NationStates Jolt Archive

An example of why you don't screw with the US military at night.

The beam you see in the video is a laser pointer - and the US troops in frame are wearing infrared strobes.

Everyone on the US side can see the pointer beam, and the US troops. Everyone on the enemy side can't see anything but the night, until the helicopters come by and lay waste to them with 7.62mm Minigun fire at 6000 rounds per minute, and salvos of 2.75 inch rockets.

http://www.fordpower.net/UH60%20in%20Mosul.wmv

No, but the skylines of Fallujah and Baghdad were.

care to be more specific? and were any alterations to the skylines of those two cities the result of attacks on civilians, and were they made by US forces, and were those buildings government buildings or buildings used as fortifications by armed forces in combat?

Those pesky details are kind of important don't you think?

No, but the skylines of Fallujah and Baghdad were.

Check your before and after satellite photos of Fallujah before you say that.

None of the mosques were destroyed.

No, but the skylines of Fallujah and Baghdad were.

???

Are you referring to buildings destroyed by US forces fighting Iraqi forces during the initial invasion? Those were government buildings that were destroyed, and they were mostly just gutted, not knocked down. In Fallujah buildings destroyed were occupied by insurgents and damage suffered occured during house to house fighting. Civilian casualties were actually pretty light as compared to other urban battles fought in the modern era (Manila comes to mind, as does Hue and Berlin and Stalingrad).

The damage that occured in those two cities happened after the civilian population was warned to evacuate the specific area targeted.

Most of the Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion have actually been killed by insurgent bombs and executions, not by US or Iraqi government (or other Allied) forces. This site http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ provides a pretty thorough look at casualties, and the causes. I am not too sure about its objectivity, but it is thorough.

I said I'm not rising.

I never said Mosque though. These petty details are important after all.

I said I'm not rising.

I never said Mosque though. These petty details are important after all.

Judging from the satellite photos, the city of Fallujah appears relatively unscathed, before and after, using non-US satellite photos.

It's also a known fact in the AAR that during the operation, air power was extremely limited, and confined to the use of AC-130 gunships, which, as a rule, do not level buildings.

Most insurgents, according to the AAR, were cleared from buildings using white phosphorus. Since the buildings were stone, the building remained intact, but the insurgents were stifled or burned to death. I've seen several videos of house clearing, and this appears to be the way it was done.

Probably lost a lot of furniture, and several thousand insurgents, but the buildings were as undamaged as any army on earth could manage (probably far better).

Compare that to the Russian action in Grozny - where the city WAS leveled.

I wonder why they have to be conscripted virtually everywhere else? I guess young people elsewhere don't believe that, in the balance, their countries (or geopolitical interests) are worth defending.

I wish people would check their facts. Bullshit clogs up these forums. I despair.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/mil_con&int=-1

I wish people would check their facts. Bullshit clogs up these forums. I despair.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/mil_con&int=-1

nice link

Nothing to do with the US launching an illegal...

No let's not go there, it's been trodden a million times.

And the invalid/ridiculous option was so people could at least register distaste for the military.

i didn't mean to sound so serious. hehe

if people want to register distaste for the military, they could become Quakers. hehe

Ein Deutscher']A virtual enemy - created by your government, fed by your government and exploited by your government to steer you, to manipulate you, to limit you. War is peace, freedom is slavery. You may leave, drone.


Oh, who are you to call me a drone when all you hear is one side of the story.

the fact that fewer and fewer people want to join it.
You always say the right things!

i didn't mean to sound so serious. hehe

if people want to register distaste for the military, they could become Quakers. hehe
Hmmmm...as an atheist, that could be problematic for me. So no. :eek:

I wish people would check their facts. Bullshit clogs up these forums. I despair.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/mil_con&int=-1
Interesting link, yes, but I fear they use a problematic definition of "conscription".

Many of those countries listed as having "no conscription" most certainly do not have Volunteer Militaries in the sense the US does...

IMO any country that has a "National Service Requirement" engages in conscription.

But according to them, Uganda's military is an all "volunteer" force... :rolleyes:

the fact that fewer and fewer people want to join it.

Pwned!!!!!!!!!!11111 Kick some consie ass!

