Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/5/08 09:18 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/5/08 08:46 PM, Brick-top wrote: And Americans have designed Dragons skin body armour which can even survive granades as well as a beating from assult rifles, machine guns etc.

And it happens to be WAY too heavy for infantry use and will probably never see full-scale military use. Despite what you saw on Future Weapons, it can't withstand such an onslaught of pistol and rifle ammo (and yes, that fake grenade doesn't count) outside of a company-controlled environment.

Who am I going to pay attention to, a group of guys who have been in the navy seal, the bomb squad and weapons designing.....or you.

I think I've made my choice. And you can't exactly fake an explosion especially when you see it on a high speed camera.

Oh and by the way, that episode was really funny because an old posh englishman used water to blow up a car.

At 2/6/08 02:21 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/5/08 09:18 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/5/08 08:46 PM, Brick-top wrote: And Americans have designed Dragons skin body armour which can even survive granades as well as a beating from assult rifles, machine guns etc.

And it happens to be WAY too heavy for infantry use and will probably never see full-scale military use. Despite what you saw on Future Weapons, it can't withstand such an onslaught of pistol and rifle ammo (and yes, that fake grenade doesn't count) outside of a company-controlled environment.

Who am I going to pay attention to, a group of guys who have been in the navy seal, the bomb squad and weapons designing.....or you.

Well, as you're about to find out, you should pay attention to me.

Let's take a look at the facts:

- 1) - The Department of Justice concluded that the tests of Dragon Skin conducted by the company itself, Pinnacle, are void (which would include the highly-controlled, glamorized tests that were videotaped for Future Weapons that you somehow think constitute proof).

- 2) - Pinnacle Dragon Skin armor FAILED its REAL rests, especially when subjected to high heat (i.e. what it would face in Iraq or Afghanistan).

- 3 - Each Dragon skin vest weighs 20 more lbs than the Interceptor vest that is used currently, which is 28 lbs. That's 48 lbs for just body armor (which isn't really that good).

The troops complain about weight as it is and are lessening their load in some peaceful areas of Iraq by REMOVING the ceramic plates in their armor. They carry a lot of weight when you factor in weapons, ammunition, supplies etc.. Significantly heavier vests would only degrade combat quality because they make it harder to maneuver. Added protection does not justify infinitely added weight, and it can actually cause increased casualties because troops would be less agile, and would be more vulnerable to physical problems; especially dehydration or heat exhaustion, thus making them less combat-effectively overall.

So not only does Dragon Skin perform NO WHERE NEAR as well as advertised, but it is incredibly heavier than body armor that is now in use, thus it would only be counter-productive.

I think I've made my choice. And you can't exactly fake an explosion especially when you see it on a high speed camera.

The "tests" you saw on TV were nothing but theatrics and anybody with the smallest inkling of knowledge about this issue could tell you that.

Listen to me very closely:

Let's just assume for a moment that Dragon Skin could actually survive a grenade blast without being compromised. Do you really think that a soldier would survive a grenade that close to him no matter how good his vest was? What about his face and groin?

The fragmentation and explosive force wouldn't magically only go in the direction of the armor. Simple physics, even if the best could survive the direct blast, the force would be reflected by the vest and go outward where the soldier's face and limbs are.

The fact is, even if a vest was strong enough to withstand the DIRECT blast and fragmentation of a grenade, the only thing left of the soldier wearing it would be the torso. His head and extremities would be gone. It would just be a limbless, headless torso inside of a miraculously intact vest...

Thus showing the test was bullshit and dishoenst from the beginning, because a vest that could do that would be fucking pointless.

Added on to that, the grenade used in that video was obviously less powerful than a real one. And as other test have showed, Pinnacle likes to lie out their ass about their vest and politicize the tainted results of their fixed, highly-flawed tests.

At least do some research next time before you question my honesty or my knowledge.

At 2/6/08 04:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At least do some research next time before you question my honesty or my knowledge.

Lolpwned.

You did, however, forgot to mention that it gives +5 on all resistances.

