Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well- It's true that the US military has unquestioned superiority regarding technology, air force, naval forces, deployment capacity, and pretty much everything else.

But in my book it still doesn't beat defeating 100,000 austrians when you're not even there.

At 2/11/08 02:39 PM, Empanado wrote: But in my book it still doesn't beat defeating 100,000 austrians when you're not even there.

Most amusing military fuck up in history?

I think so.

At 2/11/08 02:39 PM, Empanado wrote: Well- It's true that the US military has unquestioned superiority regarding technology, air force, naval forces, deployment capacity, and pretty much everything else.

But in my book it still doesn't beat defeating 100,000 austrians when you're not even there.

"Decisive Self-Induced Austrian Defeat"

Hahahahahahaha!.........hahahahahhaha!
Man, I love the wording. DECISIVE defeat, not even like "marginal" or "tactical" or anything......

"and Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II was pushed off his horse into a small creek."

hahahahaahah! Classic Roman Emperor death. Kudos!

At 2/11/08 08:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote: ;
What you say Imperator about each of us ,looking at things in 'each in our own way' is in my opinion a real part of why there is such a large division in how many of us see this topic.

Yeah, and unfortunately why flame wars break out every single time a topic like this arises.

But instead of going & grabing a half dozen or so web pages that support my side of my views, I would like you to thin about this.

Will do!

The United States Military, is being put forward by some people as the best in the world.
I have seen & heard as well as read that the President of the U.S. is the top commander of the U.S. Military.

Both true....

I believe you actually call him (possibly her someday) the Supreme Commander of all the U.S. Military.

"C in C" is the term we use. Commander in Chief. Yes.

I personally watched the present President of the United States tell me & millions of others that in waging his 'War on Terror' the decission to protect EVERYONE was behind the invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately yes. And now the consensus reached by the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission, independent academics worldwide, and the CIA itself is that the War in Iraq actually HURT our efforts on the WoT, and invading Iraq bolstered Osama and swelled his ranks.

I award the groupthink that led to Iraq the Darwin Award. Unfortunately that means as an American I receive the "prize" as well......

Since the invasion of Iraq, & the massive collateral damage to the people there, the almost 4000 killed & over 20,000 wounded American Service personel, the U.S. President & the military he is in charge of have found 0 (that is a ZERO ) weapons of mass destruction.

Well, he actually DID have WMDs in the form of Chem weapons. We know, because we sold them to him......

The issue was about nuclear weapons, and we were dead fuckin wrong there. Someone's gonna come back and say "so was every other spy agency", which is true, but WE'RE the ones who invaded based on that shit intel.

Zero, just come & tell me again HOW GREAT IS A ZERO results ?

One of the things I like most about Petraeus' dissertation (and I've only read snippits, but will eventually get to the whole thing), is that he addresses specifically these types of things as our failures in Vietnam. Going in without a clear objective, without real sound reasoning, and without a clear plan of fighting and leaving are some of the things he addresses as failures we shouldn't repeat.

Again I'll say it, the most of this , the more advanced, the most expensive Blah , blah, blah !
Doesn't prove that it is the best.

True. Like I said in my previous post, there is a historical precedent of the most tech advanced country having a tough time against less advanced armies, especially in imperial occupation settings. There's the Brits against the Romans, the US against the Vietnamese (now Iraqis), and even the US against the British in our revolution.

how quickly we forget.....

Results are what prove the best in my opinion, look at sports for a perfect AMERICAN value of best.
It's the winner(s) the one(s) who prove themselves better than the rest.

Moreover, results are only as good as WHAT YOU LOOK AT! If you don't look at a certain variable, your results reflect that. It'd be like judging a basketball game by just looking at the number of fouls a team has. We look at it from points: Doesn't matter how many yards a football team ran, its the final score (measured in touchdowns, field goals, etc) that determine the winner.

The REAL question is:
Does the "winner" dictate who's the better team though? It indicates who won, but doesn't necessarily indicate skill overall. Things like injuries may affect performance on a single game, but a team's overall record might look the best despite a single loss.

In the American Military's invasion of Iraq to remove the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, they have a ZERO score.

Precisely.

Your military in my opinion with this simple example is not the best at all. They can't even get their facts straight, not 1 WMD ,in the entire country & you've been there for almost 5 years.

Epic Fail

Agreed. Chalk Iraq up as a fail, because our objective wasn't met, and now we're not even sure what our objective is. People aren't even sure how long we'll be there. With the size and scale of some of the bases being built there, it looks like forever. Is that an objective? I dunno.....

It's hard to measure Win or Loss when there's no criteria for such a conclusion. That's my biggest problem with Iraq, and my biggest problem with how people debate the situation in Iraq. No one ever agrees on a set of variables, so everyone's own opinion is deemed the best and we argue in circles.