Oh, who are you to call me a drone when all you hear is one side of the story.

But do you not agree that the Islamic fundamentalists that you are so hellbent to fight now, have a good reason for fighting?

You created your own problem there. Undelia assured people in another thread that fundamentalist Islam is a religion of hate. You cannot possibly think that. Bloody hell, Christianity and Islam is basically the same thing. Jews saw part one, Christians part one and two, and the Muslims saw the whole triology of the movie. They all pray to the same bloody god!

No one just attacks someone without a reason. And American foreign policy in the middle east was that reason, wasn't it? How can you argue that all the things that happened there were not enough to outrage some of the locals to such an extent?

We have heard your side of the story. We hear it everyday. Terrorists attack here, attack there. Evildoers! They can't be negotiated with! Why? Because we define them as terrorists.

You are about a thousand times more likely to be killed by a lighting rather than a terrorist. Yet you do not attack Canada because a storm could came to you over the border. Believe me, most of this whole terrorism hype you are creating for yourself, my friend.

What's the best thing going for the US military?
Nothing.

Nothing.
Your comment is insightful, fresh thinking which has not yet been imparted on this thread. Kudos to you, good sir!

I like their college tuition reimbursement plan.

I love people who say "China is just Soviet Union 1960", silly little children. The new Type 96 Chinese MBT can compete with the M1A1 Abrams and the British Challenger tank. And the Chinese have a massive personnel leap on the US. However due to trade relations, war will probably never break out. Its kinda odd that we are all: "Cold war over!" and China and Russia is all "COLD WAR STILL ON CAPITALIST PIGS" Silly kids today...

And we did. But we will never forget those that followed us and those that chose to remain idle and criticize.

And we will remember who our friends are in their time of need. Simple.

A friend who tries to engage you in robbing a bank or some similar activity is no friend at all. That's how they saw it.

The fact that, despite the protestations of the Left and Europe at how "evil" it is, USian young people STILL volunteer for our military - both Active and Reserve.

I wonder why they have to be conscripted virtually everywhere else? I guess young people elsewhere don't believe that, in the balance, their countries (or geopolitical interests) are worth defending.

(Disclaimer: this is not a position advocating interventionisim. This statement is based solely on the position that you cannot have local defenders if you don't have soldiers. Ours are totally voluntary. Volunteers trump conscripts everywhere it's tried.)

Maybe its the army gives health cover. Duh.

So, whats the best thing about our armed forces? The men, the technology, the arament, the attitude. Vote and if its not listed, then tell me. I like our intel and infantry the most and for you military freaks out there, here's the future of our G.I.s.

http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/index.htm

Please do not comment on how stupid the U.S. military is. The question is what is the best part of the U.S. military; a question that could be validly asked about any country's military to find out what people think are its strengths and weaknesses.
Perhaps the best is Abu Graib since the US is the only state that gets away with it. Like the Goelags and the Concentration camps in Germany in the 30-40'ies, a powerfull abuse of human rights. I think that is power, acting unpunished and overrulling the laws that have been signed by the violater itself withouth getting punished. Dictature regimes mostly win about 10 years before the free world start to act.

Perhaps the best is Abu Graib since the US is the only state that gets away with it. Like the Goelags and the Concentration camps in Germany in the 30-40'ies, a powerfull abuse of human rights. I think that is power, acting unpunished and overrulling the laws that have been signed by the violater itself withouth getting punished. Dictature regimes mostly win about 10 years before the free world start to act.


Part of me says "yes that was bad" and then people like you come along and make the other part of me wake up. The more evil part. The part that says "Why the hell do we let the media anywhere near our military? We should shoot every one of those rats so the Army can do their job, the job of completing the mission?" But then I remember that's bad, and shooting the media is a bad thing, and is punishable by the law. It also wouldn't go over well with the American Public. And you're right, all of those judicial actions taken by the Army against their employees over Abu Graib were completely an illusion and you never saw them.


Edit: Way to quote the OP and then do exactly what he asked for you not to do. That's reading comprehension at it's finest.

Edit: Way to quote the OP and then do exactly what he asked for you not to do. That's reading comprehension at it's finest.

Try reading :rolleyes: and try better in your provocations.

