Concerning the great worries about the self defence capabilities of Europeans.

[Kagemusha]

While i was enjoying myself reading certain thread that is currently closed i stumbled upon a certain list which some of you might find interesting. In the thread i mentioned before a certain well known member of our small internet community expressed his concerns about how Europeans are basically helpless in face of any real threats. So i leaned back and thought what might be a good indicator for such complex issue of populations capability of waging war and even more important their willingness, which that certain member was so vehemently worried about. Well i decided to do a little search and i found a really nice indicator, if we generalize things to extremes:

military personnel/ population ratio.

So basically how many military personnel Country has compared to how many people they have. Then i stumbled into an interesting list,here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

And what i see? When you look at certain larger North American country and find their place from the total of military personnel per 1000 people, strange thing happened. The country was on the 71st place when you look at how many people actually have military training out of 1000 people. Ultra militaristic European countries like: Finland 11th, Bulgaria 15th, Creece 20th, Switzerland 21st, Estonia 23rd, Portugal 24th, Sweden 25th, Austria 26th, Montenegro 33rd, Moldova 36th, Norway 40th, Denmark 41st, Spain 49th, Serbia 55th, Croatia 60th, Romania 62nd, Hungary 65th, Lithuania 67th and Italy at 70th place, have more military trained people compared to whole population then.....I am sure you already guessed? Yes: The United States of America. So should we now start worrying that the population of USA has lost their war like Nature and might be heading towards certain doom as their warrior spirit and willingness to serve their country has faded?

Naturally i am only joking as i dont think there is any such problem.I just wanted to give out some interesting statistics to have something to actually base any assumptions.~;)

[Andres]

The sinews of war are infinite money - Marcus Tullius Cicero


The US used to be full of men who were ideal to the ways of war, and the only thing that could hold the US military back was a lack of funding or good military technology.
The problem with the US military TODAY is not its' lack of funding or sophisticated weaponry, but the lack of good citizens, and therefore the lack of effective fighting men available to them. The rest of the world (most Western European countries, most Asian countries, most South American countries, and most Eastern European countries, and many African countries) has no shortage of able bodied and minded men who have been raised in a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers.

The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli


It will be the countries who have both the good citizens/soldiers AND the economy to support large scale organized warfare that will shape the future of the world. Wealthy countries with no means of guarding their wealth will simply be juicy prizes for those countries who have BOTH the elements needed to be great. The US will simply be a fatted duck for Russia, China, India, the EU, etc to fight over.


That is my take on the military situation of the US. The world always tends toward disorder, and the longer countries exist, the more corrupt they will become. The more corrupt countries are, the larger a chance for war. If history has shown one thing, it is that humans will ALWAYS go to war with each other. Everytime they devise a way to avoid war through alliances, economic control, etc, it either backfires, or simply delays war a little. Countries not willing to fight will be swallowed up or brought under the direct control of those who are. Depressing? Sure, but that is human nature, and that is why it is important for yourself and your fellow citizen to be vigilant participants in your society to prevent this from happening, AND to be willing to fight if a war does happen. I guess that my point is that most US citizens do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me.

:angel:

[HoreTore]

To be fair, I am one of those who bring Norway's ratio up to 40th place....

And if Norway ever get invaded, my first course of action will be to order myself another drink on the Cuban beach hotel I fled to....

[Andres]

To be fair, I am one of those who bring Norway's ratio up to 40th place....

And if Norway ever get invaded, my first course of action will be to order myself another drink on the Cuban beach hotel I fled to....

Confirming the stereotype of the cowardly Eurowheenie, are we?

Off to the Gulag camps with you :whip:

After all, Europe is also communist :shrug:

[Kagemusha]

Andres.My serious opinion is that this is all fuss about nothing. For example if you count together military forces of European Union the totals are:

Active military personnel: 1,536,274
Reserve force: 4,549,222
Paramilitary: 798,800

total: 6,884,296

Just for reference USA

Active military personnel: 1,445,000
Total Reserve: 833,616

total: 2,278,616

So in matter of fact i think that EU countries have too many military personnel compared to what their task is.Surprising isnt it? Military is among things that European integration might benefit us all. By cutting off elements that are overlapping i am quite sure that EU area could have a military that could have serious long distance strike capabilities, while being more then able to defend our own area and i dont think we would need to even use more money then we are already using. To me scaring people with conventional attack of Russia is more then far fetched. Yes, they have over 1 million active soldiers and 20 million in reserve, but like you pointed out in your post. You need money to wage wars.With a GDP size of Spain, how prolonged conflict you think Russia can maintain with any large size mobilisation? China on the other hand is huge economical power already, but when you look at their military, you can see that they are not even considering starting an arms race with anyone as they dont simply have need for such thing.They rather get more rich, which sounds prettty reasonable.

[Andres]

I was just paraphrasing an expert on the matter.
(https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132867-Europe-and-the-Rest-of-the-World-A-Military-Analysis)

:shame:

[Furunculus]

Andres.My serious opinion is that this is all fuss about nothing. For example if you count together military forces of European Union the totals are:

Active military personnel: 1,536,274
Reserve force: 4,549,222
Paramilitary: 798,800

total: 6,884,296

Just for reference USA

Active military personnel: 1,445,000
Total Reserve: 833,616

total: 2,278,616

So in matter of fact i think that EU countries have too many military personnel compared to what their task is.Surprising isnt it? Military is among things that European integration might benefit us all. By cutting off elements that are overlapping i am quite sure that EU area could have a military that could have serious long distance strike capabilities, while being more then able to defend our own area and i dont think we would need to even use more money then we are already using. To me scaring people with conventional attack of Russia is more then far fetched. Yes, they have over 1 million active soldiers and 20 million in reserve, but like you pointed out in your post. You need money to wage wars.With a GDP size of Spain, how prolonged conflict you think Russia can maintain with any large size mobilisation? China on the other hand is huge economical power already, but when you look at their military, you can see that they are not even considering starting an arms race with anyone as they dont simply have need for such thing.They rather get more rich, which sounds prettty reasonable.

europe does not need to worry about russia's conventional capability, as i have said before; they are a busted flush.

http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/2011/01/russian-army-sucks-but-should-we-care.html

[Kagemusha]

I was just paraphrasing an expert on the matter.
(https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132867-Europe-and-the-Rest-of-the-World-A-Military-Analysis)

:shame:

And fine effort it was.:painting:

[Fisherking]

Just somewhat on topic.

If America deployed most of its 11,036 Paramilitary forces to a war zone, it might tend to make the US a safer place to live. Though I am sure it would have an escalating effect on civilian casualties where ever they employed them.

[Fragony]

Andres how can you as an intelligent man speak such nonsense

[Vladimir]

Clever post. :thumbsup: However remember that the U.S. has an all volunteer Army while many of the other nations mentioned have mandatory military service/conscription. I'll take a volunteer over a conscript any day.

[Furunculus]

agreed, a more useful metric is dollars of defence budget per uniformed serving soldier.

the higher the the figure the more is spent of training and equipment.

[Kagemusha]

Clever post. :thumbsup: However remember that the U.S. has an all volunteer Army while many of the other nations mentioned have mandatory military service/conscription. I'll take a volunteer over a conscript any day.

You mean like Persia had paid volunteers and for Greek city states mandatory service was essential part of being citizen?~;)

[Vladimir]

You mean like Persia had paid volunteers and for Greek city states mandatory service was essential part of being citizen?~;)

Sorry. I don't get it. :no:

Well, I think I understand your statement just not how it relates to my comment. All I'm thinking of now are pomegranates. Yum!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1cLQBQTzkM

Edit: Wait...That makes me sound really gay, doesn't it?