Now I want YOU to think about something:

Are the number of conflicts fought and won vs fought and lost an indicator of how good an army is? The US has been engaged in well over 200 conflicts since our founding, and I believe our success rate is well above 50%, maybe even 90% or above.

If compared to other armies, would this indicate who's "the best"?

How do we measure who's "the best" in today's world based on the Iraq War? How do we factor in the nations that aren't currently fighting a conflict, or have fought one (or participate in this one) recently? Do the differences between the Iraq War and other wars matter when looking at who's "the best", or is Iraq an accurate indication of where the modern American army stands in the world?

Shit, if it IS an accurate indication, how do we measure it with other countries who aren't participating on the opposing side? How do we measure our allies, or those not fighting?

Frankly I'm not happy with 99% of this and similar threads. No one bothers to use their brain, and the ones who argue "XYZ is the best" fan the biggest flames.......

At 2/11/08 02:47 PM, Imperator wrote: "and Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II was pushed off his horse into a small creek."

hahahahaahah! Classic Roman Emperor death. Kudos!

Actually he didn't die - and we shouldn't be too harsh on Joseph. At least he knew how to have sex, which can't be said from other contemporary European kings. The wiki article says that Joseph wrote of Louis: "he introduces the member, stays there without moving for about two minutes, withdraws without ejaculating but still erect, and bids goodnight..."

So yeah, a bunch of truly awesome dudes were in charge of Europe back in the day, losing 10% of your army against invisible Turks and not knowing what your dick is for.

At 2/10/08 11:52 AM, DeathAura wrote:

At 2/10/08 11:37 AM, Transkar wrote:

At 2/10/08 05:07 AM, DeathAura wrote:

At 2/7/08 08:34 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 2/7/08 08:26 PM, DeathAura wrote: I live in America, and i have to say this... How are the soldiers gonna stay alive if our healthcare sucks?

Prepare to be raped by cellardoor6...

HAHAHAH RAPED? i don't get raped by retarded republicans

I'm glad the idiot came out in you.

This statement is even MORE retarded republican language spewing random words in my face. You just make fun of someone for no entire rhyme or reason.

You called republicans retarded... to a republican.... who was merely stating that Cellar already has an argument prepared just for you, which will probably rock your world.

So yes, you got called an idiot, but because you were being an idiot.

At 2/11/08 08:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

The United States Military, is being put forward by some people as the best in the world.

Because ti is.

I have seen & heard as well as read that the President of the U.S. is the top commander of the U.S. Military.

Yes.

I believe you actually call him (possibly her someday) the Supreme Commander of all the U.S. Military.

No.

It's "commander in chief"

I personally watched the present President of the United States tell me & millions of others that in waging his 'War on Terror' the decission to protect EVERYONE was behind the invasion of Iraq.

As were the claims of Australia, the UK, Poland, Spain, Italy, and several other countries considering the entire world community believed the same thing the US believed.

There was no question that Iraq had WMD, and this view was shared by several countries, including those that opposed the war.

Since the invasion of Iraq, & the massive collateral damage to the people there, the almost 4000 killed & over 20,000 wounded American Service personel, the U.S. President & the military he is in charge of have found 0 (that is a ZERO ) weapons of mass destruction.

Actually since the invasion of Iraq 500 WMD have been found in Iraq.

Zero, just come & tell me again HOW GREAT IS A ZERO results ?

Tell me, how can you expect anyone to ever take you seriously when everything you ever base your stupid arguments on is completely wrong?

Again I'll say it, the most of this , the more advanced, the most expensive Blah , blah, blah !
Doesn't prove that it is the best.

It is the best.

The US has across the full spectrum of capabilities, by far the most advanced and proficient military. No other military comes close.

In the American Military's invasion of Iraq to remove the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, they have a ZERO score.

The US military not only defeated the Iraqi military, not only ousted a long-standing dictator, but it has killed several senior Al Qaeda leaders, and has successful put in place a democracy that, although shaky, is the first democracy to ever exist in that country.

The other side has done nothing but kill people.

You fail to put anything into context. Not only is the premise of your "ZERO" theory completely bunk, but you don't even attempt to see the other goals of the invasion.

Your military in my opinion with this simple example is not the best at all.

You WANT the US military not to be the best because you're a Canadian with an inferiority complex. That's why you create a nonsensical "simple example" that holds no water.

They can't even get their facts straight

Apparently Canada can't get its facts straight according to your claims considering your PM said that Iraq had WMD as well.

not 1 WMD ,in the entire country & you've been there for almost 5 years.

Try 500.