Nobody here has mentioned the French yet. The French may not have the best quality soldiers(conscripts), but their Technology is actually very good. The Leclerc tank is pretty much even with the Abrams. Their new Dassault Rafale fighter is better than the F-16, and fairly even with the F-16. And their naval yards are beginning many new ships, including a SuperCarrier(In conjunction with the British, of course). French special forces are some of the best in the world(Foreign Legion, Paratroopers, etc.) Say what you want about the French, but they have the best military on the European Mainland, and are fairly even with the Brits in everything but training.

What I really don't understand is why the United States is singled out. If the US slips up one bit, BAM! We are the new Hitler!
As a Chinese-American, every time I visit China I am somewhat disgusted. China has disregarded every human rights law there is. They've murdered people for mearly exercising in a certain fashion (Falun Gong), ran over college students with tanks (Tiananmen Square), and continue to enforce power with an iron fist. They do this continuely. Has the world gotten so used to it we do nothing? Or has your wallet superceded your concience? Why don't we surround China with teh same media coverage for their continous violation of human rights?

Nobody here has mentioned the French yet. The French may not have the best quality soldiers(conscripts), but their Technology is actually very good. The Leclerc tank is pretty much even with the Abrams. Their new Dassault Rafale fighter is better than the F-16, and fairly even with the F-16. And their naval yards are beginning many new ships, including a SuperCarrier(In conjunction with the British, of course). French special forces are some of the best in the world(Foreign Legion, Paratroopers, etc.) Say what you want about the French, but they have the best military on the European Mainland, and are fairly even with the Brits in everything but training.

They've got potential, asides from the fact their men are pansys since the world wars killed all the men and women had to raise them...


:p

Nah, I'd put Britain above them. Only because Britian works so close with the US.

(Falun Gong)

What is that?

I ask only because it's in the lyrics for a new Guns N' Roses song entitled "Chinese Democracy."

What is that?

I ask only because it's in the lyrics for a new Guns N' Roses song entitled "Chinese Democracy."

Practice of the Wheel of Law is the literal translation. It is a Chinese spiritual practice, with some beliefs outwardly similar to those found in Buddhism and Taoism, purporting to improve the mind, body, and spirit. The three basic moral principles of Falun Gong are: Zhen, Shan and Ren, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness, Benevolence or Compassion, and Forbearance or Tolerance'. It is through focusing on these qualities that Falun Gong practitioners say they develop what they call their xinxing (moral character). Many of these qualities can be gained via form of this exercise. The Chinese government became wary of these people and dubbed them an "evil cult" spreading "lies" and started arresting and beating these people. Bastards.

Try reading :rolleyes: and try better in your provocations.

He has a point though... the person who started the thread specifically asked posters not to do what you have done.... although at this point the thread has been hijacked massively anyway long before you piped in.

As to your comments... the survivors of those camps would shake their heads in disgust in your comparisions. Few, if any, of the people in Gitmo are actually innocent of anything. Most were captured under arms fighting against the US and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and at best were mercenaries working for the Taliban and Al Queda, at worst were terrorists and thugs guilty of a lot of atrocities against women and children in the name of their version of Islamic Law in that very country. A few of them who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time have actually been released, and that information on their cases (the actual cases files themselves) is readily available on the internet.

Those in the Gulags and the Concentration Camps were simply innocents who happened to run afoul of the NKVD/KGB of the Soviet Union, or the SS/Gestapo of Nazi Germany.

Comparing the US Military to the Soviets or Nazis is actually pretty silly from an historians viewpoint. Pure rhetoric without justification or basis.

Nobody here has mentioned the French yet. The French may not have the best quality soldiers(conscripts), but their Technology is actually very good. The Leclerc tank is pretty much even with the Abrams. Their new Dassault Rafale fighter is better than the F-16, and fairly even with the F-16. And their naval yards are beginning many new ships, including a SuperCarrier(In conjunction with the British, of course). French special forces are some of the best in the world(Foreign Legion, Paratroopers, etc.) Say what you want about the French, but they have the best military on the European Mainland, and are fairly even with the Brits in everything but training.

