What is the 3rd best military ??

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
To end this topic once and for all, you don't have a bad military tradition. but you also don't have a great military tradition.

Originally posted by Johnny

Before the commonwealth was established, we had a personal union with Lithuania (who were the Teutons fighting in 1410?). This made us one country.

No. You had a personal union, but soon you stopped to have. The Lithuanians were protesting. Thus in Lithuania, a grand prince, Vitold, has been instituted, and Lithuania was dependant on you.

Originally posted by Johnny
Piłsudski was dead for five years when we were attacked.

And before you were attacked, he said that you will be attacked. Do you want me to quote him? Or read the history book I told you about, it quotes Pilsudski (chapter: Poland before World War II).

Originally posted by Johnny
You keep saying about the XVIIth century and after. How about the times before? Poland existed 700 years before XVIIth century. That’s a LOT of time. We had our times of glory in that period. We won a lot of wars then.

Not times of glory. Until the death of Boleslav Kedzierzawy, you were dependant on the Holy Roman Empire (paying tribute), with sparadic periods of independence. As for wars:
War with Brandenburg (972)
They defeated Brandenburg, one of German counties, while their (Brandenburg) forces were marching towards Pomerania to take it over. Whoah. What an accomplishment. Defeating only one county, instead of one COUNTRY. But let’s count it as a victory, to be fair. But let’s also not count it as Germany’s loss, to be fair.

War with Germany and Russia in the 11th century.
At first, the Poles were victorious and took over a few provinces, but they lost in the end (we recovered them in the 1030s). They had to give up the crown, which meant they stopped to be an independent state. (In the Middle Ages, only crowned monarchs – kings and emperors – were considered independent monarchs.) As for Russia, the Poles took over Kiev and the Tschervyensk Towns, and later lost it.

Bohemian invasion in 1038
Bohemia, taking advantage of the Polish prince’s absence, and Poland’s weakness, invaded Poland, robbed it, took the relics of St. Woyciekh and conquered Silesia. They won without fighting – there was no one to defend Poland.

War against Germany (1109-1150s)
In Poland, there were disputes about who should inherit the throne. Germany wanted to get involved. At first, Poland was winning, but in the end (during the period of the Principalital Split) it lost, and had to consider itself dependent on Germany. Having the Polish prince being dependent on him, the German emperor resigned from interfering with Poland’s dynastical affairs.

War against the Mongols (1241)
Lost, enough said.

War with the Teutonic Knights (1308-1309)
The Teutonic Knights conquered all of East Pomerania. But let’s be fair towards Poland, it was only a part of Poland.

War with the Teutonic Knights (1329-1332)
Lost. The Order conquered all of Cuyavs, and remained the possessor of East Pomerania. During one battle, the Polish heir to the throne, Casimir, escaped, and later the Order with satisfaction was informing all of Europe about this.

Meeting at Vyshehrad (1335)
There was a dispute about Silesia between Poland and Bohemia. Bohemia also wanted to rule Poland. The Polish king gave up Silesia and payed a big compensation to the Bohemian king, and in exchange, the Bohemian king stopped using the title of the Polish king.

The Kalisz treaty (1343)
There was a dispute about East Pomerania between Poland and the Teutonic Knights. The Poles gave up Pomerania, calling it “a donation”.

Conquest of Halich Russia (14th century)
Finally, a won that the Poles won. They conquered a part of Russia.

War with the Teutonic Knights (1409-1411)
Poland and Lithuania were fighting against the Teutonic Knights. Lithuania won, but Poland didn’t. The allies won at Tannenberg, but couldn’t take over the Marienburg castle. Lithuania got its province – Smuidz – back, but Poland didn’t recover East Pomerania.

War against Turkey (1444)
Hungary earlier had won a war against the Turks. Hungary and Poland started a new war against Turkey and lost.

War against the Teutonic Knights (1454-1466)
Poland defeated the Order and recovered East Pomerania (and got a part of the Order’s State’s territory). What an accomplishment. A small plot of land. But anyway let’s count it as a victory, to be fair.

War against Russia in the 16th century
Tied. Attempts to take over Pskov failed.



We were not completely run by these empires. You don’t know the facts. If we failed, I’d be speaking deutsch or ruski now.

