The United States in #1....(just check out all of these facts!!!) - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-18-2002, 05:01 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Kingpin,
Can you name the military exercise that proves British, Canadian, German, and Israeli troops are better trained than Americans? Most joint exercises and games that take place in Germany, the Americans usually win out. In addition, where were the British, German, and Canadian forces during the Kosovo Campaign? Due to lack of all weather capability for its fighters, and not Sattellite guided munitions, they had to sit on the sidelines during the campaign and the USA did nearly all the work. Only the British have any real global power projection capability, and its a tiny fraction of the USA. Still I feel that these countries including the USA need to better fund their militaries. Many people here don't understand that weapons and technology once built have to be upgraded or replaced eventually as new technology becomes available.

History has shown that when countries ignore their national security they become vulnerable to attack. The Massive defense spending of the Cold War by the USA and Allies helped prevent World War III. NATO has proved to be a massive success, both in the Cold War and Post Cold War in Europe. Never again will be go back to the days prior to World War II. The fact is, the more that is spent on defense, the less a country bleeds when it goes to war. The 1991 Gulf War is a perfect example. As for as your example with Nuclear Weapons, since the 1960s the US policy with Nuclear Weapons has been "Flexible Response". This means we will fight a conventianal attack with conventional means, nuclear with nuclear, although it does not completely for go the option of using nuclear weapons to combat a conventional attack. But essentially, the nuclear weapons we have are last resort weapons used only in retaliation for a nuclear attack.

My father served in the Military for 30 years and I have several friends in the military today. This and living in a military family has helped me realize the struggles that are men and women face in the US military. I want to see the best possible technology be devoloped on a constant basis for US weapons, because this gives are soldiers more power to successfully win conflicts in a shorter time frame there by reducing loss of life on both sides. Of course the better trained and equiped a military force is, the smaller the number of losses will be when its time for combat. Also many people don't realize that a large part of the military budget goes to pay the men and women who serve in the military. Many of which have families to support. When you look at defense spending, you need to look at the whole picture, and not just a lump sum of money. Peoples lives are directly effected when defense spending is cut in more ways than you can imagine. Yes, looking at the budget and the missions, training, weapons systems, and other capabilities, the US does need to increase military spending after the Clinton holiday years. There is a whole generation of weapon systems that have served us very very well but are now old and need to be replaced with new and better technology now available. I could list more things but I do not have time at the moment.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2002, 05:17 PM   #62
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:55 AM
I should clarify. The war games exercise took place in a forested area in Newfoundland, Canada. It wasn't a general war game... it was for elite troops... the British SAS, the Canadian JTF, the American Green Berets, and so on for the other Countries. It didn't get finished, due to an unexpected forest fire towards the end. There was no decided winner, although the US were one of the first group captured.

I forget the name of the operation, and I can't search for it, cause it's half-secret. My roommate was in the Canadian military for several years, and told me the name. I'll try to remember it.

From what I know, the average US troop is trained only specially. The jeep drivers are excellent jeep drivers, but if the jeep breaks down, they phone for a mechanic, and wait for him to show up. Where as Canadian troops are more well-rounded and versatile. My friend was doing in 2 years what many privates in the USA would only do after 4 or 5. And in joint practice operations between the USA and Canada, we do everything alongside the USA just as well as them, except with equipment that's 20 years old, and usually twice as heavy.

As for things like the Kosovo campaign, our troops are internationally known for their quality peacekeeping, and usually among the first called... be it Bosnia or Kosovo or whatever.
__________________

__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-18-2002, 08:00 PM   #63
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Can you tell me where you get that information from, please? Thank-you
I don't know about terrorism, though I believe Bubba to be an accurate source of info, therefore if he said it I would tend to believe it.

As far as N. Korea being dangerous and a legitamite member of the Axis of Evil, let me just speak from expericence what I can.

In 91-92 I was stationed there for a year. I was 11 miles approx from the DMZ. At our location we were referred to as a speed bump to the North should they ever invade. All we could do would be to slow them up until massive reinforcements arrived, and pray that China stays out of it.

It is no secret that the North Koreans are impoverished. We send aid to them and food, goes right to their army and their civilians never see it. They are desperate and the idea of invading a rather prosperous South Korea is a dream shared by thier leader as well as the majority of their nation. The theory is "what do we have to lose"?

Yet they have spies coming over daily, once a high ranking defector came over (in 1997) and was under protective custody form South officials. He was abruptly assasinated by someone later determined to be a spy, who once in custody was also assasinated.

I was back over in S Korea again in 96-97 as a civilian and we had submarines from the North running ashore on the coast along the South. Once tracked down, the entire crew of the sub had been murdered by their commander, who in turn committed suicide. THis has happened more than once.

Another common occourance would be fence-line shootings along the DMZ. It happens all of the time, people wounded and dead as a result. The souths border is patrolled by American and ROK (Republic of Korea) soldiers, the north is obviously patrolled by the north.