Epic Fail

Actually that's an epic fail on your part. Yet again.

military dosent matter now adays anyways, we have nuclear wepons that can destroy entire countrys

At 2/11/08 04:37 PM, Empanado wrote:
Actually he didn't die - and we shouldn't be too harsh on Joseph. At least he knew how to have sex, which can't be said from other contemporary European kings. The wiki article says that Joseph wrote of Louis: "he introduces the member, stays there without moving for about two minutes, withdraws without ejaculating but still erect, and bids goodnight..."

Oh ho! I need to read things a little closer it seems.....
All interesting facts too......

I dunno, being bat shit crazy was certainly a trait of some Roman Emperors. Maybe those Holy Roman guys were trying a little TOO hard to liken themselves to old Rome.......

morefngdbs:

I wrote:
"Someone's gonna come back and say "so was every other spy agency", which is true, but WE'RE the ones who invaded based on that shit intel."

At 2/12/08 05:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: As were the claims of Australia, the UK, Poland, Spain, Italy, and several other countries considering the entire world community believed the same thing the US believed.

Told ya!

damn I'm good..... ;)

The US military not only defeated the Iraqi military, not only ousted a long-standing dictator, but it has killed several senior Al Qaeda leaders, and has successful put in place a democracy that, although shaky, is the first democracy to ever exist in that country.

Cell, we've also PUT dictators in place, OUSTED democratically elected leaders, and supplied the same armies we come back to defeat later, all while demonizing democratically elected officials and supporting non-democratic governments.

Frankly, I'm not sure what kind of message we're sending, but while in Iraq we're removing dictators and planting democracies, in other places we've supported some of the nastiest known dictators and human rights abusers in history.

Kinda sending a mixed message here aren't we? Seems like cherry-picking rather than the great humanitarian mission you make it out to be......

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, PubicTears wrote: What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc. Not the amount of soldiers the country has. So who do you think and why?

Pffft no contest..FRANCE DOES!!! Thats why they always win their wars!

At 2/11/08 02:39 PM, Empanado wrote: Well- It's true that the US military has unquestioned superiority regarding technology, air force, naval forces, deployment capacity, and pretty much everything else.

But in my book it still doesn't beat defeating 100,000 austrians when you're not even there.

HA! That is great, Ottomans diddnt even have to fight to win.

At 2/12/08 07:58 PM, Imperator wrote: morefngdbs:

I wrote:
"Someone's gonna come back and say "so was every other spy agency", which is true, but WE'RE the ones who invaded based on that shit intel."

At 2/12/08 05:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: As were the claims of Australia, the UK, Poland, Spain, Italy, and several other countries considering the entire world community believed the same thing the US believed.

Told ya!

Funny, considering the countries I mentioned specifically INVADED Iraq also.

damn I'm good..... ;)

No you're not, all you did was predict that someone would make the most obvious, fundamental argument, and then when they said it (me) you act as if what you did was some wonderful feat.

That's like person A saying: "this country sucks because it likes table tennis, oh and I bet someone is going to mention the fact that several other countries that I wouldn't say suck like table tennis too".

Then person B says: "it's hypocritical for people to say our country sucks for liking table tennis because those same people's countries like table tennis".

Then person A says: "damn I'm good!"

As if that somehow negates the basic fact and reasoning behind that logic.

The US military not only defeated the Iraqi military, not only ousted a long-standing dictator, but it has killed several senior Al Qaeda leaders, and has successful put in place a democracy that, although shaky, is the first democracy to ever exist in that country.

Cell, we've also PUT dictators in place

As have other countries.

OUSTED democratically elected leaders

As have other countries.

and supplied the same armies we come back to defeat later

Happens all the time, that is the nature of geopolitics. Alliances shift.

all while demonizing democratically elected officials and supporting non-democratic governments.

Frankly, I'm not sure what kind of message we're sending, but while in Iraq we're removing dictators and planting democracies, in other places we've supported some of the nastiest known dictators and human rights abusers in history.

The lesser of two evils, and the necessity of now sometimes requires us to compromise at certain times.

Supporting dictators to hold the tide of communism was seen as a necessary evil. Uprooting democratically elected governments that were HOSTILE to us was in our own interests. Supporting democracy doesn't mean we have to support EVERY DEMOCRACY. Supporting democracy as an ideal does not mean that democracies that are hostile to US and antagonistic to our allies and interests can do whatever they want and that everyone should expect us to do nothing.

Kinda sending a mixed message here aren't we? Seems like cherry-picking rather than the great humanitarian mission you make it out to be......

Morefngdbs was making the case that the entire Iraq war and all that has been done amounts to "ZERO" based on the fact that he claimed we didn't find WMD. First off, his claim was wrong from the beginning. Secondly, there have been several other goals that we have achieved and our military performance in Iraq, both in the invasion itself and afterward has been pretty damn good. We've achieved quite a few things that both he and you discount due to your collective ignorance.

