How powerful is the U.S. military? Are they underestimated?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Don't forget the americans don't go it alone all the time... Many countries in europe give a helping hand, so I don't see how you can make it sound like america is going alone. I mean Bush has already said they won't go in alone...




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Serum39,

I think what you experienced is the generation gap that occurs between all generations. I don't think every young person is guzzling OTC cough meds regularly. I'm 27, I did alot of those things as a teenager, but I grew out of it. They will too. And don't forget, it's those same kids who are fighting in Iraq today. Just like the difference between the soldiers of WWII, the soldiers of Vietnam, and the soldiers today, older people will never comprehend what younger people think is cool, and that's exactly what they want at that age, not to be like their parents. Too bad it's a losing battle.



27jd:

I totally agree with you. I must add that I'm only 30 so not much older than you. (incase your doing the math, I married an older woman with kids, so my daughter is my "step daughter" shes 17)...

Honestly, there really isnt much of a gerneration gap to speak of here.... hell i'm in a rock band! So I'm pretty hip to whats going on in this generation. Besides my daughter and I get along really well so we talk alot about this stuff.

Agreed not all kids are swigging OTC medicines, but that statement represents what I see, read, experience and what my daughter and her friends say. SHE will be the first to tell you there is no way these kids are remotely ready to "fight a war".

And I must disagree about those kids who are fighting in Iraq. Those kids werent drafted (reserves aside). Those kids for the most part had some sort of sense of patriotism etc... I am referring to a situation that if a draft is implemanted, all the stoners, lazies, EMO's, unambitious, disrespectful, "whoa is me" types would be on our front lines. Her and her friends also told me that the subject of the draft has come up in some classes. It appears that most kids think they can just defect to Canada and sorts.

Just some FYI and concerns.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   



I am part of that generation you speak of, and even I'll say I'm quite disappointed at what most of us are and have become. I've taken a very strong interest in the subject recently and I can say Gen. Y is the MOST catered-to and watched-over generation in history. They are also by far the most naive. With all the trophies on their shelves and windows, they almost expect to get a leg up in everything, that someone will always be there to pick them up. Boy are they wrong! Then the media and society in general makes the outsiders and kids in more unfortunate setting rather than suburbia look like losers and bad people, when suburbia is actually more twisted than any other place in the country!

I do take some pride in that I am what you consider and outsider to Gen. Y. I feel so out of place, I feel like I belong in Generation X.

To answer your question, quality is always better, but if they can afford it, quantity can help as well. But that's assuming we have an unstoppable war machine with unlimited resources. Which, unlike Hitler, we do not have.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]


Well said. Yes you appear to be an outsider so to speak... I wish there more kids who stop take a minute and care about someone, something else other than themselves... but honestly I can remember not caring too at that age. It's just a rough position to be in ................ for all of us.

Good post!


[edit on 18-2-2005 by Serum39]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Then at this point, I have no idea what to say to that. I've explained it as good as anybody can. Your foul if you don't understand it.


My foul? I guess, if that makes you feel better.




That's the same as asking if you think a war is legitimate.


No it's not, at all. In a war, we do not intentionally target unsuspecting civilians, comparing the two is ignorant and desperate.





You guessed wrong. To go to Iran for "human rights" and "democracy" means we would also have to go to every other country in the world that has even worse human rights records or does not have democracy. That would mean we would have to go to war with close to 40% of the world. That would disrupt the economy and world stability to the point things would just collapse on itself.


That's not why we are going to Iran. I never said that it was. Remember the advice you gave me? Follow it. Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, we would go to Iran to stop extreme religous fanatics from obtaining nuclear weapons, creating a world far more dangerous than it already is.



Whoa... now that is a pretty low thing to say. Sounds like you could've easily instigated a school shooting back in your day.


Again, sarcasm. I was using sarcasm to illustrate what the extremist leaders, not the Iranian people in general, would like to see happen to you, unless of course you converted to Islam. As for the school shooting thing, I would have stopped one back in my day, you probably would hide under your desk in a puddle of you own urine, just a hunch.



BTW Iranians don't hate you, you just hate them.


BTW, please show me where I said, or even remotely indicated, that I hate the Iranians. Again, follow your own advice.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serum39
Well said. Yes you appear to be an outsider so to speak... I wish there more kids who stop take a minute and care about someone, something else other than themselves... but honestly I can remember not caring too at that age. It's just a rough position to be in ................ for all of us.