Although they do have a good military, and a very professional one now, their historical record hasn't exactly been the most successful. They won in Algeria twice and lost once (the last time), won once in Indochina (1880s) and lost once (1950s) lost twice against the Germans and won once (with a lot of help). Not the stuff of winning traditions. Oh well, they still make good weapons, and the Free French fought well in World War II, as did the Vichy (against the Allies though)

What I really don't understand is why the United States is singled out. If the US slips up one bit, BAM! We are the new Hitler!
As a Chinese-American, every time I visit China I am somewhat disgusted. China has disregarded every human rights law there is. They've murdered people for mearly exercising in a certain fashion (Falun Gong), ran over college students with tanks (Tiananmen Square), and continue to enforce power with an iron fist. They do this continuely. Has the world gotten so used to it we do nothing? Or has your wallet superceded your concience? Why don't we surround China with teh same media coverage for their continous violation of human rights?

an excellent question.... curious to see what the answer will be too. It has always been fashionable in Leftist circles to criticize the US (and Western European democracies as well) for any civil rights abuses while ignoring blatant and rather horrific abuses in China (as well as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia). The Left was embarrassingly silent during the Killing Fields era of Pol Pots rule for example.

Protest all they want, the historical record has been very clear on that subject. The Left would rather ignore abuses in the Third World or Leftist World in order to pick on easier targets in their own lands or friendly nations. Human nature maybe? Good question though.

Although they do have a good military, and a very professional one now, their historical record hasn't exactly been the most successful. They won in Algeria twice and lost once (the last time), won once in Indochina (1880s) and lost once (1950s) lost twice against the Germans and won once (with a lot of help). Not the stuff of winning traditions. Oh well, they still make good weapons, and the Free French fought well in World War II, as did the Vichy (against the Allies though)

Yeah,

The French do have a good military. But it's hard to say that because of the whole World War 2 thing.

Even though they did put up a fairly well resistance.

an excellent question.... curious to see what the answer will be too. It has always been fashionable in Leftist circles to criticize the US (and Western European democracies as well) for any civil rights abuses while ignoring blatant and rather horrific abuses in China (as well as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia). The Left was embarrassingly silent during the Killing Fields era of Pol Pots rule for example.

Protest all they want, the historical record has been very clear on that subject. The Left would rather ignore abuses in the Third World or Leftist World in order to pick on easier targets in their own lands or friendly nations. Human nature maybe? Good question though.

I was on another messageboard with a guy that was calling American evil and stuff. Saying that we were the Nazi's and stuff (he's Irish,) and when I said "You must not care about the people in Iraq" he called it a human rights abuse on my part and threatened to seek legal help.

an excellent question.... curious to see what the answer will be too. It has always been fashionable in Leftist circles to criticize the US (and Western European democracies as well) for any civil rights abuses while ignoring blatant and rather horrific abuses in China (as well as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia). The Left was embarrassingly silent during the Killing Fields era of Pol Pots rule for example.

Protest all they want, the historical record has been very clear on that subject. The Left would rather ignore abuses in the Third World or Leftist World in order to pick on easier targets in their own lands or friendly nations. Human nature maybe? Good question though.

And the right only criticize when their wallet isn't affected, or will grow if action is taken. A generalization, but no more incorrect as the one you made. Everybody, be they Left or Right, has their own personal gain in mind before doing anything, especially in politics. If you don't really think so, take a long hard look at history. (Almost)Everybody is out for personal gain, regardless of how it affects others.

It's all about power projection. It doesn't matter if you have a million-man army, if they can barely get past your own borders you're not going to have much of an outcome in the world theater.

http://mars.walagata.com/w/odin/armyx10.jpg

This seems to be a bit one sided don't you think? Oh...I smell pride.

P.S in case you didn't notice, not everyone in the world is in favour of your army, or to put it better, the armies leaders.

To all you nuts talking about the next Chinese Empire:

China doesn't spend a fraction of what we spend on the military. They are modernizing, yes. They will be a superpower sometime very soon, but that won't mean that they will simply go on some conquering spree and rule the world.

China needs to build up its Navy and Air Force first.

As far as whats the best thing about the US armed forces, where's the "all of the above" button.

This seems to be a bit one sided don't you think? Oh...I smell pride.