As a follow-up:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAW96N-Vms&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[Kagemusha]

Sorry. I don't get it. :no:

Well, I think I understand your statement just not how it relates to my comment. All I'm thinking of now are pomegranates. Yum!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1cLQBQTzkM

Edit: Wait...That makes me sound really gay, doesn't it?

Well...Um..That is bit out of loop...maybe, but to the point. Maybe this whole volunteer /conscription thingy is bit of a cultural thing? I am by no means expert of US Federal law, but in your legistlation there is that war time draft, is it still there? So basically at war time some of your population can be forced to arms based on some conditions. That happened last time in Vietnam? So basically a menacing selective fast forward mandatory military service, which still does not apply to all male population? Maybe some of the Americans might clear this thing up a bit, as to me this very thing seems to be what is making "conscription" a curse word in American mindset. About the paid volunteer army. Isnt a "paid volunteer" bit of an oxymoron? Basically any career soldier in any country becomes a paid volunteer when he is not anymore part of Mandatory military service.

[Vuk]

Again, how many times do I have to state that the size of a military is not an indication of its population's military readiness, or, indeed, its willingness? What would happen to European armies if Europe was invaded?
Let's put it like this, if you had to recruit people for your military, would you rather be recruiting Americans or Euros? If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose? I think that I know the answer, and THAT is my point.

[Greyblades]

If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose?
If I was feeling facecious I'd say americans, so that my more valuable euro troops are put to better use than guard duty.

[Vuk]

If I was feeling facecious I'd say americans, so that my more valuable euro troops are put to better use than guard duty.
lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :P

[PanzerJaeger]

Thank you Kag! This is an actual analysis and not just a bunch of unsupported assumptions.

The question on troop quality is interesting. Is a volunteer who does so only to get a solid paycheck and get his or her college paid for more or less combat effective than a draftee?

I think it is a double edged sword. People who volunteer for the Marines, Rangers, or any of the other more 'elite' units are definitely looking for action and would thus be expected to have better morale and fortitude than a draftee. However, those who join the regular units and support services for economic reasons shouldn't be assumed to be more motivated than a common draftee.

I would say the volunteer aspect gives the US an overall edge over other militaries, but the effects are not evenly distributed throughout the services.

[Greyblades]

lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :P
Undecided.
Apart from the fact that I dont agree with the idea, I cant realy commit to it becuase you are asking if you prefer one continent of people over another. Now, if you asked if I believe that a Swiss could do better than a Texan then I might be more able to answer. But there are too many different types of europeans and americans to make a proper choice.

[Vuk]

Undecided.
Apart from the fact that I dont agree with the idea, I cant realy commit to it becuase you are asking if you prefer one continent of people over another. Now, if you asked if I believe that a Swiss could do better than a Texan then I might be more able to answer. But there are too many different types of europeans and americans to make a proper choice.

A German Soldier from Munich vs. a U.S. Marine from Texas. How is that? (And Germans are probably on average quite a bit better than other European soldiers, so I think that is fair.

[HoreTore]

Confirming the stereotype of the cowardly Eurowheenie, are we?

Off to the Gulag camps with you :whip:

After all, Europe is also communist :shrug:

Bah! If my leadership is retarded enough to get invaded, they deserve the whip.

[Beskar]

lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :P

When people think of best fighting forces, they make comments like "Israel", "British SAS" and then the German equivalent or the French Foreign Legion. I never heard anyone say "Americans".

[HoreTore]

Also, could anyone please point out how these two threads differ from unzipping our pants and measuring?

[Vuk]

Also, could anyone please point out how these two threads differ from unzipping our pants and measuring?

Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure. ~;)

[Beskar]

Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure. ~;)

Yeah, there is nothing to measure in one about the American military. :wink:

[HoreTore]

Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure. ~;)

This is more an enough proof of the old saying "loud talker, small ...."

[Greyblades]

A German Soldier from Munich vs. a U.S. Marine from Texas. How is that? (And Germans are probably on average quite a bit better than other European soldiers, so I think that is fair.

Terrain?

[Vladimir]

Don't feed the trolls!

[Vuk]

Don't feed the trolls!
lol, this is not MY thread, nor is it in the same spirit as my thread. I am a troll because I am attacked by a troll and fire back?

[HoreTore]

lol, this is not MY thread, nor is it in the same spirit as my thread. I am a troll because I am attacked by a troll and fire back?

Say what?

[Kagemusha]

Again, how many times do I have to state that the size of a military is not an indication of its population's military readiness, or, indeed, its willingness? What would happen to European armies if Europe was invaded?
Let's put it like this, if you had to recruit people for your military, would you rather be recruiting Americans or Euros? If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose? I think that I know the answer, and THAT is my point.

So what do you want? Weigh index comparison? average height? Educational standards? Now if you would claim that USA has the best Navy in the world equipment wise, Answer would be easy yes, but no.You claim that one population of same cultural area is somehow inheritently superior to others. Nice word comes to mind ubermenchen. What exactly are you basing that idea, even more so when you have no military training yourself that certain Nation no matter of any factors reigns just supreme, because you say so? You discount history and statistics, also reality. In how many of the reacent wars European troops have been present? How many times they have fared more poor then anyone else, or in matter of fact any better? If you just decide that entire continent full of people have somehow mysteriosly lost their will to defend themselves, you really have to bring even one minor factual shred of evidence to the table.So please do so?

[Vuk]

So what do you want? Weigh index comparison? average height? Educational standards? Now if you would claim that USA has the best Navy in the world equipment wise, Answer would be easy yes, but no.You claim that one population of same cultural area is somehow inheritently superior to others. Nice word comes to mind ubermenchen. What exactly are you basing that idea, even more so when you have no military training yourself that certain Nation no matter of any factors reigns just supreme, because you say so? You discount history and statistics, also reality. In how many of the reacent wars European troops have been present? How many times they have fared more poor then anyone else, or in matter of fact any better? If you just decide that entire continent full of people have somehow mysteriosly lost their will to defend themselves, you really have to bring even one minor factual shred of evidence to the table.So please do so?

I already did talk about several in the other threads. For one, the (admitted) loathing of war and dangerously obsessive desire to avoid it held by so many Western Europeans. Right there you take motive and purpose away. In many ways, you get out of training what you put into it. How motivated are you? How serious are you about being the best? Can you be serious about being the best (and therefore work torward it) if you firmly believe that alliances and trade will make your role (a soldier) completely useless, and therefore your whole military is just a facade or some sort of bad joke?

[Kagemusha]

I already did talk about several in the other threads. For one, the (admitted) loathing of war and dangerously obsessive desire to avoid it held by so many Western Europeans. Right there you take motive and purpose away. In many ways, you get out of training what you put into it. How motivated are you? How serious are you about being the best? Can you be serious about being the best (and therefore work torward it) if you firmly believe that alliances and trade will make your role (a soldier) completely useless, and therefore your whole military is just a facade or some sort of bad joke?

