill you or subjugate you because he thinks his god told him to. I've done some independant study of islamist terror, and my conclusion is that it's rooted not in inequality, but in the beleif in a violent and hatefull religious ideology.

Oh, I'm all for killing crazy islamofascists, but...

Now here's the problem: Saddam Hussein was a greedy, greedy atheist who didn't really care about fighting other nations,. just about getting paid., So, why did you go to Iraq again?

Actually, again a short-sighted observation. While you have a large navy, the British navy has a far greater spread across the globe. There's an RN ship in every commonwealth port. You really need to do some research.

The US Navy has more ships in foreign ports (including UK and Commonwealth ports) than the RN does. Not wanting to enter a pointless debate, but how many full sized carrier battle groups are in the RN again? That's right. ZERO. The RN is arguably the best defensive navy in the world, but for projecting force, you really need carriers. Still, I wouldn't want to try invading any place they were protecting, providing they had notice enough to get some ships there first.

Oh, I'm all for killing crazy islamofascists, but...

Now here's the problem: Saddam Hussein was a greedy, greedy atheist who didn't really care about fighting other nations,. just about getting paid., So, why did you go to Iraq again?

.........we went to Iraq to further build upon your hatred of americans.

.........we went to Iraq to further build upon your hatred of americans.

I would have supported the invasion if there was a legitimate reason, I support Afghanistan...

The US Navy has more ships in foreign ports (including UK and Commonwealth ports) than the RN does. Not wanting to enter a pointless debate, but how many full sized carrier battle groups are in the RN again? That's right. ZERO. The RN is arguably the best defensive navy in the world, but for projecting force, you really need carriers. Still, I wouldn't want to try invading any place they were protecting, providing they had notice enough to get some ships there first.

Unfortunately, our navy is definetly the best trained but it isn't what it used to be. Gone are the days of British Maritime Supremacy. We have the best defensive navy, but you're right...it's not an offensive one. Why?

The British Military has undergone changes, whether you believe them good and bad, which have transformed it from an unwieldy yet powerful Imperial one to a small, flexible and exceedingly well-trained one. Our curent navy suits the latter.

Which is fucking retarded, and should be banned. Thanks for shooting your own argument in the butt.
Freedom of speech is a human right. All speech, whether it's popular or unpopular, needs to be protected. Fucking barbarian.

Actually, again a short-sighted observation. While you have a large navy, the British navy has a far greater spread across the globe. There's an RN ship in every commonwealth port. You really need to do some research.
How many aircraft carrier battlegroups do you have? Are any of them as capable as their American counterparts?

...

Are you psychotic? Your entire argument consists of telling us how wrong we are, and how righteous and powerful America is.
Actually my entire argument has been to say that US troops are among the best trained. Not the absolute best. You have turned it into an attack on Americans as a culture. Frankly I think you've come off as a bigoted moron.

How many aircraft carrier battlegroups do you have? Are any of them as capable as their American counterparts?

None. However, our sailors are far more capable than their American counterparts. That answers your question.

Oh, I'm all for killing crazy islamofascists, but...

Now here's the problem: Saddam Hussein was a greedy, greedy atheist who didn't really care about fighting other nations,. just about getting paid., So, why did you go to Iraq again?
Right. Saddam wasn't an islamofascist. I was against going into Iraq. It was a bad move. The reason Bush did was because he thought a democratic and secular Iraq would transform the region. I don't think it will, but it remains to be seen.

1st=US. 2nd=Isrealian. Sorry but they have much more field experience.

Italian news agencies have just reported that the Pope has died.

None. However, our sailors are far more capable than their American counterparts. That answers your question.
The original navy question I was responding to was about it's ability to project force. Not about how competant the seamen are.

1st=US. 2nd=Isrealian. Sorry but they have much more field experience.

By your own argument, it would be 1st: Israel 2nd: UK 3rd: Russia..:S

Okay, I'm gonna take some of my statement back. Because, the US hasn't fought a war with any of these, I think. And all of us has never went into all of thier military systems.

I disagree with you. You seem to think that all conflicts are over economics and fair treatment. You don't seem to be able to envision an enemy who wants to kill you or subjugate you because he thinks his god told him to. I've done some independant study of islamist terror, and my conclusion is that it's rooted not in inequality, but in the beleif in a violent and hatefull religious ideology.

well, not really, that is what i think this war is about. i believe military action should only be used i defence, against another army. thats said, i would support small teams of special forces soldiers going to find osama bin laden. but of course that wont happen.
what im saying is the way to defeat terrorism is to remove any reason to support it. you cant do this by attacking nations, only by helping them. the actually terrorists are obviously bad people, i agree. but i repeat, you cannot fight fire with fire.