The war never officially ended, they have been at cease-fire for 50 years. In 1994 tensions got really high with the failing health of North Korea's leader. (I might add, his son promised him he would bury him in Seoul!) Every major news publication from here to Panmonjun predicted an attack by the north. President Bill Clinton, in one of his finer moments, stated that if the North attacks we would just nuke them! Looks like they believed him.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 07-18-2002, 08:32 PM   #64
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin
I should clarify. The war games exercise took place in a forested area in Newfoundland, Canada. It wasn't a general war game... it was for elite troops... the British SAS, the Canadian JTF, the American Green Berets, and so on for the other Countries. It didn't get finished, due to an unexpected forest fire towards the end. There was no decided winner, although the US were one of the first group captured.
Just because we were among the first to be captured dosen't mean anything. It is embarassing, I will admit, but it dosen't mean we would lose in a real situation and not some boring exercise that these boys could complete in their sleep.


Quote:
From what I know, the average US troop is trained only specially. The jeep drivers are excellent jeep drivers, but if the jeep breaks down, they phone for a mechanic, and wait for him to show up. Where as Canadian troops are more well-rounded and versatile. My friend was doing in 2 years what many privates in the USA would only do after 4 or 5. And in joint practice operations between the USA and Canada, we do everything alongside the USA just as well as them, except with equipment that's 20 years old, and usually twice as heavy.
Two excellent points you have made here:

Although some of our troops are well-rounded enough to fix our hum-vee's (HMMWV) and drive them too as well as talk and chew bubble-gum . Our military structure is based on every indinidual soldier having a wealth of knowledge and experience but specalizing in one particular field. The reason, we have so many fields that (literally 100's of possible fields) that many smaller militaries don't incorporate.

And your arguement that your friend was doing in 2 years what a private would do in 4 or 5 is false. First off, a private (enlisted grade 1-3) cannot exceed 24 months (2 years) of service without advancing to the next grade of Specialist (hence specialize) or they will be forced out of the military.

I don't doubt that you could do everything beside us as well, but with equipment twice as heavy?? Be specific please, also 20 years older?? Maybe you mean the jeeps. This counters you point when you say this because it shows that our equipment is not only lighter and more ergonomically correct, but also newer. Thus giving us an advantage in real military operations.


Quote:
As for things like the Kosovo campaign, our troops are internationally known for their quality peacekeeping, and usually among the first called... be it Bosnia or Kosovo or whatever.
And who do you think trains your troops? We do of course. And we train at all of our major academies officers from all of our allied countries to include Canadians.

A word about our training. Upon initial entry, our troops go through a very basic training that lasts a couple months officially but is only the beginning of the training our troops receive. They next go into specialized training which is the field they will work in their military career. The troops will constantly be certified in weapons marksmanship in all different climates, the wearing of nuclear, biological , and chemical gear and masks in a contaminated enviornment, first aid for any sceneraio, and literally hundreds of common tasks that range from identifying terrain features and path-finding to setting up mines.

As I stated before, the training starts and never ends throughout a career. Notice I said career, America's all-volunteer army has the advantage of trained and seasoned veterans to guide new recruits and experienced decision-making in hostile situations.

The physical fitness program is also a success, if you look at the success rate of the health of the average 40 year old military member vs. civilian. The troops conduct PT or physical training every morning, and use of the gyms is free and highly encouraged.

As far as our elite forces are concerned, we have the best in the world by far. We currently train virtually every one else's elite forces (except for terrorists and axis of evil participants).

As Bubba and I have stated, our military is not running full strength on personnel considering the way we were set up. To operate in this capacity we need to get to the level of readiness envisioned at the very east by the initial reduction in force enacted by George H. W. Bush and not the level that was allowed by Bill Clinton.

Having said this, it is my firm belief that the terrorists that ordered the 911 attacks they been planning it for years were hurried by the results of the 2000 election. They knew that a newly elected George W. Bush would hunt them down and rout them out so they had better get their attack in before he builds our military back up where it should be.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 07-19-2002, 12:32 AM   #65
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge

Just because we were among the first to be captured dosen't mean anything. It is embarassing, I will admit, but it dosen't mean we would lose in a real situation and not some boring exercise that these boys could complete in their sleep.
It doesn't mean you'd win either. It does suggest that you would lose though. If these gentlemen can't beat other countries in a competition highlighting tactical skill (hardly a boring exercise), then I don't know how succesful they'd be in an actual situation.

Quote:

Two excellent points you have made here:

Although some of our troops are well-rounded enough to fix our hum-vee's (HMMWV) and drive them too as well as talk and chew bubble-gum . Our military structure is based on every indinidual soldier having a wealth of knowledge and experience but specalizing in one particular field. The reason, we have so many fields that (literally 100's of possible fields) that many smaller militaries don't incorporate.

And your arguement that your friend was doing in 2 years what a private would do in 4 or 5 is false. First off, a private (enlisted grade 1-3) cannot exceed 24 months (2 years) of service without advancing to the next grade of Specialist (hence specialize) or they will be forced out of the military.