Destroying the culture and completely running a nation are different. Your culture was not destroyed, but you were completely run by the three powers.
BTW - you want to know why your culture wasn't destroyed? Because most of your artist etc. escaped from the territories of former Poland, and because since 1867 Austria was liberal.


As a German, you don’t know anything about honor and saving your own country. You always were the agressors
Not truth. We have been attacked several times.

Roman aggression
Roman empire managed only to conquer the territory on the left bank of the Rhine river, which is only a small part of Germany.

Hunian aggression
Huns invaded Europe. The Germanics together with the Romans defeated the Huns. This was Attilla's only defeat.

Hungarian aggression (955)
Hungarians attacked Germany. Their aggression has been repelled

War with Poland (1003-1030s)
Poland took over a few provinces, and we recovered them.



and lost in greatest conflicts,

Not truth.

War with the Roman empire
The Roman empire managed to conquer only a small part of Germany.

War with the Huns
Huns invaded Europe. The Germanics together with the Romans defeated the Huns. This was Attilla's only defeat.

3rd Crusade
Won, together with the French, English, Templars, Hospitallers and Italians.


We have a great military tradition,

No, as I already said. I say this because you lost many wars, including war with Mongols in 1241, war with Turkey in 1444, war with Russia in the 17th century, were partitioned, later lost 4 insurections and ultimately lost WWII as being taken over by the USSR under the pretext of "freeing Poland".


and you can’t say about military tradition and glory yourself.

I can. See above for the example of the wars Germany won.


(and don’t say we did in the Middle Ages, you were ones dripping with blood of Arabic women and children).

During what Crusade?
Surely not during Frederick II's crusade, which was an unbloody crusade.


Don’t theorize. History is history. There are facts.

I'm not theorizing. History is history. There are facts. You have lost the war I mentioned - that is a FACT (and that's why IMO you don't have a great military tradition). Germany won the wars I mentioned - another FACT.


And the fact is we were the 4th strongest nation at the end of the war

You were not. The strongest nations were: Americans, Nazi Germans, English, Soviets and Japanese. Without the US, Japan would rule all of Asia.


If they were not important, our country would not exist or would have become a USSR republic.

Your country was not a USSR republic, but was run by the USSR.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny
You should have asked them.
Scots had separate corps in the WWII, right?

I didnt ask them because its not the thing you ask every lunchtime.
Independant corps? Why???
No , we are one nation, we have 6 regiments that have served very well but are being almalgamated into 1.
We have always fought alongside the englsih, Irish, northern irish and welsh.


My grandmother's brother served in one of the Independent Polish Commando Companies. I regret that I never had the chance to ask him.

Ah thats diffrent from what your thinking.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I’m not interested in a source that is a secondary school book.
We did not win wars because we were never the aggressor country. We won battles, in self-defense. I guess that Poland existed only thanks to the kindness of other nations. If we were that weak, we would be partitioned a long time before the XVII century. We repelled aggression, as you did.
Stop mixing facts and using examples which you take as defeat and us as victory. It’s a manipulation.
In the Xth century there was no German country as a whole. It was NOT united. You are talking about countries.
We lost over 10 insurrections. But we tried to free ourselves from a regime.

Yes, attacking weaker countries and slaughtering the innocent is “GLORIOUS”.

Yeah, Barbarossa was an angel. He did not spill blood.
You’re pathetic in defense (oh, I’m insulting you as you insulted my nation in many points).
And the crusades you took part in were lost, by the way.

You may have won these wars but after the Second World War your country lost all their glory. What a shame.
I bet Jews deserved death in WWII, just like they did in 1096.




You were not. The strongest nations were: Americans, Nazi Germans, English, Soviets and Japanese.


After the war Nazis were crushed and had no soldiers, they were demilitarized (there was not much left to demilitarize).
Japan and Germany were militarily powerful nations no more. The Allied nations were the victors and Axis countries, the defeated ones, were occupied.



Without the US, Japan would rule all of Asia.


China stopped Japanese expansion. Japanese had less land troops. They were a navy power.



Your country was not a USSR republic, but was run by the USSR.