Good post!


[edit on 18-2-2005 by Serum39]


I see it as a responsibility of sorts. Being part of Gen. Y, that means that we must be the most critical of ourselves. I believe that your biggest critic should always be yourself.

As for the "care about other people," I kind of agree with that. One of Gen. X's biggest marks was that it was the so-called "Me Generation." So whatever selfishness is in Y is a holdover from the previous one. What I find is that the overall attitude is the whole idea of group, team, etc., which in turn creates such a big expectation to "be a part of a group" or "fit in." I think kids these days are not AS individualistic as Gen. Y was, but let's just say that their caring for other people is very subdued and limited. So yes, they are pretty selfish, but it's not so that it's a "Everyone is your enemy" attitude of Gen. X.

Here's a good opportunity to leanr some more. You are 30, so that means you are Gen. X. What do you think makes Gen. X different from Y? Aside from the fact that Y is living in considerable better circumstances and WAY better wealth and technology. Besides those, what separates the two? Because from what I've studied, Gen. X is quite different from Y, more than I previously imagined.

Before you answer, let me just say it's incredible how much has changed in just a span of 10 years. It's incredible.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
No it's not, at all. In a war, we do not intentionally target unsuspecting
civilians, comparing the two is ignorant and desperate.


Terror is scary. War is scary. Terror creates war. War creates terror. To not compare the two is ignorant and desperate.



Again, sarcasm. I was using sarcasm to illustrate what the extremist leaders, not the Iranian people in general, would like to see happen to you, unless of course you converted to Islam. As for the school shooting thing, I would have stopped one back in my day, you probably would hide under your desk in a puddle of you own urine, just a hunch.


Wow... that really burned.
You took a risk in saying that, though, and I commend you for it!


And from what I've read thus far, it seems more like you'd be the first dead in a school shooting. Now that was not an insult, just an observation which was made in regards to your persona. Violence doesn't stop school shootings. LOL



BTW, please show me where I said, or even remotely indicated, that I hate the Iranians. Again, follow your own advice.


I've always followed my own advice. Just like you, I was using sarcasm.


[edit on 18-2-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Terror is scary. War is scary. Terror creates war. War creates terror. To not compare the two is ignorant and desperate.


I didn't know we were making a comparison on the "scary factor", crocodiles are scary, so are bears, they create terror. Where do they fit in to the comparison? War is fighting between two armed forces, terrorism is the blatant and intentional murder of unarmed civilians, there is no comparison to be made. But I'm sure you will continue to do so.



Wow... that really burned.
You took a risk in saying that, though, and I commend you for it!


What risk did I take? Please elaborate. And thanks for the commendation, however sarcasm does not escape me.



And from what I've read thus far, it seems more like you'd be the first dead in a school shooting. Now that was not an insult, just an observation which was made in regards to your persona. Violence doesn't stop school shootings. LOL


Maybe so, but I would try to stop it if I had a good chance. And I'm not a particularly violent person, but I am aware that in this world, violence is sometimes necessary, as a last resort. Maybe you could stop a school shooting by telling the gunman you support him against the fascist school and sheeplike students. Maybe just tell him he's justified in what he's doing, then he may stop, or at least he might not shoot you. The world needs more people who roll over on their backs like submissive dogs, in order to prevent violence. It's all so clear now.



I've always followed my own advice. Just like you, I was using sarcasm.


You don't use it right, IMO, so it does not have the same effect.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I didn't know we were making a comparison on the "scary factor", crocodiles are scary, so are bears, they create terror. Where do they fit in to the comparison? War is fighting between two armed forces, terrorism is the blatant and intentional murder of unarmed civilians, there is no comparison to be made. But I'm sure you will continue to do so.


See, now that's desperate, redefining concepts in order to support your argument. There is a comparison to be made. Case closed. Two hours ago.



What risk did I take? Please elaborate. And thanks for the commendation, however sarcasm does not escape me.


You took a chance in hopes that I would stumble by using yet another cheap shot. However, cheap shots don't work very well unless the purpose of the argument is to see who can use the most before running out of comebacks.



Maybe so, but I would try to stop it if I had a good chance. And I'm not a particularly violent person, but I am aware that in this world, violence is sometimes necessary, as a last resort. Maybe you could stop a school shooting by telling the gunman you support him against the fascist school and sheeplike students. Maybe just tell him he's justified in what he's doing, then he may stop, or at least he might not shoot you. The world needs more people who roll over on their backs like submissive dogs, in order to prevent violence. It's all so clear now.