So if i ask you evidence you give me your own biased opinion based on hearsay, while a) you are not European. B) You havent served in military. Do you seriosly think that gungho attitude will make you a good soldier? That having nonsensensical romantic views concerning war and admiring it will make you a good soldier? You talk about loathing of war. Maybe you should compare which opponent is more dangerous.One who has romantic fantasies about war, or one who aknowledges that war is miserable strategy, but is still willing to wage that if needs to be.Ignorance does not make anyone better at anything.
You do know that all around the World there are lot of fanatics that are prepared to blow themselves up or kill anyone if ordered without much of a blink of an eye? If you place such people against well trained soldiers, all taunting in the world does not do them lot of good when they are moved down by people who use their training in order to stay alive and defeat their opponents.Maybe for example you would like to tell us how many countries of Europe have deployed to Afghanistan right now? Why are they there fighting alongside US troops if they are so demoralized they could not even defend their own homes? Strangely enough when you look at the statistics what happens when they get into firefights with Talibans and Mujahediin, these things become very one sided affairs while the Afghans might be one of the most warlike people in the world. You can only get far enough with self praise. It really doesnt matter how best you think you are when you walk in to the wrong line of sight of the enemy.
If you want to believe that you live in some sort of warrior culture without any peers, please do so, but if i were you i would keep such fantasies to myself as you dont clearly have anything to back up those romantic views of yours.

[Vuk]

So if i ask you evidence you give me your own biased opinion based on hearsay, while a) you are not European. B) You havent served in military. Do you seriosly think that gungho attitude will make you a good soldier? That having nonsensensical romantic views concerning war and admiring it will make you a good soldier? You talk about loathing of war. Maybe you should compare which opponent is more dangerous.One who has romantic fantasies about war, or one who aknowledges that war is miserable strategy, but is still willing to wage that if needs to be.Ignorance does not make anyone better at anything.
You do know that all around the World there are lot of fanatics that are prepared to blow themselves up or kill anyone if ordered without much of a blink of an eye? If you place such people against well trained soldiers, all taunting in the world does not do them lot of good when they are moved down by people who use their training in order to stay alive and defeat their opponents.Maybe for example you would like to tell us how many countries of Europe have deployed to Afghanistan right now? Why are they there fighting alongside US troops if they are so demoralized they could not even defend their own homes? Strangely enough when you look at the statistics what happens when they get into firefights with Talibans and Mujahediin, these things become very one sided affairs while the Afghans might be one of the most warlike people in the world. You can only get far enough with self praise. It really doesnt matter how best you think when you walk in to the wrong line of sight of the enemy.
If you want to believe that you live in some sort of warrior culture without any peers, please do so, but if i were you i would keep such fantasies to myself as you dont clearly have anything to back up with those romantic views.

Romantic views? I never said Americans didn't know that sucks, but I said they did know that it was sometimes necassary, and are more willing to protect themselves.
You obviously have not read my posts from the other threads...

[Greyblades]

Just if anyone is interested I believe that the US marine would win, from what I know (admitedly little) the marines are between regular soldiers and navy seals when it comes to effectivness, to expect any footsoldier to win against someone that is only one step down from commando is a bit daft.

[Kagemusha]

Romantic views? I never said Americans didn't know that sucks, but I said they did know that it was sometimes necassary, and are more willing to protect themselves.
You obviously have not read my posts from the other threads...

Well didnt you just say in your last post that a negative aspect of European capacity to wage war is that its generally being loathed around Europe? Are you now trying to tell me that Americans suffer from the same problem? Or is it only problem if European suffers from it?:tongue:

[Vuk]

Well didnt you just say in your last post that a negative aspect of European capacity to wage war is that its generally being loathed around Europe? Are you now trying to tell me that Americans suffer from the same problem? Or is it only problem if European suffers from it?:tongue:

lol, you are missing my point entirely. Both Euros and Americans know that war stinks, but Americans also believe that it can be used to fix problems a lot more than Euros do. Do you know what I mean?

[Greyblades]

So your saying that European soldiers would fare worse than american ones when fighting for a cause that isn't defending your country?

[Kagemusha]

lol, you are missing my point entirely. Both Euros and Americans know that war stinks, but Americans also believe that it can be used to fix problems a lot more than Euros do. Do you know what I mean?

And at this point please elaborate? First Gulf War,Iraq, Afghanistan or maybe some other modern conflict,please give us an example how Europeans have underperformed compared to US troops?

[Vuk]

Just if anyone is interested I believe that the US marine would win, from what I know (admitedly little) the marines are between regular soldiers and navy seals when it comes to effectivness, to expect any footsoldier to win against someone that is only one step down from commando is a bit daft.

I will give you this...the US army stinks. My friend in the ROTC was telling me about how the men he was leading on a run refused to take their canteens because of the weight, and then almost dehydrated. Also, I have read reports about how their hand-to-hand and bayonet training has recently been cut because they need to spend so much time just getting them up to the level of human beings. (apparently many cannot even carry their gear at first)
The role of the Army in the US military is to come in after the Marines have done the work and then keep the peace. (or if they do see combat, to flee and leave the underequipped Marines their gear :D)
Seriously, I put no faith on the US Army regulars at all. America's land fighting force IS the Marines and other specialists. The Army is mostly just a joke. There was a proposed program a while ago called "Every Soldier a Marine". Unfortunately it did not get anywhere, but it is what the US needs.
Thankfully, between the Marine Corps, the Airforce, the Navy, and specialist subgroups, America has the potential to beat any single military on the planet.

[Vuk]

And at this point please elaborate? First Gulf War,Iraq, Afghanistan or maybe some other modern conflict,please give us an example how Europeans have underperformed compared to US troops?

Actually, I never said that.

EDIT: Sorry if I seem dismissive, but I am working on a paper that I have to present tonight. I guess that I did not make myself clear when I put my initial argument forward, and assumed a lot of shared knowledge. I will post something fuller tonight/tomorrow when I have more time.

[Greyblades]

I always thought that the US army regulars were not seen as all that good because they were allways being outshone by the other parts of your military, kinda hard to compete when the rest of the millitary is obsessed with being "best of the best". I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't all that bad.

[Kagemusha]

So no in matter of fact the standard US infantry man doesnt fit your standards? So basically there arent any basic level infantry in Western hemisphere left worth their salt.This is just getting better and better.:laugh4: Im sure you just made many new friends, when the real problem is that your buddy should not call himself a NCO if he cant even control if his men are carrying drinking water or not.

[Vuk]

I always thought that the US army regulars were not all that good because they were allways being outshone by the other parts of your military, kinda hard to compete when the rest of the millitary is obsessed with being "best of the best".

THAT is what I mean!!
I know enough from training in martial arts to know that the guys who come in and really want to be the best and train the hardest and give more than everyone else DO become the best!
Marines DO want to be the best. SEALs want and need to be the best. Simply from the Americans I have known, the Euros I have know, the American military men I know, the Euro military men I know, I have seen a LOT more of that drive to be the best amongst the Americans. Also, I think certain aspects of American society (including that horrible American exceptionalism) really foster that competitive drive.

[Vuk]

So no in matter of fact the standard US infantry man doesnt fit your standards? So basically there arent any basic level infantry in Western hemisphere left worth their salt.This is just getting better and better.:laugh4: Im sure you just made many new friends, when the real problem is that your buddy should not call himself a NCO if he cant even control if his men are carrying drinking water or not.

Hardly. While U.S. Marines are exceptional, they really are a regular and sizable branch of the military. Despite the problems in the US Army, they are still probably at least on parr with Euro armies, AND they have the Marines to do their dirty work. :P
Don't get me wrong, not all soldiers are sub-parr, merely the majority of them. I have known and read/heard about many fine soldiers, but on the whole, they are a sorry bunch of buffoons.

[PanzerJaeger]

It's really not worth th e warning points, man. Nobody is taking him seriously.

[Vuk]

hey...

So you have to be part of something to talk about it? Do you have to be a Nazi to discuss Nazism? And if I was in the military, I would be accussed by you of being biased. I guess you just cannot win.
Oh well, my part in this discussion is over then I guess.

[Brenus]

“Let's put it like this, if you had to recruit people for your military, would you rather be recruiting Americans or Euros? If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose? I think that I know the answer, and THAT is my point.”
I take the Euros of course.