P.S in case you didn't notice, not everyone in the world is in favour of your army, or to put it better, the armies leaders.

You're free of course to make a poll about who has the best army, but I doubt you could come up with something that can withstand the full force of US armed forces.

And the right only criticize when their wallet isn't affected, or will grow if action is taken. A generalization, but no more incorrect as the one you made. Everybody, be they Left or Right, has their own personal gain in mind before doing anything, especially in politics. If you don't really think so, take a long hard look at history. (Almost)Everybody is out for personal gain, regardless of how it affects others.

my what a cynic.... a lot of people act from altruism, on both the Right and the Left. Usually though when they have the luxury of being able to though. Most Westerners who are Middle Class at the least have that luxury frequently.

I wasn't sticking up for the Right, simply pointing out that the Left has its problems when it comes to consistancy. The Right tends to believe they are completely correct as well. Life isn't that simple, and neither is politics.

I am a Centrist, which means both the Right and Left annoy me frequently when they confuse ideology with reality.

This seems to be a bit one sided don't you think? Oh...I smell pride.

P.S in case you didn't notice, not everyone in the world is in favour of your army, or to put it better, the armies leaders.

however the point of the thread is what is going well with the US Army, not is it being used the way it should be.

You're free of course to make a poll about who has the best army, but I doubt you could come up with something that can withstand the full force of US armed forces.

one thing I think people are missing is why the US Army is very effective. It is because we spend a lot of money on training. The Army has also developed very strong and effective doctrine, which is why the Allies beat the Iraqi military in less than a month on two occasions. The technological edge helps a lot, but it isn't the only thing.

The problem now is that the Army is fighting a war it wasn't trained for and only a few of its leaders have even seen (a few old generals and sergeants who saw the end of the Vietnam era will all be retiring or have done so).

Its a dirty war too, with an enemy who blows up children to make a political point and murders aid workers to install fear. What surprises me is how few abuses on our side have occured so far.

You're free of course to make a poll about who has the best army, but I doubt you could come up with something that can withstand the full force of US armed forces.

To that? Thermonuclear arms and global delivery systems. If everything is glass or poison, there's not much point to having an army anymore is there?

EDIT: However, only nations with sufficient stockpiles count. You will need several hundred of these weapons at least. The other side can help contribute once the missiles fly.

It doesn't - the US Military should be disbanded immediately and the Commander-in-Chief (yes, that means you Dubya, and bring good ol' Daddy with you for good measure) put on trial for Crimes against Humanity

?


Ill second that.

This seems to be a bit one sided don't you think? Oh...I smell pride.

P.S in case you didn't notice, not everyone in the world is in favour of your army, or to put it better, the armies leaders.

You say that as though we might actually care what the rest of the world thinks. In case you haven't noticed, the hallmark of being an American is:

a) we don't know what you think, and
b) we don't care

Perhaps if the rest of the world didn't have its little halfwit peccadillos, such as the Middle East mess, which I recall originates from some British diplomat arbitrarily drawing lines here and there on the map and saying, "and this country will be called Jordan", we wouldn't be coming around to kick ass.

You say that as though we might actually care what the rest of the world thinks. In case you haven't noticed, the hallmark of being an American is:

a) we don't know what you think, and
b) we don't care

Perhaps if the rest of the world didn't have its little halfwit peccadillos, such as the Middle East mess, which I recall originates from some British diplomat arbitrarily drawing lines here and there on the map and saying, "and this country will be called Jordan", we wouldn't be coming around to kick ass.

hey hey hee hahahahahahahaha hee he . . .oh. . .oh god that hurts. :D
I am very much laughing with you not at you.

Ever hear of US Navy Seals or Green Berets?

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


Compared to the SAS they are regular soldiers. When 14 SAS soldiers attacked an Argentine garrision in the Falkland War, they thought they were being attacked by an entire battlion of British soldiers. They surrendered.
Then of course you have the Gurkhas. They have these swords that once drawn must draw blood. In other words they don't usually take prisoners. THEY ROCK

Compared to the SAS they are regular soldiers.

Keep dreaming.

Good advice, you are taking it well I must say.