Anyone asking or debating which is tougher, US or UK is just blowing smoke. Never gonna fight each other anyhow.

Since 1866, the UK has always supported the US. Since 1914 the US has backed the UK (except Argentina, where they didn't need US help anyhow.) The one true, steadfast ally the US can always count on is the UK. And, should some crazy fool at sometime in the future threaten the UK, you can bet that the US will be sending help before the EU even convenes a meeting to discuss the issue.

That's what allies do for each other. :)

Anyone asking or debating which is tougher, US or UK is just blowing smoke. Never gonna fight each other anyhow.

Since 1866, the UK has always supported the US. Since 1914 the US has backed the UK (except Argentina, where they didn't need US help anyhow.) The one true, steadfast ally the US can always count on is the UK. And, should some crazy fool at sometime in the future threaten the UK, you can bet that the US will be sending help before the EU even convenes a meeting to discuss the issue.

That's what allies do for each other. :)

Well...we're probably not going to be allies for long. The US is going the christian conservative way, the UK the secular liberal way.

Anyone asking or debating which is tougher, US or UK is just blowing smoke. Never gonna fight each other anyhow.

Since 1866, the UK has always supported the US. Since 1914 the US has backed the UK (except Argentina, where they didn't need US help anyhow.) The one true, steadfast ally the US can always count on is the UK. And, should some crazy fool at sometime in the future threaten the UK, you can bet that the US will be sending help before the EU even convenes a meeting to discuss the issue.

That's what allies do for each other. :)

send help? hell, if some idiot dictator ever decided to mess with the UK, America would blow them away faster than you can say Edwin Moses (don't ask).

Unless, perhaps, there's a spineless Democrat occupying the office of US President... in which case we might try to simply talk to the offender... urge them to leave the UK alone. But... well nah, even a Democrat would send troops (or very powerful missiles) to defend the UK from attack.

We have the UK's back, always.

---------------

not that this is likely (unlike a thousand years ago) but I wonder what we'd do if England and France went to war.

"Come on, guys, knock it off!"

Talk about being in a pretty pickle diplomatically.

Yes well, I'm sure the European Union would act quicker than the US, seeing as they're closer.

well, not really, that is what i think this war is about. i believe military action should only be used i defence, against another army. thats said, i would support small teams of special forces soldiers going to find osama bin laden. but of course that wont happen.
what im saying is the way to defeat terrorism is to remove any reason to support it. you cant do this by attacking nations, only by helping them. the actually terrorists are obviously bad people, i agree. but i repeat, you cannot fight fire with fire.
I agree that the terrorist's base of support needs to be removed, I just don't think eliminating poverty will do it. They need secular educations and less religious indoctrination. I'm not sure how that can be achieved.

Anyway, we do see things a little differently. No big deal.

Yes well, I'm sure the European Union would act quicker than the US, seeing as they're closer.

They'd debate the issue for months and the UK would have won on its own or with US/Canadian/Aussie support before they decided what color the tablecloths on the conference tables should be.

I hold no faith in the EU protecting anyone. Fortunately, the UK can handle itself. :)

Your demonstration of supreme ignorance reminds me of exactly why it is I feel I am at liberty to look down my nose at the average American. Your statement sums up what is wrong with a great many Americans:

1. You think in stereotypes: British people had bad teeth in the 1700s....but then so did everyone? The fact that you continue to believe we have bad teeth for one reason or another is foolish and absurd. We have good teeth, I don't know anyone with yellow, mangled incisors. Sorry, but stereotype doesn't cut it.

2. You may have above average education, but this is still an American education. To me, a decent education is one which is also WELL ROUNDED. Americans are educated with America in mind, which is why they often come across as very ignorant of world affairs and other cultures. As you yourself have shown to be the case.


3. British people actually have a much higher average IQ than Americans, if you want to pull some kind of loose 'superior intellect' argument out of the blue. Before you argue how one nation can be more intelligent than another, you should really look at the evidence (however false) beforehand.

4. British cuisine may not be the greatest, but how can someone who has been brought up in the land of burgers, onion rings and fried chicken POSSIBLY be at leisure to criticise? At least British food is wholesome, even if it isn't to your tastes. To me, there's no better breakfast than a full English and no better pudding than one from England.