Allowing a democratic process in a country where democracy has never before existed is significant. It is either complete dishonesty, or complete idiocy that someone would say that we have achieved "ZERO" in Iraq as a reflection of our military power, especially considering the tactical superiority the US has had in Iraq the entire time, including in the initial invasion which by all accounts was one of the most coordinated, swift, and successful conventional military operations to ever be conducted.

If you look at the nature of Iraq today, the tactical, military-oriented operations the US is conducting are overwhelmingly successful. But the political nature of it is difficult, and would be difficult no matter how powerful our military was. Our enemy fights among civilians, dresses like civilians, and in many cases will be considered as civilians if we kill them. Iraq is a country of almost 30 million, surrounded by countries that are hostile to us and are teaming with militants, or controlled by Islamists. The country and region is filled with weapons, with about as much guns and ammo as they have grains of sand. It has a culture that has historically been hostile to any semblance of an occupier.

We are conducting a counter-insurgency, possibly the most difficult in history. Our military performance has actually been remarkable given historical context, and no other military could possibly due what we are doing.

To say that our military isn't good based on what morefngdbs said is entirely flawed. Then, discounting what our military has done on Iraq based on an out-of-context moral referendum on our past actions is even more pathetic.

At 2/12/08 08:34 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Funny, considering the countries I mentioned specifically INVADED Iraq also.

So? Fuck em, I'm not Polish, Spanish, or British. MY country acted on shitty intelligence. Just because everyone else thought jumping off the bridge was a good idea, and some people jumped off with us doesn't make it a good friggin idea.

As if that somehow negates the basic fact and reasoning behind that logic.

The problem is there's no reasoning and logic behind that argument. Great, everyone else had the same intel. What's your point? That is somehow makes our mistake of invading on bad intel better because "everyone else is doing it" too?

Collective stupidity is still stupidity.

As have other countries.

We're supposed to be the best, the moral high ground, leaders of the free world, and the beacon of Democracy, Liberty, etc etc blah blah.

This is a mixed message, and a bad way to win an ideological war.

The lesser of two evils, and the necessity of now sometimes requires us to compromise at certain times.

Gotcha. These guys might be SOBs, but they're OUR SOBs, so it's ok.

Supporting dictators to hold the tide of communism was seen as a necessary evil. Uprooting democratically elected governments that were HOSTILE to us was in our own interests. Supporting democracy doesn't mean we have to support EVERY DEMOCRACY. Supporting democracy as an ideal does not mean that democracies that are hostile to US and antagonistic to our allies and interests can do whatever they want and that everyone should expect us to do nothing.

I don't have a problem with the notion that we do what we do in our interests. I DO have a problem with the ideological high ground of supporting democracy while not supporting it universally. It's counter-productive to support the ideal, but then cherry-pick the details as part of an ideological mindset. TheMason had a good point about this somewhere that I've gotta dig up. We shouldn't have to argue that we're better than Saddam by a few degrees, so it's ok to topple him, we should argue that we're better. Period.

Morefngdbs was making the case that the entire Iraq war and all that has been done amounts to "ZERO" based on the fact that he claimed we didn't find WMD. First off, his claim was wrong from the beginning. Secondly, there have been several other goals that we have achieved and our military performance in Iraq, both in the invasion itself and afterward has been pretty damn good. We've achieved quite a few things that both he and you discount due to your collective ignorance.

1.) You are doing exactly what I said people do on these threads. Arguing shitty, and fanning the flames. You've got no set criteria agreed on by both parties to debate, and all you're doing is bitching back and forth, with each side being stubborn.

2.) You are spitting propaganda by trying to paint this notion that we're justified or virtuously fighting to oust the "bad guy" and plant the "good guy", while ignoring the PLETHORA of cases where we have clearly done the opposite. I don't care if the argument is that we're there because it's in our interests, we're there because we want to impose a puppet regime, or we're there because "the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must". I DO have a problem if the argument is this idealized "noble cause", because that's simply propaganda. I'm not gonna be nice about it, because that's really the only way to term it given our rather patchy past as far as doing the "noble" thing goes. Empires are built on both sides of this, and you're simply spitting propaganda by only pointing out the merit of US intervention while negating or ignoring the bad. morefngdbs HAS valid points, but I think as I said earlier, you're both being stubborn.

Maybe if you actually followed my advice, you wouldn't simply be fanning and creating flame wars as is your forté and preference......

3.) How are you gonna resort to an insult in the first response? Jeeze, you're no fun. You're not even building up some suspense before devolving shit. Yes yes, "I've disproved you 1.2.3.4.5.6....times!" I know I know.