Answer “a la Vuk”.
The US army was obliged to change the enlistment criteria (weight) in order to able to have enough recruits. They were obliged to give University grant as a reward in order to get individual able to think as apparently patriotism was not enough for young Americans.
In term of combat, I grant you that against an obsolete and demoralized enemy army (Irak), the US are great. Of course when it was question to attack the vastly superior Serbian Army (Serbia: around 8,000,000 inhabitants) on the ground… well, that was an other affair, the US having lost 2 Apache even without any fight. I pass on the 5 Serbian tanks destroyed by 2 months of intensive aerial bombardment and cruise missiles launched from far, the US Army succeeded in having 2 members captured. The US Government had to sent the Pastor Jessy Jackson to bring the kids back. Of course the US whined that it was unfair as the soldiers were captured near or perhaps in Macedonia, so it was off-limit.
Few F-16 down and one “invisible” bomber, thanks to the Russian Mediation and lies (e.g. integrity of the Serbian Territory was guaranty in the size-fire agreement) they didn’t have to fight on the ground against armed and determined enemies…
About the training, just for you to know, our training Centres are too hard for you poor cocooned soldiers. The poor guys had to WALK… A Platoon of US soldiers couldn’t finish a simple obstacle run on a maximum time allowed to a French or German Soldier in Treve (ok, they were MP, but).
Oh, yeah, your elite troops… Marines and Seals are ok, average, I met some, and they become friends so I can’t say bad things, but honestly, the average level of the US soldiers is poor. Negligent with their material, insubordinate, and not willing to take too much risks…

(Apologies to my US comrades in Arms, past and actual, but this guy goes on my nerves…)

[PanzerJaeger]

Apologies to my US comrades in Arms, past and actual, but this guy goes on my nerves…)

The answer is not to attack the US military.

Can you back up this statement any more than Vuk can back up his?


the average level of the US soldiers is poor. Negligent with their material, insubordinate, and not willing to take too much risks…

[Proletariat]

(Apologies to my US comrades in Arms, past and actual, but this guy goes on my nerves…)

Apology hardly accepted. I don't understand the aim of this post. Is it a failed tongue-in-cheek impersonation of Vuk or just Brenus using the absurdity of this thread as a nice place to vent some harbored feelings?

:worried:

Edit: I won't quote it in order to spare the mods the trouble of editing my post as well, but Centurion basically summed up my feelings towards the other thread's OP except he was a little less profane than what I had in mind.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is the most constructive conversation I have ever read on the backroom. It was so good, that it made a baby thread from its locked mother.

[Husar]

Let's put it like this, if you had to recruit people for your military, would you rather be recruiting Americans or Euros? If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose? I think that I know the answer, and THAT is my point.

Probably Europeans. Once Russia has joined the EU, definitely Europeans.

[Husar]

I know enough from training in martial arts to know that the guys who come in and really want to be the best and train the hardest and give more than everyone else DO become the best!
Marines DO want to be the best. SEALs want and need to be the best.

And when you add to that that the SEALs are better and noone in the US cares about the second place, the Marines are just a huge failure, right?

Of course that's not my opinion, I'm just trying to look at things the american way. ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

Probably Europeans. Once Russia has joined the EU, definitely Europeans.

Why?

[Louis VI the Fat]

this guy goes on my nerves…Relax. The internets are full of E tough people. Life's too short to let every E bicile get under you skin. :shrug:


Besides, I am sure you yourself made a great soldier. So tough, in fact, that I bet it would have taken me at least twenty minutes of hard work to get you and the other girls of your régiment to polish my boots for me. :knight:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Teh European armies are invincible !!




https://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3940/chaussures20armc3a9e20u.jpg



Come back to talk to us when you can field this sort of Weapons of Mass Distraction!

...or when you can parade 2.5 kilometers on stiletto heels and a tight skirt....

...which of course is not a problem for me. That's pretty much my average Saturday Night...

[CBR]

The USMC has tougher training than the US army. They don't recruit as many and therefore can have higher standards. But I don't think one therefore can say "the US army stinks"

I don't understand this obsession with the (low) quality of citizens. The Western World can rely on having highly educated men and women, and the main difference in fighting power would be the level of training and quality/quantity of equipment.

And in what way are we to measure the willingness of a population to fight a long war? Look at polls for how popular the war in Afghanistan perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_on_the_war_in_Afghanistan

A quick look does not show a huge difference. So I guess Europe AND USA won't stand a chance against the über Russian bear or the even larger hordes of Chinese?

Or maybe some people are just living in another century and need to come back to reality. More fact and less truthiness please

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apology hardly accepted. I don't understand the aim of this post. Is it a failed tongue-in-cheek impersonation of Vuk or just Brenus using the absurdity of this thread as a nice place to vent some harbored feelings?

:worried:

Edit: I won't quote it in order to spare the mods the trouble of editing my post as well, but Centurion basically summed up my feelings towards the other thread's OP except he was a little less profane than what I had in mind.

I'm afraid that the NATO experience of working with the Americans is profoundly negative, generally they are seen as undiciplined and ill trained. That may not be true, but every soldier I have ever known basically said the same as Benus. I heard a lovely story about a US liggh infantry battallion being unable to keep up with a British mechanised one despite carrying 7lb less gear and a lighter rifle.

[Major Robert Dump]

Hardly. While U.S. Marines are exceptional, they really are a regular and sizable branch of the military. Despite the problems in the US Army, they are still probably at least on parr with Euro armies, AND they have the Marines to do their dirty work. :P
Don't get me wrong, not all soldiers are sub-parr, merely the majority of them. I have known and read/heard about many fine soldiers, but on the whole, they are a sorry bunch of buffoons.

You shoulod really shut up now. Your original post was full of pretentious assumptions about out country vs a continent based on I assume your touristy travels there, during which you go so far to say that west And east coast americans are scumbags, as well as some midwesterners. You went so far as to say that Marines from New York are ineffective.

Then, in your classical style, you back pedal in the face of counter-arguments and say you did not mean England and Ireland in your Europe sucks thread. Later, you say you also did not mean Germany or Spain. Frakking wow, man.

Everything out of your mouth in that thread was presumptive, one-size-fits all drivel followed by changing your argument to fit the ever-decreasing scope of the intellectual paradigm. One does not need military experience to see that. You lost. Admit it. You are offensive.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Relax people. It is all not important, not worth getting worked up about.





Besides :beam: :

https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1448/matressd.jpg

[PanzerJaeger]

I heard a lovely story about a US liggh infantry battallion being unable to keep up with a British mechanised one despite carrying 7lb less gear and a lighter rifle.


Such talk has been characteristic of Anglo-American joint operations since World War 2. For example, I can link (http://insurgencyresearchgroup.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/failure-of-british-coin/) to dozens of highly detailed American criticisms of the British performance in Iraq that amount to quite a bit more than 'they can't carry as much as we can'. As there is natural competition between the two militaries, such anecdotes should be taken with more than a grain of salt.



Two speakers — Marston and David Kilcullen, who moderated the panel and is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s special adviser for counterinsurgency — were sharply critical of the British military’s performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that the British had failed to back up their boasts of superiority in counterinsurgency and in fact had fallen behind the U.S. military.


“The British Army has the reputation of being good at counterinsurgency, and in 2003 and 2004 there was lots of fairly snide criticism of the United States by British commanders saying that Americans didn’t understand counterinsurgency [and] were taking too kinetic an approach,” said Kilcullen, who described the British attitude as, “‘Look at us, we’re on the street in our soft caps and everyone loves us.’”