Then in 1990 we have actually regained our freedom. So did half of Germany.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
So, anyone from your family fought in WWII?

Don't make me repeat myself. Too bad you don't speak of the facts you can't reject.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny
I’m not interested in a source that is a book.

I'm not using that book anymore.
Oh, and I would like to state that I hate school.

Originally posted by Johnny
We did not win wars because we were never the aggressor country.

You were twice the agressor. Not only in war with Halich Russia, but also in the war with Germany, Bohemia and Russia (1003-1030s).

Originally posted by Johnny
I guess that Poland existed only thanks to the kindness of other nations.

Yes. Poland now exists only because other countries helped it exist. In the 14th century, if it wasn’t for Hungary, Poland would be annihilated by the Bohemian-Teutonic Knights coalition. During WWII, if it wasn’t for the US, GB and Australia, Poland would be annihilated. During the second half of the 20th century, if it wasn’t for the US and the Vatican (who chose a Polish cardinal, Karol Wojtyla, as a Pope), Poland would be annihilated by the USSR. The USSR could have easily solved the problem of “Solidarnosc” if it was acting alone, but the USSR was opposed by the US and the Vatican. The Soviets didn’t want the whole world to be their enemies, so they gave up.


Stop mixing facts and using examples which you take as defeat and us as victory. It’s a manipulation.

Firstly, I am not mixing facts. You wanted me to provide examples of when Germany repelled an aggression on its territory, and I did. You wanted me to say why I say your country doesn't have a great military tradition - I mentioned some of the wars you lost.
Secondly, I'm not taking something as a defeat. Something is a defeat or not. You lost the war with Russia in the 17 century. You failed to take over Russia. That is a defeat.


In the Xth century there was no German country as a whole. It was NOT united. You are talking about countries.

THERE WAS A GERMAN COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. In 919, Henry I became the first king of Germany, and ruled all of Germany.
[


Yes, attacking weaker countries and slaughtering the innocent is “GLORIOUS”.

I didn't say that.


Yeah, Barbarossa was an angel. He did not spill blood.


Frederick II was not Frederick Barbarossa. And no, he didn't spill blood in the Holy Lands. His crusade was unbloody.


You’re pathetic in defense (oh, I’m insulting you as you insulted my nation in many points).

No, I'm not. I'm saying that Frederick II didn't spill blood in the Holy Lands. That's not pathethic, that is a fact.


And the crusades you took part in were lost, by the way.
2 of the 3 crusades we took part in (the Third Crusade and Frederick II's unbloody crusade) were won.

Third Crusade
This crusade has been started because Saladin conquered almost all of Kingdom of Jerusalem. The crusade was won - a belt of the coast was conquered. The participants were: the English, the French, the Germans, the Flandrians, the Templars, the Hospitallers and the Italians.

Frederick II's unbloody crusade
Frederick II managed to recover Jerusalem without fighting.


You may have won these wars but after the Second World War your country lost all their glory. What a shame.

No, we didn't lose our glory. We have won too many wars. The glory for winning them is bigger than shame for the atrocities during WWII.


I bet Jews deserved death in WWII, just like they did in 1096.

No, they didn't.


After the war Nazis were crushed and had no soldiers, they were demilitarized

I'm talking about what was happening at the end of the war, not after the war.


(there was not much left to demilitarize).

There was much left to demilitarize. At the end of the war, Germany had many tanks and many subs.


China stopped Japanese expansion. Japanese had less land troops. They were a navy power.

China was conquered by Japan.
Without the US, they would be a Japanese colony.


[edit on 8-8-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny
So, anyone from your family fought in WWII?


Maybe not, but according to your previous post, he personally took part in the crusades.


And the crusades you took part in were lost, by the way.




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

China was conquered by Japan.
Without the US, they would be a Japanese colony.


in 1938 it was a stalemate.

japan wanted more resources so they could have the upper hand in the wa. thats why pearl habour happened



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by Johnny
So, anyone from your family fought in WWII?


Maybe not, but according to your previous post, he personally took part in the crusades.


And the crusades you took part in were lost, by the way.



He's a german. I ment his nation. (you=Germans) Okay?
AtheiXalso uses 'you' when saying about Poles.