Allowing a democratic process in a country where democracy has never before existed is significant.

It is either complete dishonesty, or complete idiocy that someone would say that we have achieved "ZERO" in Iraq as a reflection of our military power, especially considering the tactical superiority the US has had in Iraq the entire time, including in the initial invasion which by all accounts was one of the most coordinated, swift, and successful conventional military operations to ever be conducted.

It is either due to a specific outlook on what counts as an achievement, or what counts as a military achievement to say what he did. What you're doing is being stubborn. YOUR outlook on military success and strength is perfectly fine, but it doesn't do a lick of fuggin good if you're the only one who follows that criteria. Hence.....fanning flames.

But do what I said.

State your criteria for measuring "who's the best"
rank them
Look at morefngdbs's criteria
Agree with him on a list of criteria and ranks
Measure.

Look at the difference between your response to him and mine. I asked him the questions you didn't, you called him an idiot. I tried to find out what variables he was measuring, you called him dishonest. I tried to point out the problems in his argument and criteria, you stated your own as if it was the consensus of all humanity. I guess that leads us to here:

4.) My method of debating this topic has never been tried. My predictions for what would happen in this thread have come through to a T.

We are conducting a counter-insurgency, possibly the most difficult in history. Our military performance has actually been remarkable given historical context, and no other military could possibly due what we are doing.

Again, that's great and all.....but what are your measurements, and how are you weighting them?
What are you basing this idea of "most difficult in history" on?

You're stating shit like everyone knows it without stating ANY of your methodology for arriving to such a conclusion.

To say that our military isn't good based on what morefngdbs said is entirely flawed.

It's not entirely flawed, it has some merits. It has flaws, but once again, STUBBORN.

Then, discounting what our military has done on Iraq based on an out-of-context moral referendum on our past actions is even more pathetic.

Yes, the "Axis of Evil" and our past actions of supporting the bad guy is an absolutely pathetic argument, completely out of context. What WAS I thinking........

5.) You're being stubborn and fanning flames.

PS (or 6.) I know. "You lied 1.2.3.4.5.6 times!" "You got disproved 1.2.3.4.5.6 times!" "you got PROVED WRONG 1.2.3.4.5.6 times!", so you can save the rather creepy Shrine O Imperator links this round, savvy?

At 2/12/08 09:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/12/08 08:34 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Funny, considering the countries I mentioned specifically INVADED Iraq also.

So? Fuck em, I'm not Polish, Spanish, or British. MY country acted on shitty intelligence.

The US acted on intelligence that was thought to be the best at the time, that several other countries believed was correct and urgent.

As if that somehow negates the basic fact and reasoning behind that logic.

The problem is there's no reasoning and logic behind that argument.

Yeah there is.

When someone is making a criticism that is exclusive to America, it's logical to address the fact that several countries, including their own, believed the same thing that America believed.

Great, everyone else had the same intel. What's your point? That is somehow makes our mistake of invading on bad intel better because "everyone else is doing it" too?

No, what it does is put the issue into perspective.

Apparently you're oblivious to the fact that the nuance of this discussion is military quality.

Morefngdbs made the argument that our military isn't as good as we think it is based on the fact that Bush, the commander in chief, believed (or stated) that Iraq had WMD and that we invaded for this purpose. Morefngdbs said Iraq had no WMD and that we've found none. This is false by itself, but when he's using this as grounds to criticize the quality of our military, it's ENTIRELY appropriate to apply context that shows how many countries with militarizes that he doesn't criticize, made the same decision.

Collective stupidity is still stupidity.

Blame should be collective then, and the implications as far as military quality should be put in perspective when someone distorts or ignores the facts and creates a baseless criticism by singling out one country.

As have other countries.

We're supposed to be the best, the moral high ground, leaders of the free world, and the beacon of Democracy, Liberty, etc etc blah blah.

I don't find anything wrong with what the US did. Necessary evil can be justified based on the potential for things to be more evil had those evils not been done.

Putting a dictator in place in order to counter what is arguably far more of a threat to the region and ones own country is reasonable.

This is a mixed message, and a bad way to win an ideological war.

It's not a mixed message, because there are other variables that have to be considered.

Gotcha. These guys might be SOBs, but they're OUR SOBs, so it's ok.

If they are our SOBs, and they are less of SOBs compared to our enemy SOBs, then it's justified. Fundamentally, its the job of our government to secure US interests.

It's a good thing that in most cases our interests are compatible with the interests of the countries we are dealing with. Look at most countries where we allowed democracies to take root and have supported; they are prosperous, democratic and successful. Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea etc.. There are countless others, that the moment the US gets involved, they become better off. Look at almost all of the former Soviet states, most of them are still shitholes, but relatively they are WAY, WAY better off than they were before. The injection of US-sponsored democracy in most cases is good for a country.