Marston, who was until recently a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst — the British Army’s rough equivalent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. — said that “as an American working in the British system for the last five years” in 2003, he watched the British “act as if they were the best in [counterinsurgency] in the world.”


But the British performance on Iraqi and Afghan battlefields since then has not backed up such strident talk, according to Kilcullen and Marston.


“It would be fair to say that in 2006 the British Army was defeated in the field in southern Iraq,” Kilcullen said, adding that there were numerous “incidents” in Afghanistan that further undercut the British claims of superiority in counterinsurgency.


“They’ve been embarrassed by their performance in southern Iraq,” Marston said. Meanwhile, the Taliban “almost destroyed” the British Army’s 16th Air Assault Brigade in Afghanistan. In some places, he said, “they just held on.”


The British military was simply unprepared for the challenges it faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Marston, who stressed he was not speaking in his official capacity as an employee of the British Ministry of Defence.


“There have been major problems with their pre-deployment training,” he said. “There were a lot of problems with their education. … The staff college had one day for counterinsurgency for majors. The RMA Sandhurst lieutenants course was a bit of a joke, bit of a video here and there.”

[Vuk]

You shoulod really shut up now. Your original post was full of pretentious assumptions about out country vs a continent based on I assume your touristy travels there, during which you go so far to say that west And east coast americans are scumbags, as well as some midwesterners. You went so far as to say that Marines from New York are ineffective.

Then, in your classical style, you back pedal in the face of counter-arguments and say you did not mean England and Ireland in your Europe sucks thread. Later, you say you also did not mean Germany or Spain. Frakking wow, man.

Everything out of your mouth in that thread was presumptive, one-size-fits all drivel followed by changing your argument to fit the ever-decreasing scope of the intellectual paradigm. One does not need military experience to see that. You lost. Admit it. You are offensive.

um...actually you are quite wrong. I never said that Germany and Spain were not part of Europe, or part of my argument. I also never said that Marines from New York are ineffective, but that citizens in New York tend not to make good troops. Troops from rural areas (who are much more likely to already be proficient with firearms) tend to make better soldiers/Marines than troops from urban areas.
And no, I did not say that my arguments were 'one-size-fits-all', I said 'in general'. Of course there is room for exceptions, and I in fact pointed some out. Your problem MRD, is that you simply do not read my posts.

[Major Robert Dump]

um...actually you are quite wrong. I never said that Germany and Spain were not part of Europe, or part of my argument. I also never said that Marines from New York are ineffective, but that citizens in New York tend not to make good troops. Troops from rural areas (who are much more likely to already be proficient with firearms) tend to make better soldiers/Marines than troops from urban areas.
And no, I did not say that my arguments were 'one-size-fits-all', I said 'in general'. Of course there is room for exceptions, and I in fact pointed some out. Your problem MRD, is that you simply do not read my posts.

No, the problem is that I do read your posts, and your arguments change every third or fourth post.

Virtually no one on these boards agrees with your presumptious post, yet you accuse everyone of "not reading your posts" when in fact that is what is confusing everyone to begin with. And yes, you did back pedal and say that Germany and Spain had the potential to be good militaries (despite them being European along with England and Ireland), and yes, paraprhased or not, you said that New York makes crap soldiers. And through all of this, you even mention that the soldiers of South American countries are somehow superior to European forces again without a shred of practical evidence and then accuse someone who makes a siesta joke of using sterotypes. LOL. If you want to play semantics with us, little boy, you may consider choosing your initial words a little more carefully.

Your idea that people from the South makes better troops cannot be backed up with a shred of evidence other than the fact that they are the majority of enlisted soldiers, which means virtually squat if you consider that every branch of the military has its badasses, mouth breathers and grifters. In fact, considering there are more soldiers from the south in the military one might reasonably assume that the majority of crapbags are also from the south, due primarily to reasonable statistical chance, right? Not very good science, is it?

Your entire basis of calling the Army douchebags is based on some hearsay from an ROTC friend, which I find comical considering most ROTC officers are considered a joke until they prove themselves otherwise.

The entire premise of your OP was offensive to a vast segment of people who have fought and died in far more brutal wars than we. In an effort to backpedal and not be so offensive, you manage to change direction and offend a whole new lot of people, this time your fellow citizens . Wash, rinse, repeat.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Let me tell you guys about why all of your military's suck.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks less than your military.

Why are you guys all offended? How about you read my posts guys.

EDIT: Also New York is full of wimps which is why 9/11 happened there and not the strong heart of America, AKA the Dakotas.

Seriously guys! Stop attacking me and respond to my actual arguments, geeze!

[Major Robert Dump]

Let me tell you guys about why all of your military's suck.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks less than your military.

Why are you guys all offended? How about you read my posts guys.

Brilliant.

[Brenus]

“Can you back up this statement any more than Vuk can back up his”
Err, actually yes, as it is based on the 1980’s US Army shape… At theses times the US had still the Vietnam to recover and the experience about the training is one thing I witnessed…

“Brenus using the absurdity of this thread as a nice place to vent some harbored feelings?” No. I don’t think the US Army is bad or inferior to others. The US citizen joining the Army gets probably a harsh start and a good training, and then has to do with it.

“Besides, I am sure you yourself made a great soldier.”
Nope. Average plus… Not the faster, average at shooting except with light machine gun, never failed on various training, well, nothing exceptional, ordinary fellow joining because he believed in the Republic, her values and the need to take arms in case of…

[a completely inoffensive name]

“Can you back up this statement any more than Vuk can back up his”
Err, actually yes, as it is based on the 1980’s US Army shape… At theses times the US had still the Vietnam to recover and the experience about the training is one thing I witnessed…

“Brenus using the absurdity of this thread as a nice place to vent some harbored feelings?” No. I don’t think the US Army is bad or inferior to others. The US citizen joining the Army gets probably a harsh start and a good training, and then has to do with it.

“Besides, I am sure you yourself made a great soldier.”
Nope. Average plus… Not the faster, average at shooting except with light machine gun, never failed on various training, well, nothing exceptional, ordinary fellow joining because he believed in the Republic, her values and the need to take arms in case of…

I like you Brenus. Idk why, but you seem like an alright guy in my book. Of course, this being the internet, I could be completely wrong.

[PanzerJaeger]

Err, actually yes, as it is based on the 1980’s US Army shape… At theses times the US had still the Vietnam to recover and the experience about the training is one thing I witnessed…


I meant with something other than anecdote.

Vuk's experience suggests that Europeans are a bunch weak-willed poltroons. Your experience suggests that Americans are (or were) poor soldiers, negligent with their material, insubordinate, and not willing to take too many risks. My experience suggests that excessive curry intake causes Indian people to stink.

All of that is meaningless and mildly offensive.

Let us keep things in the realm of demonstrability, lest we fall into the same chasm of conjecture and assumption that Vuk has found himself in.

[Subotan]

I wonder if there's any military which can be universally agreed on the board to be crap...

*Throws dart at map on the wall*

I know! BRAZIL

[Furunculus]

Such talk has been characteristic of Anglo-American joint operations since World War 2. For example, I can link (http://insurgencyresearchgroup.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/failure-of-british-coin/) to dozens of highly detailed American criticisms of the British performance in Iraq that amount to quite a bit more than 'they can't carry as much as we can'. As there is natural competition between the two militaries, such anecdotes should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

all true, but our part in southern iraq was only half the battle fought, if you want to hear about the other half then read Task Force Black, and see what Patraues and Co had to say about British Forces.

southern iraq was a failure but not by the military, rather it was a political lack of spine to let the military do the necessary to pacify Southern Iraq. blair wanted a quiet life and pissed away SI to get it.