Well said, Lord Snooty. I'll take your lame and misguided venom over a pat on the head any day. Now we are having fun.
At least we were able to ferret out the fact you were looking down your nose at us.Unfortunately, that was the only fact. Good teeth? Please-keep preaching that. A "much higher average IQ" ? My God, man!! Brits are even BORN smarter than Americans ? I'm not sure when the last time I or my family ate a burger, onion ring or fried chicken. Probably the last time you ate unidentified deep fried "fish" and chips out of a newspaper. See? Stupid, isnt it?
A jolly good attempt though.

send help? hell, if some idiot dictator ever decided to mess with the UK, America would blow them away faster than you can say Edwin Moses (don't ask).

Unless, perhaps, there's a spineless Democrat occupying the office of US President... in which case we might try to simply talk to the offender... urge them to leave the UK alone. But... well nah, even a Democrat would send troops (or very powerful missiles) to defend the UK from attack.

We have the UK's back, always.

---------------



I hope so, because despite small differences, The UK is a great ally-always seem to back us up and I hope we always do for them.

Well...we're probably not going to be allies for long. The US is going the christian conservative way, the UK the secular liberal way.
So what? Israel is full of Jews, and we get along with them just fine. Or are you blowing smoke out of your ass?

Yes well, I'm sure the European Union would act quicker than the US, seeing as they're closer.

Do not underestimate the speed of the ICBM!

So what? Israel is full of Jews, and we get along with them just fine. Or are you blowing smoke out of your ass?

No...I'm just saying that we're going our separate ways, and this is dragging us apart and the alliance will eventually be broken. Read what I actually said before LEAPING to conclusions.

Anyone asking or debating which is tougher, US or UK is just blowing smoke. Never gonna fight each other anyhow.

Since 1866, the UK has always supported the US. Since 1914 the US has backed the UK (except Argentina, where they didn't need US help anyhow.) The one true, steadfast ally the US can always count on is the UK. And, should some crazy fool at sometime in the future threaten the UK, you can bet that the US will be sending help before the EU even convenes a meeting to discuss the issue.

That's what allies do for each other. :)

Yes. And we'll hope it stay like that.

I agree that the terrorist's base of support needs to be removed, I just don't think eliminating poverty will do it. They need secular educations and less religious indoctrination. I'm not sure how that can be achieved.

Anyway, we do see things a little differently. No big deal.


when i say eliminating poverty, i meant not just making them rich, because then the wealth may not go to the people that need it. im meant that the country needs to be developed socially, that sort of thing. what is needed is for western powers to GIVE technology and expertise to these nations, i think that will be the way to do it. then the actual terrorists can be dealt with as they will be seen as social outcasts.

indeed, i like talking to people who can accept other peoples arguments.

when i say eliminating poverty, i meant not just making them rich, because then the wealth may not go to the people that need it. im meant that the country needs to be developed socially, that sort of thing. what is needed is for western powers to GIVE technology and expertise to these nations, i think that will be the way to do it. then the actual terrorists can be dealt with as they will be seen as social outcasts.

indeed, i like talking to people who can accept other peoples arguments.
Thanks. It was a good exchange, you were civil and reasonable. Too bad some other people in this thread can't seem to behave themselves.

Well said, Lord Snooty. I'll take your lame and misguided venom over a pat on the head any day. Now we are having fun.
At least we were able to ferret out the fact you were looking down your nose at us.Unfortunately, that was the only fact. Good teeth? Please-keep preaching that. A "much higher average IQ" ? My God, man!! Brits are even BORN smarter than Americans ? I'm not sure when the last time I or my family ate a burger, onion ring or fried chicken. Probably the last time you ate unidentified deep fried "fish" and chips out of a newspaper. See? Stupid, isnt it?
A jolly good attempt though.


i really hope you are being sarcastic, otherwise that was just rubbishing someones attempt to converse properly with you.

i really hope you are being sarcastic, otherwise that was just rubbishing someones attempt to converse properly with you.


His attempt certainly was not to converse, more a haughty and condesending pat on the head.

WHERE IS THE UNITED STATES?!?!? Any question regarding the world's best military must include the United States otherwise the question is pointless.

I don't think it can really be disputed that the US has the best military technology. We know the US has stealth technology, but who else does? The may have good intelligence, but for some reason we are lead to believe the contrary. The US probably has the highest quality military, but to fair to that statement, as of late we haven't seen any military displays from Russia, China or N. Korea. As far as individual training goes, it would be curious to see how most countries infantry compares with their police force.