[edit on 9-8-2005 by Johnny]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   


I'm not using that book anymore.

So you’re using german books? As I said, I have noticed most Germans don’t know much from their own books. Are these school books too? That can’t be treated as a legit source.



You were twice the agressor. Not only in war with Halich Russia, but also in the war with Germany, Bohemia and Russia (1003-1030s).

And how many times was Germany the aggressor?



Yes. Poland now exists only because other countries helped it exist. In the 14th century, if it wasn’t for Hungary, Poland would be annihilated by the Bohemian-Teutonic Knights coalition. During WWII, if it wasn’t for the US, GB and Australia, Poland would be annihilated. During the second half of the 20th century, if it wasn’t for the US and the Vatican (who chose a Polish cardinal, Karol Wojtyla, as a Pope), Poland would be annihilated by the USSR. The USSR could have easily solved the problem of “Solidarnosc” if it was acting alone, but the USSR was opposed by the US and the Vatican. The Soviets didn’t want the whole world to be their enemies, so they gave up.

Annihilated? You lost in the Battle of Płowce. The Teutonic Order took over a part of our land but had no chance of annihilating an entire country.
The Hungarians helped us. Well, we were good in diplomacy, our power was not only military. And yet again, you were the aggressor, prepared for war. In times of our glory, we withstood german attacks. And if Germany was a whole country then, we would be annihilated. But it wasn’t.

Australia?! What power were they? They had navy and fought on the Coral Sea with the Japanese. They were not interested in Europe.
We had 600,000 soldiers, for God’s sake! We had to have profits, we took a part in the war against Germany important enough for the US and GB to help us.

The US were watching the Soviet Army movements on our borders. If the USSR tried to attack us, we would be aided. US wanted USSR to fall. And Solidarność was one of the means of fighting the Communists. Solidarność was important for them and they were Polish nation’s allies. Alliances make a nation powerful too.



You lost the war with Russia in the 17 century. You failed to take over Russia. That is a defeat.

EVERYONE failed to take over Russia, haven’t you noticed?



THERE WAS A GERMAN COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. In 919, Henry I became the first king of Germany, and ruled all of Germany.


Still, 400 years later, when the Teutonic Order was CRUSHED by Poland, we were not attacked by entire Germany (the Holy Roman Empire).




2 of the 3 crusades we took part in (the Third Crusade and Frederick II's unbloody crusade) were won.

And later, those lands you took once again were captured by the Arabs. That’s failure.




No, we didn't lose our glory. We have won too many wars. The glory for winning them is bigger than shame for the atrocities during WWII.

Your “glorious” military history was an argument used by Hitler that justified killing innocent people, slaughtering entire nations in concentration camps.




quote:
Yes, attacking weaker countries and slaughtering the innocent is “GLORIOUS”.

I didn't say that.

So your military history wasn’t glorious.




quote:
I bet Jews deserved death in WWII, just like they did in 1096.

No, they didn't.

Then the crusades you won by genocide were not glorious victories.




I'm talking about what was happening at the end of the war, not after the war. There was much left to demilitarize. At the end of the war, Germany had many tanks and many subs.

How many? If you were such a power, you shouldn’t have surrendered.


[edit on 9-8-2005 by Johnny]

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Johnny]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny

Annihilated? You lost in the Battle of Płowce.

Firstly, WE GERMANS didn't lose the Battle of Plovce. The Teutonic Knights did, and their state was only a small part of Germany.
Secondly, you won that battle, but lost the entire war. So stop turning the attention away from your loss.

Originally posted by Johnny
The Teutonic Order took over a part of our land but had no chance of annihilating an entire country.

THEY HAD. They could annihilate your country. You lost the war in 1329-1332. But they didn't, since fighting with Lithuania was more important to them.
And they not only took over a part of your country, but also remained the possessor of the part of your country they took over in the previous war (East Pomerania).

Originally posted by Johnny
And if Germany was a whole country then, we would be annihilated. But it wasn’t.

It was! It was a whole country 919!

Originally posted by Johnny
Australia?! What power were they? They had navy and fought on the Coral Sea with the Japanese. They were not interested in Europe.

They fought in the Italian campaign. And they had ground forces.