I don't have a problem with the notion that we do what we do in our interests. I DO have a problem with the ideological high ground of supporting democracy while not supporting it universally.

I have a problem with you refusing to take it into context.

What if a democracy poses a threat to us? Do we have to compromise our security and interests and support a democracy universally even if the particular democracy in question is hostile?

If a democracy attacked us tomorrow, would we be hypocrites for fighting back just because we claim to support democracy? According to your logic, we would be, which is of course preposterous.

If there is a larger threat, is it ok to at times suspend our push for democracy in a country if it is about to be taken over by this threat and used against us? Absolutely.

During the Cold War we did some seemingly shady shit, but in most cases it prevented something that would have been worse. The reason the Cold War ended and communism today is dead for the most part, is because we balanced the situation and picked the lesser of two evils.

1.) You are doing exactly what I said people do on these threads. Arguing shitty, and fanning the flames.

Now you're not even talking about what we were talking about.

And look what you're doing, fanning flames. Once again, a case of Imperator criticizing someone for something that he does at the moment he criticizes them.

2.) You are spitting propaganda by trying to paint this notion that we're justified or virtuously fighting to oust the "bad guy" and plant the "good guy", while ignoring the PLETHORA of cases where we have clearly done the opposite.

Nope, I provided context to an emotionally-charged, out-of-context ramble of nonsense you made that was irrelevant and did not apply to the argument about military quality. You provided a tainted, wacked out moral referendum on political policies of the US in order to somehow discount the military goals in Iraq.

So not only did I show how this didn't apply to military quality, but I showed that has to be interpreted objectively given the nature of the situation in which those decisions were made.

I don't care if the argument is that we're there because it's in our interests, we're there because we want to impose a puppet regime

Yeah, that's bullshit.

If that were true there had been no elections, and instead of a feuding, squabbling Iraq parliament of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and even Christians, there'd be a singular "puppet" faction to control.

I DO have a problem if the argument is this idealized "noble cause", because that's simply propaganda.

Actually what you provided was propaganda and nothing else.

We were all making an argument about military quality, and you started spewing out your moral views on the ideals and policies of our past actions geopolitically.

I showed that we achieved goals in Iraq, and you started talking about what we did decades ago that has nothing to do with our military quality.

I'm not gonna be nice about it, because that's really the only way to term it given our rather patchy past as far as doing the "noble" thing goes.

Once again, this has nothing to do with military quality.

Empires are built on both sides of this, and you're simply spitting propaganda by only pointing out the merit of US intervention while negating or ignoring the bad.

I've stated before on numerous occasions that based on hindsight, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I didn't always believe this, but this doesn't mean that we did something morally wrong, and it certainly doesn't negatively reflect on our military as far as its capabilities and proficency.

But the motive was just for entering Iraq, and the reasoning for staying and our continued efforts are both noble and logical.

morefngdbs HAS valid points

No he doesn't, and he wasn't even talking about the morals of it, he was trying to undermine our military based on what he was trying to paint as military failures.

but I think as I said earlier, you're both being stubborn.

You're not only stubborn, but you managed to completely shift the actual topic to a moral referendum on US geopolitical policies, when basically everyone else is arguing about who has the "best military" as the title of the topic states.

4.) My method of debating this topic has never been tried. My predictions for what would happen in this thread have come through to a T.

Lol, you pulled one of the most hilarious ploys I've seen. You made an argument that you know anyone can provide a legitimate rebuttal to, but in order to put in place a way to discount that rebuttal, you act like your prediction was some how special.

This entire thread I've argued the actual quality of a military. You know you can't even attempt to keep the argument there, where it belongs, because you'll get proved wrong like you always do. So you divert attention and now you've managed to shift your argument to me as an individual, and the way I say things rather than what I say.

It seems like you planned this. As far as flaming... that's exactly what you're doing and you know it.

You're stating shit like everyone knows it without stating ANY of your methodology for arriving to such a conclusion.

Lol, you've provided not a single coherent argument in this entire topic, and now you're basing your entire argument on MY argument, rather than the actual topic.

Another instance of you failing real arguments, and needing to base your entire attention on me as your way of getting revenge and shielding yourself from the actual topic.

Yes, the "Axis of Evil" and our past actions of supporting the bad guy is an absolutely pathetic argument, completely out of context.

It is, if you can't see that then you're even more blinded by your quest for revenge than I thought.

Morefngdbs was making a criticism of our military based on supposedly not achieving objectives in Iraq. I put it into context, showed how we achieved some objectives.

Then you completely ignored the nuance of that exchange, and started talking about the moral idealogical implications, which were flawed from the beginning within that subject, but completely inapplicable to our argument.