I voted Canada anyway, highly skilled at peace keeping and humanitarian aid, not to mention being at the disposal of the UN. Just because a countries military isn't busy war mongering does that make it low quality?

His attempt certainly was not to converse, more a haughty and condesending pat on the head.
well, it didnt seem like that to me, but then as im not american (im british) i wouldnt know if it was. maybe it did offend you. but his original argument said something like 'please stop being nasty', but what you said was almost offensive to me.

well, it didnt seem like that to me, but then as im not american (im british) i wouldnt know if it was. maybe it did offend you. but his original argument said something like 'please stop being nasty', but what you said was almost offensive to me.


I had no intention of offending you, so please accept my appolgy. I was merely reacting to a deliberately derisive and inflammatory remark and condescending attitude.
I have no problem with a meaningful debate, but wont tolerate that sort of ignorant stupidity.

I had no intention of offending you, so please accept my appolgy. I was merely reacting to a deliberately derisive and inflammatory remark and condescending attitude.
I have no problem with a meaningful debate, but wont tolerate that sort of ignorant stupidity.

thats ok, it only nearly offended me, and only because fish and chips is my favourite. this is the side of carnivorous lickers id rather see!

We also had the War in the Pacific, we won Korea(and that was U.N. troops, not just U.S. troops), we kicked the Iraqi's BIG TIME in the First Gulf War, we crushed the Spanish in 1898, we kicked the Mexicans arse, we tied with the brits in 1815(which was a rare occurance back then), and won our independence!
Ok fine you are right I only concentrated on the bad stuff, and for that matter Korea was not even bad. BUT I still respect Israel a lot, and would rather be part of Israel Military than my own U.S. military (unless I could be Airborne, I would be honored to be Airborne)

Word.

Drunk commies reborn and Carnivorous Lickers, you might as well discard all the words you've typed and type out "amrica ruulez!!1!1!" and you'd be sending the same message.

No offense, but I come from a highly intelligent community of internet users, and what I've seen from you two doesn't exactly rank high in the smart-o-meter.
Nothing you have said has struck me as intelligent.

And to me, you look like you're jetting hot air out your head.

Everybody the a right to express an opinion. YOU are abusing it.

bump

Hey there everyone I'm going to Say the US because i'm an Intelligence officer In the USAF. I have 6 years of college and 2 years of intelligence training. So i wouldn't say i'm poorly trained at all. i feel that like my fellow officers and the troops that i serve with are the best in the world. I'm not saying countries such as the UK, Germany, and Isreal are far behind. I have served in the UK and Germany with members of their AF's and we are not all that different we are tained to use what we have the fact that US pilots always clear the skies of enemies even in training with allies should point to this. That mixed with High Tech makes us the best in the World so I'll just speak for AF's of the World US 1 Israel 2 Britain 3 rest of europe and russia tied for 4.

Also last dog fight trials with the new F-22 Raptor (2 vs. 18 f-15 strike egales ) F-22's won so step up with that if you want to be the best.

The (former) Rhodesian military, hands down, especially the Selous scouts.

Israel just because they have such a kick ass air force, and lets face it, air force > all.

I don't think it can really be disputed that the US has the best military technology. We know the US has stealth technology, but who else does? The may have good intelligence, but for some reason we are lead to believe the contrary. The US probably has the highest quality military, but to fair to that statement, as of late we haven't seen any military displays from Russia, China or N. Korea. As far as individual training goes, it would be curious to see how most countries infantry compares with their police force.

I voted Canada anyway, highly skilled at peace keeping and humanitarian aid, not to mention being at the disposal of the UN. Just because a countries military isn't busy war mongering does that make it low quality?
Canada's military has been plundered in order to fund social welfare programs. Ask any Canadian military officer.

Canada's military has been plundered in order to fund social welfare programs. Ask any Canadian military officer.
I don't doubt you for a second... I guess we're hoping that the hunters and the indians will protect the other 5 of us.

i voted great britain but technicaly speaking scotland because statistics show that the blackwatch are the best land military in the world by far with the best training.

to back this up with just a little info in the iraq war 700 of them were sent to guard a group of americans almost double there size 'cause they couldn't protect themselves

Bullshit. US troops get more realistic training than almost any other country. They shoot more rounds in training than almost any other country. Anyone who knows anything about military matters knows that. Also they're very well led by their officers, perhaps not so well led by the civilian politicians.