Originally posted by Johnny
We had to have profits, we took a part in the war against Germany important enough for the US and GB to help us.

You were not important. Even without you the Allies would win with the same losses as they really suffered.

Originally posted by Johnny
Solidarność was important for them and they were Polish nation’s allies.

Even if Solidarnosc didn't exist, they would win. You cannot claim that Solidarnosc was important to them. They (the US) would win anyway.

Originally posted by Johnny
Alliances make a nation powerful too.

No. If you have powerful allies, you are not powerful - your allies are, but not you.

Originally posted by Johnny
EVERYONE failed to take over Russia, haven’t you noticed?

It does't matter if others failed to do so or not, that's not what we are talking about. Of course, others failed. Honestly, Napoleon Bonaparte made the same mistake as you did.

Originally posted by Johnny
Still, 400 years later, when the Teutonic Order was CRUSHED by Poland, we were not attacked by entire Germany (the Holy Roman Empire).

That was because the state of the Order, in spite of formally being one of Empire's principalities, was in fact an independent state. It conducted its own politics. And no German emperor even wanted to make the Order different, because that was not what they wanted.

Originally posted by Johnny
And later, those lands you took once again were captured by the Arabs. That’s failure.

That is not failure, because once taking over Jerusalem, we handed it over to the King of Jerusalem (to whom it should have belonged), and our army left the Holy Lands. That is the failure of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not ours.


Originally posted by Johnny
Your “glorious” military history was an argument used by Hitler that justified killing innocent people, slaughtering entire nations in concentration camps.

The glory for winning them is bigger than shame for the atrocities during WWII.

Originally posted by Johnny
Then the crusades you won by genocide were not glorious victories.

We did not win by genocide, we won by killing enemy soldiers. That is not genocide.

Originally posted by Johnny


How many? If you were such a power, you shouldn’t have surrendered.

We were a power, but the US was a greater power, so we would lose against the US anyway.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
why are we living in the past on this thread..
...
"back to the future" people..
...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
why are we living in the past on this thread..
...
"back to the future" people..
...

We cant though, you ever tried to get 1.21 gigawatts of electricity?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
OK.

"What is the 3rd best military?"

Well, number one and number two are after:

Al Qaeda

[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Johnny you're right about the quality of Polish troops in WW2 - Battle of Britain, Monte C and Falaise are abttle honours that can stand alongside any. Britain's aqcuiesence to US desires to sell the Poles down the river is very shameful for the Allied side.

BUT you're way off the mark with this Scottish separatist rumour BS!

Don't confuse the usual intra-unit bitching & fighting in the British Army with anything deeper. In 20+ years of detailed study of the UK Army post '14 I've never heard of anything like it (not Welsh, Scottish or Irish (even when their were Unionist and Nationalist divisions on the same front) not once).

Do you have any evidence to support your insinuation?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by Johnny
Australia?! What power were they? They had navy and fought on the Coral Sea with the Japanese. They were not interested in Europe.

They fought in the Italian campaign. And they had ground forces.


Actually, the AIF fought in Syria, North Africa, Greece and Crete and the RAN fought in the Med. Australians contributed to and made up squadrons in the RAF, but we didn't fight in the Low Countries, France or Italy.

At Tobruk the Diggers, under an Aussie General, gave Rommel his first defeat in battle.


After that we did our fighting against the Japanese in New Guinea, Timor and Borneo.

As for Nazi Germany being a top power in 1945, Atheix, have you seen pictures of Germany in 1945? How many armies were on your doorstep? Where was your power when Zhukov had a 360 degree encirclement of Berlin and 24-hour Katyusha barrage? Nazi Germany (3rd Reich, whatever), ceased being a power in 1942, from then on it's victories were inconclusive and from 1943 it's defeats were consecutive.

The height of the 3rd Reich's power was the day it stood at the gates of Moscow. From then on it was trip down memory lane as it visited its holiday spots from last year! It couldn't invade the UK, but the British could, and did, invade occupied Europe.