5.) You're being stubborn and fanning flames.

You're being ignorant and are being hypocritical for fanning flames as you criticize someone for fanning flames.

Morefngdbs was making a criticism of our military based on supposedly not achieving objectives in Iraq. I put it into context, showed how we achieved some objectives.

fantastic. The score's 25 to 6, but it's ok because we've got 500 rushing yards!!

Like I said, you two, as is typical for these topics, are fanning flames by not agreeing to a set of criteria to measure what you want to measure. You put it into YOUR context, based on YOUR criteria, with YOUR values of what constitutes military quality.

I achieved the objective of scratching my ass today. That doesn't mean I proved I have good hand-eye coordination.......

The rest of your posts were typical "no YOU are" and "I know you are, but what am I" dribble.

Eh, I dunno what happened, but something about your posts has changed (ever so slightly) and you're just not much fun anymore.

I'll wait till morefngdbs replies and see what he says.

Then you completely ignored the nuance of that exchange, and started talking about the moral idealogical implications, which were flawed from the beginning within that subject, but completely inapplicable to our argument.

Shit, maybe I SHOULD actually read what you say instead of glazing over it, you proved mildly entertaining!

Let's Recap:

This was the statement to which I made the alleged "moral implication":

"The US military not only defeated the Iraqi military, not only ousted a long-standing dictator, but it has killed several senior Al Qaeda leaders, and has successful put in place a democracy that, although shaky, is the first democracy to ever exist in that country."

You're using politically charged, and morally charged words like "dictator" and "democracy" to show an ideological success. It is quite clear that dictator in this sense was meant to convey a form of government of ill repute and immoral character. It's quite clear by your words, that dictators="bad guys", especially given the addition that he was a "long-standing" dictator at that.

Moreover, it is quite clear that by opposition that democracies="good guys", especially given the addition that it is the "first to ever exist" in that country. You certainly wouldn't praise setting up the "first dictatorship" given the context of your sentence, would you?

Therefore, you are charging these words with a morality, and stating that the military achieved points by killing the bad guys and setting up some good guys. Not only was I correctly interpreting the context by showing cases where we have set up bad guys, but I was also correct in that all you were doing was spewing propaganda.

If I am incorrect in my interpretation, and the point was not morally charged, then would you consider it an equal military success if we replaced Saddam with another dictator (as we have done in other countries)? How about replacing them with a communist government, which I don't believe they've ever had in their history either? Would that be an equal success?

It is clear that it is not just "regime change" that is the indicator of military strength, it is the notion that this government is now a democracy. If it was just a matter of changing governments, then I'd have to say the CIA is the best "military" on the planet.

Moreover, what aspect does regime change play into the quality of a military anyways? The CIA seems to be quicker and more efficient at it, so why not consider them the best "military"?

As I stated in my points above:
You're arguing without showing your methodology. I want to see your methodology, and THEN how those variables fit an argument. I shouldn't have to guess at what you think qualifies as an indicator of what makes a "good" army and what makes a "bad" army, you need to tell me.

even if you have the greatest military in the history of the universe, if you dont do anything productive with it then your military means jack squat.

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, PubicTears wrote: What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc. Not the amount of soldiers the country has. So who do you think and why?

Everyone knows Israel has the worlds best military! They fought against 7 Arab nations uniting to eliminate them and defeated all of them in only 6 days! 1 Israeli soldier has the fire power of 3 US troops!

At 2/14/08 02:47 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Everyone knows Israel has the worlds best military! They fought against 7 Arab nations uniting to eliminate them and defeated all of them in only 6 days! 1 Israeli soldier has the fire power of 3 US troops!

Get out of the movie dude.
Anyway, this whole thread is useless, because how can you ignore nuclear weapons?
why wont we ignore planes,tanks and guns?

At 2/14/08 02:59 PM, zoolrule wrote:

At 2/14/08 02:47 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Everyone knows Israel has the worlds best military! They fought against 7 Arab nations uniting to eliminate them and defeated all of them in only 6 days! 1 Israeli soldier has the fire power of 3 US troops!

Get out of the movie dude.

First of all, what movie are you talking about?

Anyway, this whole thread is useless, because how can you ignore nuclear weapons?
why wont we ignore planes,tanks and guns?

Ignoring Nuclear weapons, Israel still has the worlds strongest military. The entire country is less then the population of New York City and they were able fight many countries with armies 1000 times their size. Before they even became a high tech and nuclear superpower, they sucessfully fought syrian jets with WWII airplanes and before they even became a nation, they fought Egyptian tanks with only homegrown militia troops. Never have I seen any country perform more amazing military feats in the 20th-21st century then the nation of Israel. (And no, I am not basing these facts off of movies, I am basing them off researched facts.)