Actually, you are right. There are six billion people in the world today, right? So if we use violence and kill six billion people, there will be NOBODY around, therefore, there will be no more violence and there will be everlasting peace! It makes sense now!
Really, it does.



You don't use it right, IMO, so it does not have the same effect.


In case you haven't noticed, I use what I want how I want. So it not having an effect on you because I use it differently (not wrongly) is yet another problem that you must deal or deal with.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
See, now that's desperate, redefining concepts in order to support your argument.


What concepts exactly did I redefine?



There is a comparison to be made. Case closed. Two hours ago.


No. There sure isn't. And nobody gave you the authority to close any case, your honor.



You took a chance in hopes that I would stumble by using yet another cheap shot. However, cheap shots don't work very well unless the purpose of the argument is to see who can use the most before running out of comebacks.


Stumble? How? That was just my opinion of how you would react based on our discussion thus far, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. There is no purpose to this argument, I know I cannot force you to see things my way, just as you cannot force me to see things yours.



Actually, you are right. There are six billion people in the world today, right? So if we use violence and kill six billion people, there will be NOBODY around, therefore, there will be no more violence and there will be everlasting peace! It makes sense now!
Really, it does.


Oh, so now I want to kill everybody in the world. I guess somehow that's what I have implied. By the way, your sarcasm skills are improving, a little.



In case you haven't noticed, I use what I want how I want.


Oooooh, getting a bit snippy are we?
Come to the darkside of the force Luke!



So it not having an effect on you because I use it differently (not wrongly) is yet another problem that you must deal or deal with.



You're right, I'll get right on that.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serum39
Agreed not all kids are swigging OTC medicines, but that statement represents what I see, read, experience and what my daughter and her friends say. SHE will be the first to tell you there is no way these kids are remotely ready to "fight a war".

And I must disagree about those kids who are fighting in Iraq. Those kids werent drafted (reserves aside). Those kids for the most part had some sort of sense of patriotism etc... I am referring to a situation that if a draft is implemanted, all the stoners, lazies, EMO's, unambitious, disrespectful, "whoa is me" types would be on our front lines. Her and her friends also told me that the subject of the draft has come up in some classes. It appears that most kids think they can just defect to Canada and sorts.

Just some FYI and concerns.


Sounds like we're alot alike, but I make electronic music. I know alot of younger people and even hang out with a few, I go to the gym religiously as well, there's alot of younger people there who are disciplined and would serve well. As for the EMO (70's throwbacks), and lazies, let them defect to Canada. Those who do report will grow up quickly, hell I think I'm draftable age, if needed, I will be there, as with most of my friends. Hopefully, that is not needed, but we'll be alright if it is, IMO.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I think the bush qoute itself exsplains this , "our enemies should learn not to disunderestimate us."

Now perosnally I think this is quite funny.
The USA is formidible , but can be knocked on its arse by a smaller country with a decent force.


Well devil you fish n chip munchers tried to in the 1770's and 1800's , but you got your asses kicked back to blighty. But i'm not surprised that youre so daft cuz every time you limeys get whacked by uncle sam you're actually still dumb enough to think that you jokers are the best, dream on dude dream on it's all you can do



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The US fights wars contained within guidelines; not hitting civilian centers, operating under restrictions, smaller conventional weapons, etc.

Assume that one day that the US is forced to fight a war with the only limiting factor being nuclear weapons off the table.
Iraq was not 10% of what this Nations military is capable of. Big Blu82 bombs are the largest weapon short of nuclear. It obliterates almost a full square mile of all Life, even whats underground. we have hundreds if not thousands of these. todays automatic guns are equal to an entire division of WW2 firepower.
Add the manufacturing capability, being able to turn out Munitions ona terrifying scale. A single Carrier group controls something like 80,000 square miles of area...how many carrier groups do we have...?

If unlimited war is ever undertaken by the US, we would take some hits, no doubt. But the aresenal possessed, the capability and technology cannot be countered today.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by marinefan
Well devil you fish n chip munchers tried to in the 1770's and 1800's , but you got your asses kicked back to blighty.
[/qoute]
Lets see outnumbered and out gunned.
you win that war general.
Besides didnt the french have a little help in that war?