And in 1939 the UK could be said to have been the most powerful nation on earth, if it could muster the militaries of its entire empire in one place. The world's largest navy, not to mention the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders, with the largest number of carriers, the entire Army of India, which then included Pakistan and Bangladesh, its African colonies, the Hurricane as front-line fighter and the Spitfire entering service, the Wellington as standard bomber and the Sunderland as maritime patrol.

Had it not had to contend with the Japanese in Asia, it could have done you without US forces.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by Johnny
and lost in greatest conflicts,

Not truth.

War with the Roman empire
The Roman empire managed to conquer only a small part of Germany.

War with the Huns
Huns invaded Europe. The Germanics together with the Romans defeated the Huns. This was Attilla's only defeat.

3rd Crusade
Won, together with the French, English, Templars, Hospitallers and Italians


The greatest conflict the world has seen was WW2, the only truly global war. Funny, I don't see you claiming to have the victor's cup amongst your silverware.

Arguably the second greatest conflict was World War 1 (The great War, the War to End All Wars etc) and you lost that one too. And you can't call your loss noble, or grand or whatever for the simple fact that you were the aggressor in that one, too.
Don't claim that the intertwined alliances of Europe made it inevitable, no-one else had developed a plan for the simultaneous invasion of all its neighbours.

Today is the first time in history that a united Germany does not have an aggressive, militarist, expansionist mindset.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Wow,great battle going on here between johnny and Atheix.

Pound for pound I would nominate the Australian Defence Force as being in contention for 3rd place.At present our Army is basically one over-sized division with full support,but the wars of the future don't look like being made up of El Alamein or Kursk type mass battles,more like we see in Iraq,guerilla-type operations.In the vast land mass of Australia we could hold off just about anyone.

When the Commonwealth of Australia was federated we were at war with the Boers,where we matched their commando tactics while the regular British troops had been unable to.In WW1 we were thumped by the Turks at Gallipoli but went on to have a great impact on the Western front with aggressive patrolling and hit and run raids,and halting German offensives at Pozieres and Villiers-Bretonneux among others.

In WW2 we held Tobruk against Rommel and were the first to halt the Japanese on the Kokoda Track,using their jungle tactics against them.In Korea Australians and Canadians inflicted a huge defeat on the Chinese at Kapyong.In Vietnam,we again patrolled aggressively instead of trying to force a large engagement.In 1966 108 Aussies fought and defeated three regiments of NVA at Long Tan,and by the time we withdrew in 1972 there was basically no VC activity in the Australian area of Ops and one could almost go un-armed through the province.

The Australian "digger" of today is well-trained and well-aware of his heritage.If we could give GWB 100,000 diggers Iraq would probably be over by now.

PS I admit to being a little biased. Go Australia!



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
The UK, they have very modern weapons, good training, great history. The challenger 2 tank will definatly help in any war and has proven itself. China has the man power as does India but they are too unorganized and are little more than an armed group of millions. The UK also has the support of the US, Australia the whole commonwealth.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Far out man is right. stuff the UK, the Aus army is very good and with support form the US we would be very good. In WW1, the Australians were used as shock troops, WW2 there were groups of Australians operating in covert raids, they were called force z. Australia's military, man fro man is in the top 5 best military s in the world

PS i am Australian, dad served for 22 years and i ma planning on enlisting.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I have only read the first 3 pages of this thread. But i have a few points.

North Korea suck they have half the population of the South worse equipment less money they are physicaly weaker (a studied showed the average height and weight difference in children and South Koreans were physicaly superior due to diet). Iraq was supposed to be so powerful how long did it take for the US to end the actual war (not including occupation) less than a month. NK is similair strength to that of Iraq. Along with Sk reserves estimated at 4.5 million.

People claimed that the Israeli Defence Forces included over 1 million personnel that would mean 1 in 7 Israelis would be in the defence forces. Israel is to small. To do anything but protect itself it cannot projest its power.

People have been talking about budgets here are the top ten military spenders. $US as of 2005

1.USA-$404 920 000 000
2.Russia-$62 200 000 000
3.China-$55 948 000 000
4.France-$45 695 000 000
5.Japan-$42 835 000 000
6.UK-$42 782 000 000
7.Germany-$35 145 000 000
8.Italy-$27 751 000 000
9.Saudi Arabia-$18 747 000 000
10.India-$15 508 000 000





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join