[Husar]

Why?

For the same reason that some say "Buy American!" ~;)

[Vuk]

No, the problem is that I do read your posts, and your arguments change every third or fourth post.

Virtually no one on these boards agrees with your presumptious post, yet you accuse everyone of "not reading your posts" when in fact that is what is confusing everyone to begin with. And yes, you did back pedal and say that Germany and Spain had the potential to be good militaries (despite them being European along with England and Ireland), and yes, paraprhased or not, you said that New York makes crap soldiers. And through all of this, you even mention that the soldiers of South American countries are somehow superior to European forces again without a shred of practical evidence and then accuse someone who makes a siesta joke of using sterotypes. LOL. If you want to play semantics with us, little boy, you may consider choosing your initial words a little more carefully.

Your idea that people from the South makes better troops cannot be backed up with a shred of evidence other than the fact that they are the majority of enlisted soldiers, which means virtually squat if you consider that every branch of the military has its badasses, mouth breathers and grifters. In fact, considering there are more soldiers from the south in the military one might reasonably assume that the majority of crapbags are also from the south, due primarily to reasonable statistical chance, right? Not very good science, is it?

Your entire basis of calling the Army douchebags is based on some hearsay from an ROTC friend, which I find comical considering most ROTC officers are considered a joke until they prove themselves otherwise.

The entire premise of your OP was offensive to a vast segment of people who have fought and died in far more brutal wars than we. In an effort to backpedal and not be so offensive, you manage to change direction and offend a whole new lot of people, this time your fellow citizens . Wash, rinse, repeat.

I said that Spain had the potential to have good citizens, but it was wasted by political instability, and that Germany had more potential than the other major European powers, but that it still was sub-par at best. That does not at all contradict my original argument or any made thereafter.
Also, I never said that South American troops were better than European troops. I said that South American citizens had better potential than European citizens, but that it could not be realized because of the poverty and political instability of South America. Again, that does not contradict my opening remarks at all. If you will remember, I said that two main things were needed for a good military, and that South America had better potential for one than Europe, but that Europe had the advantage in the other.
You either just skim my posts, do not know how to read, or look at other people's posts and infer from that what my post must be. Either way, it demonstrates a decided lack of basic language and comprehension skills...esp concerning sensitive issues.
Also, about the Army, I never said that they were not an effective military force because of the hearsay of a friend. I used that as an example. I never told you what I based it on, and nor did you inquire. I based my opinion on the Army on countless reports, articles, accounts, etc that I have read, as well as on my own personal experience with Army personnel.
Case in point, I know several guys from the Army who attend Uni with me. With one exception, they are generally not very fit, and know nothing at all about hand-to-hand combat. Not only that, but they are more uneasy with the sissified TKD sparring we do that some of their smaller civvy counterparts! They don't know how to take a hit, or give a hit, and don't want to find out. The only thing they were taught is bullcrap things for getting out of this grip, or this lock, etc, etc. Some military experts hold that the intimacy with danger acquired through hand-to-hand combat training is the best way to prepare someone for real combat, but whether you hold with that or not, you can at least agree that Soldiers should know how to shoot, right?
When my Pastor was a mechanic in the Army, he said that they did not even teach him how to shoot!! I don't know...I think that is kind of important when you are in a combat zone. (Every Marine a Rifleman)
You have no objectivity (as you were in the military), and have proven incapable of even reading and comprehending a three paragraph post! Quit while you are ahead...kind of...

[Major Robert Dump]

Did you not say the US Army regulars are sub-par? Did you not say you have no faith in the US Army? You even tried to back this up by pointing out the removeal of bayonet training from basic, as if the physical condition initial recruits has anything to do with the overall, trained fighting force!

Here's some info your "friends" in the military didn't give you:
Bayonet training was removed because
A) NO ONE FIGHTS WITH BAYONETS AND THOSE 3 DAYS ARE BETTER SPENT LEARNING OTHER THINGS
B) The pugil stick training used to simulate bayonets not only gets recruits hurt, but also tends to get Drill Sergeants in trouble

Your pastor used to be in the army and did not know how to shoot? How is that even relevant?

As far as soldiers not learning "hand-to-hand," the gay fake karate they trained us on until the late 1990s was ineffective and obsolete and was eventually replaced with Jujitsu-based combatives. Everyone at BCT and AIT and OCS gets basic, watered-down courses on those. Anything past that is completely voluntary because to be level 1 certified and higher you must complete a course during which you stand to suffer permanant, serious injuries. People have died. Making every single soldier down to support personnel attend these classes is a really good way to thin your ranks. The idea of US ARMY modern combatives is not to be a one-man unarmed killing machine, it is to be able to survive long enough for your friends to come help you.

I also find it comical that you use your "friends" at the university as an example of how the military is not physically fit. Maybe that is because they are at the university, and not at a military school or on a deployment. Soldiers gain weight, eat, drink and screw in between assignments. And please do not ever, ever, ever use ROTC cadets as an example of any military institution because they are not soldiers yet and many of them never will be.

I am really sorry that we, as a fighting force, cannot live up to your high expectations. If the military was full of Vuks, I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won years ago

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Did you not say the US Army regulars are sub-par? Did you not say you have no faith in the US Army? You even tried to back this up by pointing out the removeal of bayonet training from basic, as if the physical condition initial recruits has anything to do with the overall, trained fighting force!

Here's some info your "friends" in the military didn't give you:
Bayonet training was removed because
A) NO ONE FIGHTS WITH BAYONETS AND THOSE 3 DAYS ARE BETTER SPENT LEARNING OTHER THINGS
B) The pugil stick training used to simulate bayonets not only gets recruits hurt, but also tends to get Drill Sergeants in trouble...

MRD:

Perhaps the military experience being cited in the criticism you refute above was garnered in MAG or CODMW2 where combatants regularly bring knives to gunfights...and win hands down. ;-)

[Beskar]

Biggest issue with American troops is how they are really "gunho" and keep firing at their allies instead of the enemies.

[gaelic cowboy]

All of this worry about fighting is not much use anyway sure when the WW3 happens our Irish soldiers will be safely in the basement of Dolans in Temple Bar downing vodkas to prevent radiation sickness.

Edit it's well know that WW3 is pencilled in for Paddies Day 2012, sure it's an American and French tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2003#March_17.2C_2003)

[Vuk]

Did you not say the US Army regulars are sub-par? Did you not say you have no faith in the US Army? You even tried to back this up by pointing out the removeal of bayonet training from basic, as if the physical condition initial recruits has anything to do with the overall, trained fighting force!

Here's some info your "friends" in the military didn't give you:
Bayonet training was removed because
A) NO ONE FIGHTS WITH BAYONETS AND THOSE 3 DAYS ARE BETTER SPENT LEARNING OTHER THINGS
B) The pugil stick training used to simulate bayonets not only gets recruits hurt, but also tends to get Drill Sergeants in trouble

Your pastor used to be in the army and did not know how to shoot? How is that even relevant?

As far as soldiers not learning "hand-to-hand," the gay fake karate they trained us on until the late 1990s was ineffective and obsolete and was eventually replaced with Jujitsu-based combatives. Everyone at BCT and AIT and OCS gets basic, watered-down courses on those. Anything past that is completely voluntary because to be level 1 certified and higher you must complete a course during which you stand to suffer permanant, serious injuries. People have died. Making every single soldier down to support personnel attend these classes is a really good way to thin your ranks. The idea of US ARMY modern combatives is not to be a one-man unarmed killing machine, it is to be able to survive long enough for your friends to come help you.