Also, out here on the big bad web, you are talking to the WORLD. If you want respect, or even a fair hearing when the US goes down the crapper you could try civilization now.

Acting all high and mighty is what got the UK into problems and left the middle-east screwed up. Try learning from our mistakes for once.

Nobody here has mentioned the French yet. The French may not have the best quality soldiers(conscripts), but their Technology is actually very good. The Leclerc tank is pretty much even with the Abrams. Their new Dassault Rafale fighter is better than the F-16, and fairly even with the F-16. And their naval yards are beginning many new ships, including a SuperCarrier(In conjunction with the British, of course). French special forces are some of the best in the world(Foreign Legion, Paratroopers, etc.) Say what you want about the French, but they have the best military on the European Mainland, and are fairly even with the Brits in everything but training.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/frenchy1.jpg

:eek: :p :D

I still remember the comments at the Paris Air Show when the Rafale rolled out for its first demonstration flight.

One reporter commented, "The French have finally invented the F-102".

Hate to break it to you, but the F-16 is US 1970s technology. If the Rafale is only as good as the F-16, you're doing something wrong.

The Mig-29 and Su-27 (and later Su models) are all excellent, and with certain weapon systems have an advantage over any Western fighter.

The IR short range helmet-sighted missiles of the Mig-29, for instance, are not matched by any Western fighter. The pilot only has to look at you and pull the trigger - he doesn't have to turn his plane to get a lock with the IR homing missiles.

The F-22 is far superior to the Rafale, as is the F-15.

I would also note that the Leclerc is not as mobile as the Abrams, nor is it proven in combat, nor are the French crews anywhere near as competent as the Americans (who are second to the German tank crews in most respects).

The Abrams also has a maintenance and readiness record that is unmatched by any modern MBT. Changing out an Abrams engine or working on one is easier and quicker than any other MBT engine.

Compared to the SAS they are regular soldiers. When 14 SAS soldiers attacked an Argentine garrision in the Falkland War, they thought they were being attacked by an entire battlion of British soldiers. They surrendered.
Then of course you have the Gurkhas. They have these swords that once drawn must draw blood. In other words they don't usually take prisoners. THEY ROCK

I don't think the SAS is better than the SEAL's or Green Beret's... or a standard Batallion of Marines. Although I do like the tactics SAS units use better.

The Problem with US Spec Op's is that they are used SO much; but the Delta Force is still my favorite.

You say that as though we might actually care what the rest of the world thinks. In case you haven't noticed, the hallmark of being an American is:

a) we don't know what you think, and
b) we don't care

Perhaps if the rest of the world didn't have its little halfwit peccadillos, such as the Middle East mess, which I recall originates from some British diplomat arbitrarily drawing lines here and there on the map and saying, "and this country will be called Jordan", we wouldn't be coming around to kick ass.

YOU'RE MY NEW HERO!

:p

The think I love about the US Military is the fact that we're so far ahead/above everyone else we can experiment around alot.

Anyone heard of the Stryker APCs? An APC that can carry 8 people fully armored, go 70 MPH, and carry a whole slew of different weapons.

The things in Iraq have done GREAT, and the best thing about it?

They can be loaded into the backs of C130's and put anywhere in the world in under 72 hours.

I don't think the SAS is better than the SEAL's or Green Beret's... or a standard Batallion of Marines. Although I do like the tactics SAS units use better.

The Problem with US Spec Op's is that they are used SO much; but the Delta Force is still my favorite.

You have got to be absolutely kidding. How could anyone in their right mind compare a standard US Marine Batt to the SAS? It was the SAS who INVENTED the tactics and doctrines used by US (and the rest of the worlds)special forces. The US marines are an elite fighting force, maybe comparible to the Royal Marines or the Spanish Foreign Legion, but no way are they anywhere near the calibre of the SAS.

You have got to be absolutely kidding. How could anyone in their right mind compare a standard US Marine Batt to the SAS? It was the SAS who INVENTED the tactics and doctrines used by US (and the rest of the worlds)special forces. The US marines are an elite fighting force, maybe comparible to the Royal Marines or the Spanish Foreign Legion, but no way are they anywhere near the calibre of the SAS.

I usually lump the SAS in with the US Special Forces, the SEALS...