But i'm not surprised that youre so daft cuz every time you limeys get whacked by uncle sam you're actually still dumb enough to think that you jokers are the best, dream on dude dream on it's all you can do

Yeah, thats why we sent the USS Nimitz, the largest ship in the fleet (I think I am correct here, but if I am not its still one of the largest.) offcourse by an outdated frigate.
Yeah your really better there....



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by marinefan
Well devil you fish n chip munchers tried to in the 1770's and 1800's , but you got your asses kicked back to blighty.
[/qoute]
Lets see outnumbered and out gunned.
you win that war general.
Besides didnt the french have a little help in that war?



But i'm not surprised that youre so daft cuz every time you limeys get whacked by uncle sam you're actually still dumb enough to think that you jokers are the best, dream on dude dream on it's all you can do

Yeah, thats why we sent the USS Nimitz, the largest ship in the fleet (I think I am correct here, but if I am not its still one of the largest.) offcourse by an outdated frigate.
Yeah your really better there....


Yeah so we had frog help just like you needed kraut mercenaries and native american tribes to do your damn fighting for you

Ever hear of the USS ENTERPRISE in one exercise she wiped the Royal Navy battle group(collection of white painter barges that could be sunk by the coasties really) out in minutes and, the best you jokers could do was send a few harriers up to get b*tch slapped by our F-14's.
No doubt that classifies as a victory for you,if so ol'john paul jones and oliver perry were laughing their heads off, and nelson was herniating




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by marinefan
Yeah so we had frog help just like you needed kraut mercenaries and native american tribes to do your damn fighting for you


Isnt that kind of going back on what the US does now?
Wonder who they borrowed the idea of using local troops with local experience from....


Ever hear of the USS ENTERPRISE in one exercise she wiped the Royal Navy battle group(collection of white painter barges that could be sunk by the coasties really) out in minutes and, the best you jokers could do was send a few harriers up to get b*tch slapped by our F-14's.

What year was this? 1946?
Cant remember hearing this , although sea harriers vs F-14's is a bit unfair since the F-14 is the worlds best naval fighter plane.
Also, the USS enterprise couldnt have done it , unless they are using the close range gun crews or missile on board.
The CAP would have done it, but this isnt really fair since america fleet; F-14's RN; Sea harrier.
Super sonic vs subsonic.
Who wins?????


No doubt that classifies as a victory for you,if so ol'john paul jones and oliver perry were laughing their heads off, and nelson was herniating

Not really, a top notch fleet beats old fleet. Not a big deal.
Old fleet beats top notch fleet. Big deal.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Cracker this was 2001 June i think of the eastern coast of Auld Scat..er..sorry scotland the present USS ENTERPRISE CVN-65 is the worthy heir to a name greater than any warship that has sailed before her her fighting spirit is only equaled by her predecessor the original WW2 ENTERPRISE

So i don't think that those eggtops of yours can do much but sink..so as those NAVY fighter jocks say eat s*it and die limey
:



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by marinefan
Yeah so we had frog help just like you needed kraut mercenaries and native american tribes to do your damn fighting for you


Isnt that kind of going back on what the US does now?
Wonder who they borrowed the idea of using local troops with local experience from....


Ever hear of the USS ENTERPRISE in one exercise she wiped the Royal Navy battle group(collection of white painter barges that could be sunk by the coasties really) out in minutes and, the best you jokers could do was send a few harriers up to get b*tch slapped by our F-14's.

What year was this? 1946?
Cant remember hearing this , although sea harriers vs F-14's is a bit unfair since the F-14 is the worlds best naval fighter plane.
Also, the USS enterprise couldnt have done it , unless they are using the close range gun crews or missile on board.
The CAP would have done it, but this isnt really fair since america fleet; F-14's RN; Sea harrier.
Super sonic vs subsonic.
Who wins?????


No doubt that classifies as a victory for you,if so ol'john paul jones and oliver perry were laughing their heads off, and nelson was herniating

Not really, a top notch fleet beats old fleet. Not a big deal.
Old fleet beats top notch fleet. Big deal.


Also as for using local troops HAH.. in Afghanistan in the early stages we used the northern alliance at first but then the marines and airborne troops took over and unlike your so called marines they didnt fall sick with winter vomiting disease



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by marinefan
Also as for using local troops HAH.. in Afghanistan in the early stages we used the northern alliance at first but then the marines and airborne troops took over and unlike your so called marines they didnt fall sick with winter vomiting disease

Really, so the 1100 troops (less than our marine core) managed to hold all of Afghanistan yeah....sure...
Also what "winter vomiting disease" is this?
Come on we live in a freezeing country wich rains on an hourly basis, we see sunlight once a week if we are lucky.