I also find it comical that you use your "friends" at the university as an example of how the military is not physically fit. Maybe that is because they are at the university, and not at a military school or on a deployment. Soldiers gain weight, eat, drink and screw in between assignments. And please do not ever, ever, ever use ROTC cadets as an example of any military institution because they are not soldiers yet and many of them never will be.

I am really sorry that we, as a fighting force, cannot live up to your high expectations. If the military was full of Vuks, I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won years ago

The Jujitsu based junk that the Army is taught in basic courses is total BS. They might as well not teach them anything rather than teach them that. You seem to not think it is important, nor that it is possible without killing half your soldiers. Funny, the Marines have a real fighting system (not a bunch of BJJ BS) that ALL Marines must be certified in the first level (tan belt) of their martial art.
You know, I am not saying that I would be a better soldier (in the state I am) than the average Army soldier, but if I was to join the military I would sure as heck hope that I was given the best training possible to survive, and that the people watching my back were as well. ie, if I joined the military, I would much rather join the Marines than the Army.
I am sorry if you find that offensive or pretentious, I do not mean it that way. It is meant as simple an objective statement of fact.

[Vuk]

MRD:

Perhaps the military experience being cited in the criticism you refute above was garnered in MAG or CODMW2 where combatants regularly bring knives to gunfights...and win hands down. ;-)

No, not at all. First of all, the larger the engagement, the more chance of melee combat. In a large war, esp in urban areas, the chance goes up. Why even give our troops bayonets if we do not show them how to use them? They are just as likely to hurt themselves as they are to use them effectively.
Also, as I said in my above post (2 above), the rational behind teaching melee combat is to condition troops to stressful circumstances where split second decisions matter. To get them used to feeling consequences for their actions, taking hits, being aggressive, etc. It is considered by many to be one of the best preps for actually sending soldiers into combat. That is why it is important a lot more than the practical side of melee combat in modern warfare.

[Strike For The South]

I toatly have a buddy in the core who claims to steal his British commarades lunch money removed
Vuk is what is wrong with America, a fat slob sitting on his couch claiming America is teh best and can't be defeated because of some intrinsic awesomeness, when in reality the people who serve in the US military are just that, people. Putting this rediculos onus on them is why Americans supports retarded ventures that get my friends killed because when I see a guy who I once talked to for 4 staight hours because his best girl broke up with him the night before the big game, Vuk sees some caricuture out of a Michael Bay movie

You'd better pay your damn respect and think long and hard before commting to anything because its not your ass or even your creature comforts that are on the line. Its someone elses and chances are he is just like you.

Removed

[Vuk]

*ranting and BS*

And where do you get the idea that I glorify war or think that we should be going overseas doing this and that? Am I not the one that is always arguing that we should keep our nose out of this happening abroad as much as possible (and much more so than we have done)?
Don't pretend you know anything about me, because you don't. The only reason that I did not join the Corps (and that is how it is spelled BTW my educated intellectual individual) is because I was turned down by recruiters because of a pre-existing condition that greatly limits what I can and cannot do. (and which is none of your business)
Also, many of the opinions that I have expressed were either based on things told to me by friends who are in the military, or opinions expressed by friends in the Corps.
You don't know what you are talking about, so mind your business and go do something more your speed...like lifting weights...

[Subotan]

No, not at all. First of all, the larger the engagement, the more chance of melee combat. In a large war, esp in urban areas, the chance goes up. Why even give our troops bayonets if we do not show them how to use them? They are just as likely to hurt themselves as they are to use them effectively.
Also, as I said in my above post (2 above), the rational behind teaching melee combat is to condition troops to stressful circumstances where split second decisions matter. To get them used to feeling consequences for their actions, taking hits, being aggressive, etc. It is considered by many to be one of the best preps for actually sending soldiers into combat. That is why it is important a lot more than the practical side of melee combat in modern warfare.You sound like a Marshal of France circa. 1913.

I toatly have a buddy in the core who claims to steal his British commarades lunch money and then rape them in the lunch line

Vuk is what is wrong with America, a fat slob sitting on his couch claiming America is teh best and can't be defeated because of some intrinsic awesomeness, when in reality the people who serve in the US military are just that, people. Putting this rediculos onus on them is why Americans supports retarded ventures that get my friends killed because when I see a guy who I once talked to for 4 staight hours because his best girl broke up with him the night before the big game, Vuk sees some caricuture out of a Michael Bay movie

You'd better pay your damn respect and think long and hard before commting to anything because its not your ass or even your creature comforts that are on the line. Its someone elses and chances are he is just like you.

You mouth breathing philistine
https://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4272/clapem.gif

[a completely inoffensive name]

I toatly have a buddy in the core who claims to steal his British commarades lunch money and then rape them in the lunch line

Vuk is what is wrong with America, a fat slob sitting on his couch claiming America is teh best and can't be defeated because of some intrinsic awesomeness, when in reality the people who serve in the US military are just that, people. Putting this rediculos onus on them is why Americans supports retarded ventures that get my friends killed because when I see a guy who I once talked to for 4 staight hours because his best girl broke up with him the night before the big game, Vuk sees some caricuture out of a Michael Bay movie

You'd better pay your damn respect and think long and hard before commting to anything because its not your ass or even your creature comforts that are on the line. Its someone elses and chances are he is just like you.

You mouth breathing philistine

The cancer that is killing /USA/

[Vuk]

The cancer that is killing /USA/
lol, oh yes, Vuk the cancer...says the self-proclaimed "Professional Internet Troll"...

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol, oh yes, Vuk the cancer...says the self-proclaimed "Professional Internet Troll"...

Trolls don't cause cancer, they provoke the cancer for lulz. This is internet 101. I'm sorry, you were saying something about how some guys you know told you that they think soliders from New York and Europe are pussies?

I know some guys who knew a guy who wanted to join the marines who apparently said that the Air Force might as well be 16 middle aged men taking baby boomers on tourist flights over the grand canyon because they were so undisciplined.

Why is our military neglecting to teach our soldiers the practical art of swordsmanship on the battle field? You can't cut off a terrorists head with a tactical knife, you need an Irish Claymore. God, I swear, no wonder our military is so ineffective.

EDIT: AND WHY ARE ALL THE CLAYMORES BEING MADE IN IRELAND!? WHERE ARE THE GOOD OLE AMERICAN MADE CLAYMORES THE GREATEST GENERATION USED TO GUT NAZIS!?!

[Fisherking]

Gents, You all know the rules on personal attacks.

This is not my forum but anyone can report a post.

I suggest that you all put away the verbal clubs and take cover under a near by bridge and rethink your positions.

I recommend you use your edit functions and reassess what you would say. To include those who have quoted those words and applauded the matches...

Else a number of people are going to spend some time on the beach, in a manner of speaking.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A better choice would be to lock this joke of a thread.

[Fisherking]

Take it as a lasts opportunity to at lest avoid further difficulties. Once it is locked nothing can be changed.

And those quoting such are as culpable as those who said it, in these instances.

Use EDIT.

[Kagemusha]

My apologies. This thread was supposed to be something else it turned out to be.My mistake.

[Vuk]

My apologies. This thread was supposed to be something else it turned out to be.My mistake.
You started a thread off as a personal attack on another member and expected it to turn into something good? Yeah...right...

[a completely inoffensive name]

My apologies. This thread was supposed to be something else it turned out to be.My mistake.

No need for you to apologize, I wasn't criticizing you. You can't control it when other people hijack a thread.

[Kagemusha]

You started a thread off as a personal attack on another member and expected it to turn into something good? Yeah...right...

Maybe you should read the OP.Otherwise i am completely done trying to have any kind of discussion with you.