Here are my sources:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&
id=K6VoEY8xs3MC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=six+day +war&ots=45z3fyXu23&sig=2jcXqIydKpB_vYsJ wSV9PDgxoZo#PPA3,M1

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&
id=JO_UATFXlI4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Israel i+air+superiority&ots=YM56-K7Llh&sig=nXt QzaHwJoNcab9h36T8jSRRawU#PPA15,M1

(read page 14-15)

is it just me or do the French do nothing but low level passes?

At 2/14/08 05:08 PM, SolInvictus wrote: is it just me or do the French do nothing but low level passes?

Yeh, but it looks bad ass.

At 1/30/08 11:06 AM, FATKERNELGO wrote:

Excuse me? Did you forget about the Vietnam War while you were typing that one? Money and technology have little meaning in war - the Viet Cong had neither, but beat the US, and the Nazis had better weapons, technology and more money going into Russia, but got forced out and all the way back to the front door of Hitler's bunker when that one didn't pay off.

Well hang on there cowboy. You see now, your winners there, the vietcong. They had 800,000 KIA, and 300,000 MIA. While the US "only" had 58,209 KIA and 1,948 MIA. While they didnt see the war through, they did stop the spread of communism to countries like Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia etc. And c'mon, where is the Vietcong now? gone.

And about the germans in russia. Russia is a really big place, with a shit load of people. Germany had a significant lower death toll. Tactically the Germans had won some resounding victories and occupied some of the most important economic areas of the country. They where unable to mount more attacks on the soviet-german front. They underestimated the russians. While they invaded in the summer, as soon as winter came the germans where not prepared, and the harsh weather made getting supplies to the battle hard. While the germans didnt take all of russia, it wasnt because they didnt have the tech, its because they lacked manpower, and got cocky.

The stats you posted were the country's whole populations there, not military losses. It is a typing error. Next, the Germans had great weapons, but as in the case of the king tiger tank, they only had 600 of them which they had to spread across a whole continent. The Russians won the war by sheer manpower and nature on their side. Next, the Americans don't have the same situation because many years of relative peace, coupled with fabulous wealth, have allowed the U.S. Army and Marines to stockpile and purchase these necessary weapons like the Abrams tank. The U.S. Navy is the largest and most powerful by ships, guns (which is not saying much since guns are now obsolete), missiles, submarines, and counterattack measures. The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest, plus it has capabilities unmatched by anyone in terms of stealth, technology, bombers, fighters, and their special fuel which is extremely powerful and lets planes go around the world once without having to refuel. So, the U.S. Military wins, and the example of Germany is erroneous.

Finally, the U.S. did not lose to the Vietcong. They fought the Vietnamese to a stalemate, then they declared peace. The U.S. was ultimately on the losing side, but that was due to Congress' refusal to send aid to the South Vietnamese when the North made their final invasion. U.S. technology was, however, of no use in this fight.

At 1/24/08 07:49 PM, Al6200 wrote:

6. India

Wait, India has a good military? I thought that they were poor as hell. How can they have one of the World's top militaries?

I am now thinking that the baddest MoFo's in the World are the Somalia Pirates. THey have been successful in holding off, Canada, China, India , Russia, Saudi Arabia , France, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom & The Unitred States Navy vessels, they have taken very few losses & are successfully pirating ships & getting ransom's for them.

I mean if you want to call someone "best" of anything how can you not include a bunch of guy's running around in little speed boats & successfully defeating the efforts of those countries & their Warships to stop them .

Credit where credit is due I say !

USA hands down

The USA is the most efficient working while the Chinese army has the most members.

In my opinion, Israel has one of the greatest training programs on earth, they have nukes, and they took on the entire Muslim radical force in the Seven Day War, which they won. The Seven Day war was basically Israel vs Egypt Lebanon Syria Jordan Iran, and Saudi Arabia. One small nation of Jews took on millions of radicals, then invaded enemy territory and won. In seven days. I think Israel has some of the hottest soldiers( Go on Youtube, and search "Hot Israeli Soldier"...ya thats what I'm 'talkin about!)

At 1/24/08 08:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: - The US is the only country to employ a fully-independent satellite battle network.
- The US is the only country with stealth aircraft: with stealth long range bombers, stealth air-dominance fighters.
- The US is the only country to employ supercarriers and has way more than everyone else. In fact, just the Amphibious Assault ships the US navy has to support the US Marines are more numerous and more advanced than other nations' dedicated carriers.
- The US is the only country with a fully self-provided, fully-independent arsenal of precision weapons, GPS-guided missiles, bombs etc..

Because the US spends all its resources on its military, ruining its economy, which is why we are still in a global financial crisis. Discuss.