Anyway, what's up with spiderweb substance BP vests? I couldn't find any RECENT articles on them that I exactly trusted, and the 2 answers I got from real life sources where dubious at best (E.G, one police officer who said they are already used in limited settings, and one ex-vietnam war vet teacher who seems to know every trivial fact ever and maintains that the technology is years away >_>)

The Salvation Army could defeat the US Army any day.

At 2/6/08 05:04 AM, HPX5000 wrote: The Salvation Army could defeat the US Army any day.

;
Of course they can...in their area of expertise, which is helping people.
When it comes to indiscriminate killing, the U.S. Army has them & everyone else beat by miles & miles.

At 2/2/08 07:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/2/08 02:05 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: As with Vietnam, it isn't how many men you lose, it's how many you can afford to lose - the Viuet Cong may have lost five times the men than the Americans did

- The North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong admittedly lost 1,100,000 men.

- The US lost 58,193

Total US forces in Vietnam: 8,744,000
Total US KIA: 58,209
Total US wounded: 305,000
Total US MIA: 1,948

There's more than one way to lose troops inaction than merely KIA - five times more troops were wounded, thus unable to be deployed in combat.

That's way more than 5 times, that's almost about a 19 to 1 kill ratio.

The problem here is there is no accurate estimate of the North Vietnamese forces - 520,000 is given for 1968, but that can't be right overall, because that means their forces would be killed twice, which is improbable (obviously).

But this goes straight back to what I was saying - how many troops could the Americans send over, compared to how many the Vietnamese could merely call up?

If the size of the Vietnamese forces isn't even known, thatsays something about the US intelligence, if nothing else - they didn't know how many they were fighting, and could only estimate from those they shot at. On the flipside, the US knew how many they were losing.

Did the Vietnamese outperform the US military? No, they did not.

Did the US military defeat the Vietnamese? No they did not - that's usually how youwina war,cellar: defeating your enemy. The number you killis irrelevant if they keep fighting - which goes back to WWII and the Allies losing more than the Axis.

And even then, the US military did not lose the Vietnam war. The US government did. It was a military victory originally, but a political defeat.

It was not a military victory,as the North Vietnamese army did not surrender. How can you claim somebody isn't making an honest argument when you are stating glaring mistruths like this?

- The war originally ended in a peace treaty that clearly attained this goal. The US agreed to withdraw forces under the condition that North Vietnam would not show any further aggression to South Vietnam and that they would eventually reunite peacefully. That was the basis of the treaty, thus effectively winning the war for the US.

The US agreed to withdraw forces - that's a sign of defeat, not victory.

- 2 whole years after the treaty, when the US had already left victorious, the North Vietnamese broke that UN-sponsored treaty. They defied the international community, and invaded South Vietnam while the US military had been gone for 2 years.

And did the US return to trumphantly expell the North Vietnamese from Saigon? No, they sat at home, licking their wounds.

This was a political defeat for the US, not a military defeat, considering the fighting that took place that ended up with the south being defeated happened 2 years after the US had already achieved a military victory and had left.

Again, "military victory" - there was no military victory, merely a cease-fire as the US moved their troops out of the country, never to retun.

The North Vietnamese didn't hold up their end of the bargain and only achieved a violent annexation of the South when the US was no longer there. They didn't and couldn't have done this while the US was there.

But the US weren't there and, crucially, did not intervene this second time. Why was this? Answers, cellar, answers.

At 2/2/08 03:23 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/30/08 10:06 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Money and technology have little meaning in war

Lol. I can't believe you're actually serious. I guess you've just outsmarted the entire US military which has been under the false impression that technology is important. We should just go to fighting with wooden sticks and our military would dramatically improve.

This is obviously where complacency and assumed superiority are kicking in: you can equip your army with the most expensive, high-tech equipment available - but if they have no idea how to use them properly/effectivly/at all, what are they going to achieve with them, apart from the status of a sitting duck with some nice looking kit?