I know this was ages ago, but I dont care.
The american forces suck. The british SAS and the royal marine corps are some of the best trained soldiers in the world. They did most of the close quarter fighting that the American Pap heads couldnt.

:sniper:
(couldnt resist)

I think it is because the US would be the overwhelming first choice.
You forgot Germany :sniper:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk commies reborn
USA. More troops, tanks, planes and ships than most countries, better trained personell than almost any country, more advanced technology than any nation. The US military kicks ass.



Very poorly trained and poorly led though, and a shocking intelligence agency to provide bad info


Every country will have it's military blunders (Britain's = Operation Overlord, France's = Waterloo, America = Somalia, 1993, etc.) but how do you say that the US is poorly trained and led? I can't say I agree.

Your nationality American so you are 100% american
Ethnically you are greek
So you are an american

No, he's not American. He may be an American citizen but he is not American.

The biggest military expert's and University 'War and Strategic Studies' Department Heads all agree that the US military is the best, they may not measure up in certain area's, although looking at certain facts and figures, they most certainly do, they always come out first overrall because the US Military actually spends money on their military, FY03 the USA spent $300 Billion (USD) while Britain spent a mere £30 Million (GBP), which would probably not cover the US Army's toilet roll budget. More money gives the edge that is needed to finance the conditions for a better military. Heck, Israel do the same to keep the IDF at the peak of military readiness, much to the detriment of the Israeli economy.

Britain, on the other hand, have one of the worst military's in the world. I suggest, Botrosox, that you actually go to Sandhurst instead of just saying that to boost your standing, where you will find out that conditions in the British Army are simply atrocious, the Russian Army is better armed, prepared and trained. The MOD, in certain areas, has over 700 cases of abuse being levelled at it at any one time.

There are frequent and serious lapses in conduct on the part of soldiers, sailors and airmen, frequenly leading to disastrous press cases in tabloids across the UK, not to mention bringing about Cabinet level investigations in the 'Deep Cut' deaths, that is ongoing.

During Desert Trials in Oman before the Iraq War (i forget the name of the operation) it was widely reported, especially in the magazine 'Combat and Survival' that nearly every facet of the British military was lacking. Some of the more populist findings where that boot soles melted and eventually collapsed in the desert climate (and I can personally attest to the very poor quality of the current standard issue British Military Combat Boot), the new L85A2 (SA80A2) jammed just as often as the A1 despite over £5 Billion worth of upgrades and research by Royal Ordnance (under the name Heckler and Koch), several AS90 Artillery peices caught fire due to overheating and had to be temporarily abandoned quickly by their crews to avoid injury, and several Challenger 2 Tanks were documented to have had 'recurring sand filter clogs'. Among other things the newly issued Personal Role Radio's (PRS) did, in typical British fashion, not work at all.

Lets move on to Northern Ireland shall we. You say that it provides 'training', yet there are less than 10,000 British Army personnel here, and they currently occupy only several bases, the Royal Irish Regiment (formally Rangers) at Downpatrick and Ballykillner, and rotated British regiments at Ballykilner, Palace Barracks, Holywood (forget the Holywood barracks name), and Crossmaglen (South Armagh). The last British soldier to die here was around, if not over, 10 years ago. British Army patrols are no longer mounted in public apart from certain areas near the Ireland/Northern Ireland border. Northern Ireland provides training for two RAF squadrons at RAF Aldergrove and one Army Air Corps unit nearby. Besides, since 1968 the British failed to effectively and swiftly end violence here, again in typical British fashion, i.e. overlooking the roots of the guerilla conflict, just as they did in Borneo, Aden and South Africa.

The 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, undoubtedly one of the best SF units in the world, is bested by the USA's 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Airborne) (Combat Applications Group), i.e. 'Delta Force' or the 1st SFOD-D. I quote from 'The Encyclopedia of the World's Special Forces', by Mike Ryan, Chris Mann and Alexander Stilwell, which is considered the definitive text on SF Units. It states, "Delta Force is the best trained and equipped counterterrorist unit in the world." British people refuse to believe that the SAS are not the best, I would implore you all to seek help and to stop watching the Iranian Embassy Siege. The British SAS are also bested by IDF Special Forces and the Australian SAS who's training is rumoured to be vastly tougher than anything a Welsh mountain range could through at little Tommy the Pommy, as the aussies sometimes so eloquently put it.