[Vuk]

Maybe you should read the OP.Otherwise i am completely done trying to have any kind of discussion with you.

So you deny then that the entire point of your opening post was to ridicule my (already completed) thread and me as a poster? If so, then you are not being honest.

[Kagemusha]

So you deny then that the entire point of your opening post was to ridicule my (already completed) thread and me as a poster? If so, then you are not being honest.

You simply dont get it do you. If i challenge your opinion in certain matter that is not a personal attack. Please show me where i commented your personality, mental abilities or something similar to that?

[a completely inoffensive name]

"I have this reasonable argument countering an argument from a previous thread, I would like to discuss it here since by the time I fully developed it, the original thread was dead/locked."

"STOP ATTACKING ME!!"

[Beskar]

I recommend that someone needs a (forced) break from the backroom for a while.

[Reenk Roink]

https://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4272/clapem.gif

This picture serves a sarcastic purpose better, imo, but the post of stfs had to be said.

[Vuk]

You simply dont get it do you. If i challenge your opinion in certain matter that is not a personal attack. Please show me where i commented your personality, mental abilities or something similar to that?

I took your post as a parody of mine (you even admitted that it was in jest), which is a ridicule. The fact that I was personally attacked multiple times by following posters in agreement with you confirmed that in my mind. I am sorry if that is not how you intended it, but that is how it came across to me.

[Greyblades]

:wall: Will someone please lock this thread allready?

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't understand the demands to lock the thread. Why? So we can have more time to read about Ayn Rand's Social Security scandle or claw our way through yet another tedious Israel/Palestine thread? :sleepy:

This and its sister have been two of the most entertaining threads in a while and what used to make the Backroom so fun - people getting passionate about a subject. It is (relatively) new and interesting. If your innocent eyes cannot stand it, don't click through. Vuk will decide when he's had enough and the thread will die soon enough after. :drama2:




all true, but our part in southern iraq was only half the battle fought, if you want to hear about the other half then read Task Force Black, and see what Patraues and Co had to say about British Forces.

southern iraq was a failure but not by the military, rather it was a political lack of spine to let the military do the necessary to pacify Southern Iraq. blair wanted a quiet life and pissed away SI to get it.

Just to be clear, I was not slagging of the British Military. They are, of course, one of the best in the world.

I was only trying to highlight that the two sides have always been highly critical of each other in the best of times, and especially when things don't go according to plan. I guess you could say that about any married couple, though. ~;)

[Kagemusha]

I took your post as a parody of mine (you even admitted that it was in jest), which is a ridicule. The fact that I was personally attacked multiple times by following posters in agreement with you confirmed that in my mind. I am sorry if that is not how you intended it, but that is how it came across to me.

Still you dont follow.I was jesting over your claims, not you as person.What part dont you undestand about that? If someone says that you are wrong about something. That is not a personal attack but different opinion. If i claim something and someone does not agree with me. Should i think that as personal attack or a different opinion? If someone is making degratory remarks about other people should i consider that as a different opinion or verbal attack against the said people? Capiche?

[Vuk]

Still you dont follow.I was jesting over your claims, not you as person.What part dont you undestand about that? If someone says that you are wrong about something. That is not a personal attack but different opinion. If i claim something and someone does not agree with me. Should i think that as personal attack or a different opinion? If someone is making degratory remarks about other people should i consider that as a different opinion or verbal attack against the said people? Capiche?

And you don't get what I mean. If I think your idea is stupid, I will tell you that your idea is stupid. When you make jest of an idea and the logic that makes one arrive at the idea, you are making jest about someone's reasoning capabilities (ie, their intelligence). Maybe you did not mean it that way, but that is how I interpreted it.

[Vuk]

I don't understand the demands to lock the thread. Why? So we can have more time to read about Ayn Rand's Social Security scandle or claw our way through another tedious Israel/Palestine thread? :sleepy:

This and its sister have been two of the most entertaining threads in a while and what used to make the Backroom so fun - people getting passionate about a subject. It is (relatively) new and interesting. If your innocent eyes cannot stand it, don't click through. :drama2:

I agree. If you don't like a thread, you don't go throwing personal insults at people and then crying for the thread to be locked! That is only disruptive. People are entitled to their opinions and the expression of them. If you don't want to argue with them, then don't!

EDIT: No, this post is not aimed at you PJ.

[Greyblades]

I don't understand the demands to lock the thread. Why? So we can have more time to read about Ayn Rand's Social Security scandle or claw our way through another tedious Israel/Palestine thread? :sleepy:

This and its sister have been two of the most entertaining threads in a while and what used to make the Backroom so fun - people getting passionate about a subject. It is (relatively) new and interesting. If your innocent eyes cannot stand it, don't click through. :drama2:

Yeah it was interesting but it's just devolved into:

Vuk: "are you insulting me?"
Anyone else: "No"
"I'm sure you insulted me"
"No i didnt."
"Yes you did"
"No i didnt."
"Yes you did"
etc.

[Vuk]

Yeah it was interesting but it's just devolved into:

Vuk: "are you insulting me?"
Anyone else: "No"
"I'm sure you insulted me"
"No i didnt."
"Yes you did"
"No i didnt."
"Yes you did"
etc.

You are saying that people were not insulting me in this thread? Then why did a mod have to warn them to edit their posts? The only one that was disputed was the original post which I admitted could have been a mistake. It is the people who are not involved in any discussion who come to threads with the sole purpose of killing them who are the problem.

[Centurion1]

oh vuk excuse me that your friends in the corp told you that regular army sucks. this of course coming from a marine makes it the absolute truth.

you want to know about the corp vuk. they are a bunch of juiceheads. the average marine has trouble spelling his own name. they are a collection of primadonnas who see themselves as complete badasses when in fact they are just more boots on the ground. all of their needs are taken care of by the navy logistically and in terms of their ridiculous desires for their own organic air and artillery components its ridiculous. the organic air is a drain on money since the navy and airforce can more than supply their needs and your trying to tell me the army does not have enough artillery to help out the marines as well? The marines make operations demonstrably more difficult because they are always perceiving slights to their and the corps "honor".

Off base marines cause a plethora of problems because they simply cannot stand for anything less than recognition as top dog when they are far from it. The public and government panders to their constant nonsense because of the aura of invincibility they insist on surrounding themselves with.


so shut up with your stereotypical bull vuk we all have our own. how about you get some actual knowledge and experience about i dont know anything before you run your mouth off. im tired of hearing about your martial arts bullshit its completely ridiculous.

[Greyblades]

You are saying that people were not insulting me in this thread? Then why did a mod have to warn them to edit their posts? The only one that was disputed was the original post which I admitted could have been a mistake. It is the people who are not involved in any discussion who come to threads with the sole purpose of killing them who are the problem.

No, I'm saying that you realy need to let it go, the lot of you. It getting boring.

[Strike For The South]

It is extremely hard to debate with someone who doesn't use facts or reason

Guys like PJ and Centurion, while probably being the most in line with your views (altough lets be honest, most retards would laugh at what you try to pass off as reasoning skills and cognitive ability, lumping these guys in with you is physically painfull) still maintain grounding in reality

But Vuk look on the bright side, you are literate (using that term loosely) and able to use the interwebz. I'm sure you have destroyed the grim prognosis the doctors gave your parents.

You my friend are a winner :thumbsup:

[Ser Clegane]

Great - I feel like having to clean up after a party were half of the guest puked in the living room :stare:

Some patrons have PMs

:no:

And I am happy to have signed off before that to get ready for my evening meetings. Though I also feel a little guilty that it got dumped on you Ser. --SF