I don't doubt that you could do everything beside us as well, but with equipment twice as heavy?? Be specific please, also 20 years older?? Maybe you mean the jeeps. This counters you point when you say this because it shows that our equipment is not only lighter and more ergonomically correct, but also newer. Thus giving us an advantage in real military operations.
As to the specialization... in this particular war game thing, a US driver and jeep was driving some Canadians somewhere. When the Jeep broke down, he called for help, and sat... and waited. They asked if he would at least take a look at it to fix it... and he told them that he was a driver. So they hopped off and walked, leaving him there.

You may be right about privates moving up after 24 months... but still that gives them one specialization, does it not? I believe my friend was saying he'd have the same level of training sooner and would have greater knowledge after 2 years. But you know what, this is all second-hand, and as a result, useless.

The equipment, though, is definitely that old. Our guns are ancient. And way heavier. The US Army has way better equipment, I'm not debating that. Their stuff is all titanium and aluminum and lightweight and hi-tech. Our stuff is old and heavy and cumbersome. No need to be specific... virtually everything we have is old and outdated. Yet we still manage to perform well right alongside the US troops.

Quote:

As far as our elite forces are concerned, we have the best in the world by far. We currently train virtually every one else's elite forces (except for terrorists and axis of evil participants).
I don't believe you here. The British SAS are world-known for their survival skills and guerilla tactics. Same with the Canadian JTF... they're the ones who use lasers from 100 feet to point at the bomb targets in Afghanistan. And if they were the "best in the world by far" then they wouldn't be losing early on in war games would they?
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-19-2002, 04:02 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Kingpin,
There our hundreds of joint training exercises around the world with many countries every year! It would be foolish to take only one exercise by a small group of soldiers which may have happened a year or more ago and use that as the only example to back up your assertion. Canada has a rather tiny armed forces. The largest military unit they have is just a Mechanized brigade. Thats 1/3 the size of a Division. I also know of several Armored exercises where the Americans have consistently defeated the Germans and British. The competion is fierce though. In Germany, there are yearly tank competitions and the Americans win most of the time against the Brits and Germans. I'm not sure if the Canadians participate as they only have around 100 1960s era German Leopard 1s in their entire Tank Fleet. I'm sure the Canadians are great soldiers, but nothing from my Father who served in the US military for 30 years or my friends currently serving in the US military has indicated that the Canadians are superior in individual ability to US forces.

One exception of course is Israel. It is possible due to the fact that they fight a full scale war with the Arab countries on average of every 10 years, that this experience translates into slight edge in the average individual ability of its troops. In addition the constant state of war and the fact they everyone has to serve in the military leads to a large pool of people from which to draw elite troops. Then again, Israel is a very small country.

Speaking of the Canadian military or rather the Canadian government, I think its time they started to put more money into defense and contribute more to NATO. Even on a per capita basis, Canada's yearly military spending is less than half US military spending. They need to bring their military into the 21st century and double its size.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-19-2002, 12:07 PM   #67
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:55 AM
I admit I don't have the evidence to back up my claim here, I can only go from what I've been told my other military personnel.

I don't think we should spend more on the military. Everybody loves Canada. Nobody is going to attack us... and we're not going to attack anyone either. I think we should get new equipment to replace the outdated stuff, and maybe try to enlist more people, but that's it. I sure as hell don't want to be a nuclear power, or anything close to the size or strength of the US Army.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-19-2002, 03:02 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:55 AM
I think Canada should do its share of defense though. It can be as large as the USA simply because its 1/10 the size of the USA both in population and economy. But its military should be at least 1/10 the size of the US military. Canada is a NATO member and is required to defend all NATO member countries as if they were apart of Canada. Canada has defense commitments throughout western Europe into Eastern Europe in Poland, Czech Rep., and Hungary like all NATO members. Canada's national security concerns extend far beyond its borders just like the USA. In the 21st century, industrial countries like Canada and the USA do a high volume of international trade in addition to needing natural recources found in other countries. Canada there for has interest all across the globe that need to be defended and secured. In addition, there are a lot of Canadians that work overseas for Canadian or other countries businesses in addition to government personal. The point is that Canada's interest that need to be defended extend far beyond its borders.

The USA right now is providing far more than its share in this collective defense effort. Canada should at least have a military 1/10 the size of the US military. This means that the Canadian military needs to expand from its current size of 61,000 to about 140,000 troops. Canada currently spends 11 Billion dollars on defense in the past year. Canada should increase this to 35 billion to bring it in line on a per capita basis with the USA. Its time Canada started to pay its fair share for the defense that the USA often provides it overseas.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-19-2002, 06:09 PM   #69
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Kingpin,

I agree with STING but I'm really not in the frame to debate anything tonight. All of these boys are bad-ass, mine yours and whoever else.

I would like to suggest to you a good book to read however if you are intrested in this subject. It is 'Rogue Warrior' written by Dick Marcinko, the man who formed the Navy SEALS. It is a bad-ass book and a must read for anyone interested in elite forces. I read it 7 years ago in Egypt, and I damn near tried to join the Army Special Forces after reading it I was so hype!

Enjoy
__________________

__________________
z edge is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com