And, as youwere asking for a source, here is a list of the costs of WWII for the mainparticipants: the US spent the most, followed by Germany (albeit the military spend of the UK is listed ad unknown). France spent more than the USSR so, by your logic, France should have fared better than the USSR did - which is the polar opposite of the events that took place.

Money and technology are not, and never will be, an adequate substitute for having a better strategy, better troops and better understanding of the arena in which fighting will take place. That's how the Romans were so comprehensivly massacred in Teutoburg Forest - an ancient analogy for Vietnam, if ever there was one.

At 2/6/08 11:37 AM, Transkar wrote: D2k, you already lost all credibility on this topic on page 4 or 5 when you said over 10 million U.S troops died in WWII.

;
I find it very humorous that you & cellie refuse to bend when it comes to the defeat you suffered in Vietnam, during the 'American War'.
I also notice that besides the M.A.S.H. series Americans are pretty much silent on the fiasco that is the Korean war as well.
China unleashes its army to help the North Korean forces & every top brass & politician sphincter tightens to total constipation & in Washington everyone looks for a way out.

But I know the demilitarized zone splitting Korea in half was another resounding American victory , blah, blah, blah... go air craft carrier battle groups, they are working so well in the war on terror.

But More, don't you see the value of a carrier battle fleet fighting for us in the landlocked country that is Afghanistan...actually I don't, but that's just me wondering how great a massive group of ships helps in the Iraq desert police action or the mountainous terrain the Taliban are fighting from.

Go war on terror your massive carrier battle groups have them on the ...run... wait .. a...sec ! No they don't!

At 2/6/08 03:12 PM, Transkar wrote: morefngdbs, you continue to bash the American military every chance you can get in this topic. Let me see, what country are you from?

Canada

End Discussion

;
C'mon what's wrong with Canada, just because were not a warmongering bulley .
We happen to be in Afghanistan helping you & the others, we've even sent over both our tanks!
Hell, with both tanks there that's 100% commitment baby... can you say the U.S. has 100% commitment there?
As for the Vietnam & Korean digs about the mighty U.S. miltiary, Truth Really Fuck'in Hurts Don't It ! ! !
;
No matter who has the biggest, doesn't mean they're the best.
When a couple of hundred commited insurgents can tie up Around 130,000 U.S. troops. ( In looking for figures I found that there have been up over 160,000 to 123,000 troops over there , the number is in constant flux)
3947 U.S. have been killed so far & 29,000+ U.S. have been wounded. Compared to what bin Laden & the boy's did on 9/11 with less than 3000 dead this has been one heck of a butt kicking, not that your not making a difference there. You obviously are, deaths on both sides are down , you hold much more territory than previously but they haven't given up.

You want to tout you've got the biggest airforce, aircraft carriers etc. fine the numbers back who has the MOST.
That is a long fuckin way dude FROM THE BEST.

I mean just look at who's got the most hockey teams...don't mean they can win gold at the World Cup, does it ;-) Look's like the most in this case is no where near the best ;-p

At 2/6/08 10:58 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 2/2/08 07:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/2/08 02:05 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: As with Vietnam, it isn't how many men you lose, it's how many you can afford to lose - the Viuet Cong may have lost five times the men than the Americans did

- The North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong admittedly lost 1,100,000 men.

- The US lost 58,193

Total US forces in Vietnam: 8,744,000
Total US KIA: 58,209
Total US wounded: 305,000
Total US MIA: 1,948

There's more than one way to lose troops inaction than merely KIA - five times more troops were wounded, thus unable to be deployed in combat.

What a hilarious way of trying to save face after you got proved wrong yet again.

The Vietnamese lost 1,100,000.

The kill ratio was enormously disproportionate.

That's way more than 5 times, that's almost about a 19 to 1 kill ratio.

The problem here is there is no accurate estimate of the North Vietnamese forces - 520,000 is given for 1968, but that can't be right overall, because that means their forces would be killed twice, which is improbable (obviously).

Prove it.