Oddly, I find that the French Foreign Legion commando training more closely parallels the Ranger training in the US, and the units are used more along the same lines as the Rangers - but the FFL seems to have a lot more investment in what I call "woodpecker lips".

Take their long ruck marches - over 120km or more at a stretch. It's harder than it sounds. You end up with some hard people if you do that sort of thing on a regular basis - they become inured to hardship (which I think is the idea they have).

I usually lump the SAS in with the US Special Forces, the SEALS...

Oddly, I find that the French Foreign Legion commando training more closely parallels the Ranger training in the US, and the units are used more along the same lines as the Rangers - but the FFL seems to have a lot more investment in what I call "woodpecker lips".

Take their long ruck marches - over 120km or more at a stretch. It's harder than it sounds. You end up with some hard people if you do that sort of thing on a regular basis - they become inured to hardship (which I think is the idea they have).

SAS training is similiar to that. From speaking to other soldiers/military people I've found thjat in general most US military physical training (PT) tends to concentrate on things like numbers of gym reps and feats of strength. The difference with the SAS (and, as you pointed out, the Legion and the US Army Rangers) is their concentration on physical stamina. SAS training culminates in the infamous "Fan Dance" - a 200 km trek with full kit up and over a Welsh mountain.

SAS training is similiar to that. From speaking to other soldiers/military people I've found thjat in general most US military physical training (PT) tends to concentrate on things like numbers of gym reps and feats of strength. The difference with the SAS (and, as you pointed out, the Legion and the US Army Rangers) is their concentration on physical stamina. SAS training culminates in the infamous "Fan Dance" - a 200 km trek with full kit up and over a Welsh mountain.

The standard distance in the Army (for a minimum standard for all soldiers, regardless of gender or specialty) is 12 miles in 3 hours.

I could run 12 miles in 2 hours carrying 60 pounds and a rifle - 12 miles is not anything like the 100+ km movement. And for the first two miles, I was averaging about 6 minutes 15 seconds per mile.

I've gone as far as 40 miles, and that just took the sap out of me. I'm convinced, however, that if you do that fairly regularly, you're a much tougher person.

I think the US Army is counting on having vehicles or helicopters available.

The FFL, on the other hand, seems to be thinking that after the Super Frelon drops you off, you might have to walk 150km or more to get to the next pickup point.

Yeah, the US Army has dropped out of the mindset of "we'll drop you off on this side of the country and you'll run to the other side."

Now they fly Blackhawks in and let them out right on top of the target in the Delta Force.

I believe all the money that's been poured into the Stryker's pretty well sums that up.

I still remember the comments at the Paris Air Show when the Rafale rolled out for its first demonstration flight.

One reporter commented, "The French have finally invented the F-102".

Hate to break it to you, but the F-16 is US 1970s technology. If the Rafale is only as good as the F-16, you're doing something wrong.

The Mig-29 and Su-27 (and later Su models) are all excellent, and with certain weapon systems have an advantage over any Western fighter.

The IR short range helmet-sighted missiles of the Mig-29, for instance, are not matched by any Western fighter. The pilot only has to look at you and pull the trigger - he doesn't have to turn his plane to get a lock with the IR homing missiles.

The F-22 is far superior to the Rafale, as is the F-15.

You my friend make a very good point. I was thinking just that but was waiting for someone else to post it. If its only as good as the F-16, then damn are the french screwed in an aerial showdown. Not that I care if they get slaughtered or anything :D

China will win. It's not a matter of if, it's when.

They are many. They are loyal. They are smart. They are industrious. And they are patient. They have waited for eons, and will do so until the Western world has destroyed itself. Then the Chinese Empire will bloom again and embrace the world in its arms.

Brush up on your Mandarin.

Wow, this thread exploded since last checking.

But really, did I ever say that China even HAS to have a military? They're not stupid enough to waste their time trying to conquer the world. They'll just wait until we slaughter ourselves into oblivion. After all, even if they never claim superiority, they benefit from every war. Their industry runs the world. The only way to stop them is for the rest of us to die, because no matter what you think of in the economy, at least a fraction of that money goes back to China.

They will wait. And they will succeed. And I am just as afraid as you are.