Also the British stole the Special Forces concept from several places, one being 'Roger's Rangers' of 1759 fame and the Boer Commando's of Boer War fame. Incidentally where the Royal Marines got 'Commando' from.
They were, despite popular belief, not the first Great Power to use unorthodox means of warfare in the 20th Century, Germany with their World War One 'Shock Troops' where one of the first, among certain others.

I also agree that the British Army would not be any army to speak of without Scottish, Welsh or indeed Irish troops, the English make up for nothing in many regiments.

In the rank of European Militaries, France and Germany are the top dogs, followed by Spain and then Britain. I suggest whoever started this thread had better start reading (frequently) the magazines 'Combat and Survival', 'Air Forces Monthly' and 'Warships: International Fleet Review'. You might just eat your very British hat.

American armies the best=no. American armies that hire pmcs since they suck=yes. PMCs saving American armies during war=yes. America good at war=no. Your history channel said something like that during the special on PMCs except saying that american armies are too powerful for its own good since it trains them to hard to do anything

The British contanstly fight the IRA...

Hardly. There has been a ceasefire in N. Ireland for almost 10 years. The IRA only shoot members of their own community these days.

Israelis maybe. British and French? The British, though they are excellent troops, are patroling the friendliest areas in Iraq. They don't get into as many fights. The French? Well where have they been fighting lately? A couple of skirmishes in Africa don't count as frequent conflicts.

Heh, skirmishes in Africa, The French Foreign Legion has troops in over 28 different countries around the world constantly fighting terrorists and rebels. If you bother to follow international news, rather than CNN crap, you would know that the French are fighting intensely in cote d'ivoire, and French Guiana. And they are doing a job commendable in comparison with American combat operations in Iraq.

Good point, 'Combat and Survival' did an excellent expose on the Legion Etrangere in the Ivory Coast and French Guyana, i think they are in the Democratic Republic of the Congo aswell. They do some excellent work in Africa, but apparently they've been plagued by African mercenaries running Russian gunships for the Governement in the Ivory Coast, nasty business.

Vive le France

Forget it. The myth that the french military sucks is too widespread. Besides, if/when real war breaks out, lets see how many nations can beat France...Many shall be surprised.

Although there's sure to be a biased amongst the largely American player base, which military is the best in the world? I'll cram as many into the poll as I can but suggest another if you will. I'm going to put those on the poll which my training and experiences at Sandhurst have taught me, and from what I know from a country's history (I'm a military historian) and its current situation.

Have fun :P

mongolia used to have the best military. but that was a thousand years ago. i'd have to say north korea for modern armies though.

USA. More troops, tanks, planes and ships than most countries, better trained personell than almost any country, more advanced technology than any nation. The US military kicks ass.

Than MOST countries. Than ALMOST any country. That is true, especially when taking into account MOST and ALMOST. "More advanced technology than any nation." shows much ignorance. USA has very advanced technology but it is very much foolish to say "most advanced". In addition, this is obviously the belief of an American. Its just an example of nationalism. Many French also say the same thing, for the same reason. So do the British. When taking into account, seeing who has the most troops, its China (they have half a billion troops). Besides, once the European Union is up and running and Europe's armies become one or something of the sort, the US will have difficult competition. Besides, the US military is weakening due to physical strain, being stretched out and what not.

Forget it. The myth that the french military sucks is too widespread. Besides, if/when real war breaks out, lets see how many nations can beat France...Many shall be surprised.

In EVERY SINGLE war or series of wars France has been in, France has either surrendered or been defeated.

Than MOST countries. Than ALMOST any country. That is true, especially when taking into account MOST and ALMOST. "More advanced technology than any nation." shows much ignorance. USA has very advanced technology but it is very much foolish to say "most advanced". In addition, this is obviously the belief of an American. Its just an example of nationalism. Many French also say the same thing, for the same reason. So do the British. When taking into account, seeing who has the most troops, its China (they have half a billion troops). Besides, once the European Union is up and running and Europe's armies become one or something of the sort, the US will have difficult competition. Besides, the US military is weakening due to physical strain, being stretched out and what not.

This is a poor,misinformed opinion at best.

The US Navy has more technologically advanced equipment and firepower in just one Carrier Group than most countries have all totalled. We have THE most advanced. Dont be threatened by our nationalism just because we're right and you arent. The US military was weakend and downgraded during Clinton's term, but that certainly isnt the case these days now, is it?
And keep dreaming about the "European Union's" military. Its no competition-never will be. They'll never have resolve.
Keep calling Americans foolish though and take each little cheap opporotunity to lash out against us as if you know something we dont.