The North Vietnamese admitted themselves that they lost 1,100,000. Thus showing that their forces were obviously higher than that in the war as a whole.

Did the Vietnamese outperform the US military? No, they did not.

Did the US military defeat the Vietnamese? No they did not - that's usually how youwina war,cellar: defeating your enemy.

The US never had the goal of destroying North Vietnam, the US had a mandate to protect South Vietnam, not to invade and conquer North Vietnam.

And even then, the US military did not lose the Vietnam war. The US government did. It was a military victory originally, but a political defeat.

It was not a military victory,as the North Vietnamese army did not surrender.

The North Vietnamese signed on to a peace treaty that recognized South Vietnam, and promised not to show further aggression to them.

The US military prevented the North Vietnamese from achieving their goals.

the North Vietnamese only achieved their goals after they broke the treaty and invaded years after the US already left.

How can you claim somebody isn't making an honest argument when you are stating glaring mistruths like this?

Lol, how can you EVER make ANY CLAIMS ABOUT ANYTHING considering you get proved wrong in everything you ever say?

The US agreed to withdraw forces - that's a sign of defeat, not victory.

Yeah then your country lost WWII because it withdrew forces. Of course, here comes your perpetually dishonest nonsense again.

You don't acknowledge that the Us not only routinely defeated the North Vietnamese tactically, but the US forced them into a peace treaty which attained US goals, and basically forfeited communist goals. The US left on the condition that the North Vietnamese would show no further aggression to South Vietnam, this was a victory for the US military.

The US left and 2 whole years later the North Vietnamese broke their aggrements and invaded the South in the absence of the US.

You might as well say that the allies lost WWI because years later Germany didn't uphold its peace agreements, built up its military, and invaded its neighbors, starting WWII.

- 2 whole years after the treaty, when the US had already left victorious, the North Vietnamese broke that UN-sponsored treaty. They defied the international community, and invaded South Vietnam while the US military had been gone for 2 years.

And did the US return to trumphantly expell the North Vietnamese from Saigon? No, they sat at home, licking their wounds.

The US GOVERNMENT refused to redeploy troops.

Thus, political defeat. Not a military defeat.

This was a political defeat for the US, not a military defeat, considering the fighting that took place that ended up with the south being defeated happened 2 years after the US had already achieved a military victory and had left.

Again, "military victory" - there was no military victory, merely a cease-fire as the US moved their troops out of the country, never to retun.

The US military successfully protected South Vietnam, beating the hell out of the North Vietnamese, forcing them into a peace treaty in which they renounced their former military goals.

The US achieved a military victory, the North Vietnamese lost... then started a new war 2 years after the US left, defeating the South Vietnamese when the US was gone.

But the US weren't there and, crucially, did not intervene this second time. Why was this? Answers, cellar, answers.

Because the US public, and the hippy movement caused our government to lose its will. Our military was not defeated, our democracy prevented our military from preserving the victory it gained before.

At 2/6/08 03:29 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/6/08 03:12 PM, Transkar wrote: morefngdbs, you continue to bash the American military every chance you can get in this topic. Let me see, what country are you from?

Canada

End Discussion

;
C'mon what's wrong with Canada, just because were not a warmongering bulley .

No, you're a pathetic country that depends on the US for your very existence. You benefit from what you discount as a "warmongering", but at the same time you absolve yourself from any responsibility.

We happen to be in Afghanistan helping you & the others

You have a token force that is so small and is doing so little that it's hilarious given the fact that your military is already complaining about being over deployed.

When a couple of hundred commited insurgents can tie up Around 130,000 U.S. troops.

Tie up?

You mean do nothing to other than sporadic, tactically ineffective attacks that constitute nothing but propaganda?

Some more wishful thinking on your part, Canadian.

You're either incredibly ignorant and stupid, or you're completely dishonest.

A counter-insurgency is the most difficult military operation. The US is doing something in Iraq that no other military could ever hope of doing.