These marines dont look too sick...


Nor him...


Nor him.....
Dont see much sickness here...



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
nice pics this were during operation ptarmigan, go check the BBC or daily telegraph archives online and you will know what i'm saying winter vomiting disease struck just before operation condor when the Aussie SAS came under fire it took you lot 11 hours to get to the firefight area(rapid reaction force my ass) by that time AQT were long gone other highlights include storming empty caves for the benefit of the cameras as well as blowing up a # load of explosives that it turns out belonged to a allied warlord and was going to be used to arm the afghan army, the royals were more interested in trash talking the americans than doing their damn job
BTW you didnt control afghanistan all you did was whine about the 10th mountain division screwing up while you ran around in circles with entertaining operation names like snipe and condor ptarmigan etc.
and remember there is no way that the royals even though they are a damn sight better than the lil'limey army could have marched on to baghdad like the USMC ,so get it straight kid you'll grow smart that way



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by marinefan
nice pics this were during operation ptarmigan, go check the BBC or daily telegraph archives online and you will know what i'm saying winter vomiting disease struck just before operation condor when the Aussie SAS came under fire it took you lot 11 hours to get to the firefight area(rapid reaction force my ass)by that time AQT were long gone other highlights include storming empty caves for the benefit of the cameras as well as blowing up a # load of explosives that it turns out belonged to a allied warlord and was going to be used to arm the afghan army, the royals were more interested in trash talking the americans than doing their damn job

Ok firstly the RMC is a rapid reaction force, can you mobilise a company in less than 24 hours and have them any where in that time period?
Also 11 hours to get to a spot with 63kg (138lb) flak jackets and packs the men were carrying posed another problem, as did the landmines, the rough terrain and freezing temperatures.
Now tell me that is a "walk in the park"
And add to the fact there are 2 operation condors, the assasination one and the support one.

I have looked up and I see no "11 Hours waiting time" Hell the MOD and several sources jut say , "The operation was intended to destroy enemy forces in the area and the infrastructure supporting them. The Australian patrol engaged the enemy on 16th May, after coming under fire from machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, the patrol called in air support and casualties were inflicted on the enemy. Early the next day, additional ground forces joined them including members of 45 Commando Group. By 18th May all four companies of 45 Commando plus their supporting Royal Artillery battery were in the area. Munitions discovered in the area after the fire fight were disposed of safely"




BTW you didnt control afghanistan all you did was whine about the 10th mountain division screwing up while you ran around in circles with entertaining operation names like snipe and condor ptarmigan etc.
and remember there is no way that the royals even though they are a damn sight better than the lil'limey army could have marched on to baghdad like the USMC ,so get it straight kid you'll grow smart that way

Yes .....right...and let me ask you who was it involved in the military operation that saved a CIA's mans life?

Oh btw.


In a remote area of the Afghan mountains at an altitude of between nine and thirteen thousand feet high over 1,000 personnel from 45 Commando Group were engaged in Operation Snipe from 2nd May 2002. The troops were supported by Chinooks of No.27 Squadron, RAF, and local Afghan forces. The aim of the Operation, codenamed Snipe, was to search and clear the area which was believed to be a base used by al-Qaeda and Taliban forces.
The area, in the southeast of the country was investigated by Coalition forces, with the aim of searching, clearing and destroying any terrorist infrastructure located there and render it safe for aid operations to the local population.


During the operation a major cave network was discovered that contained a huge arms cache. Over 100 mortars, a hundred anti-tank guns along with hundreds of rocket-propelled grenades, anti-personnel mines, artillery shells and rockets as well as thousands of rounds of anti-aircraft and small-arms ammunition. Demolition charges were placed and the entire complex was destroyed.
The successful conclusion of Snipe was announced on 13 May

So finding a hidden cache is not helping?

Also can YOU operate at 10,000ft above sea level effectively?
This happened....
A US fighter plane in Afghanistan accidentally bombed a group of Canadian troops, killing four soldiers and injuring eight others during a routine training exercise near the southern city of Kandahar on Thursday.
Tell me that is effective.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join