When Canada, a 1st world country can't even deploy 2,000 troops to a peaceful area of a single country without complaining about fatigue is hilarious. Especially when a Canadian feels he's in a position to leer about the US occupying an entire country of 25 million, which is surrounded by hostile countries, in a region that is filled to the brim with small arms, against an enemy that blends in with civilians, yet still cannot manage to tactically defeat the US at all...

You're just displaying how ignorant and dishonest you are.

At 2/6/08 10:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/6/08 05:04 AM, HPX5000 wrote: The Salvation Army could defeat the US Army any day.

;
Of course they can...in their area of expertise, which is helping people.

You should probably tell that to the people in Indonesia after the Tsunami, who received immediate aid from the US military, who was the first on the scene. You should probably tell that to the millions of people liberated by the US military, by the millions of people in Europe who would have starved to death were it not for aid provided by the US.

Or not, just try and perpetuate your inferiority complex, Canadian.

When it comes to indiscriminate killing, the U.S. Army has them & everyone else beat by miles & miles.

When it comes to being racist, white supremacists who torture, mutilate, and murder children, to later joke about it, the Canadian Army is the best in the world.

Of course, you Canadian idiots probably know nothing about that. You belong to a country that feigns benevolence and pretends to be a "peacekeeping force" as some way of rationalizing how weak and pathetic your military is. The only way you can feel better about your feckless, US-dependent country/military is to bite the hand that feeds you and point your finger at us in order to cope.

Oh look here... it's a Canadian soldier "peacekeeping" with an innocent Somali boy.

At 2/6/08 10:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

When it comes to being racist, white supremacists who torture, mutilate, and murder children, to later joke about it, the Canadian Army is the best in the world.

That seems like complete bullshit to me. I would venture a guess (guess) that the amount of documented cases of Canadians beating/mutilating/murdering childron doesn't even match the amount committed by the American pigs*** at the My Lai Massacre.

:***Hugh Thompson not included.

Im putting my vote for Israel for best army.

At 2/6/08 11:53 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 2/6/08 10:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

When it comes to being racist, white supremacists who torture, mutilate, and murder children, to later joke about it, the Canadian Army is the best in the world.

That seems like complete bullshit to me.

Because you're just as idiotic as Canadians are.

I would venture a guess (guess) that the amount of documented cases of Canadians beating/mutilating/murdering childron doesn't even match the amount committed by the American pigs*** at the My Lai Massacre.

I would venture to say that Canada's military is so small and does so little in the world due to the fact that its allies will do it for it, that this is only an illusion. The fact that Canada benefits from the military endeavors of the US, takes credit for what goes right, and blames the US for what goes wrong creates the illusion that they are benevolent by contrast.

Delusional Canadians, or just plain liberal idiots like you who side against the US in every conceivable scenario, have no point of reference,and are far too uneducated or honest to see this.

That picture you just showed Cellar is of the paratrooper regiment. They were some of the most bad assed soldiers in the world however they did become involved in dispicable activities. Pedophilia, rape, murder and robbery just to name a few, but the Canadian military disbanded the entire regiment even those who were not responsible. They were discharged and we moved on. Cellar we are not the most racist and intolerant army, Im sure every amy has its secrets even though the case you mentioned was broadcasted on international television. Again you crticize Canadians of thinking of our forces as peacekeepers make no mistake that NO ONE thinks this. Our minister of defence announced before we joined the NATO campaign that ALL forces deployed were there to terminate and destroy all Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces we came into contact with. Do not make the mistake that we dont realize we havent the resources or the population needed to build a super power's military. However I believe our soldiers are as good as any of yours, and until you have proof that they are inadequetly trained or otherwise please attempt to persuade me.

Good lord you actually think Canadians are idiots? I'll level with you I dont think Canada is any more intelligent than the majority of the Western world, but certainly were not stupid.

In regards to your post about the CF being "fatigued" you have to realize 2000 troops taking on something 20 000 should be doing is incredibly straining, but its not just us who feel it all of NATO's members deployed ludicrously small amounts of troops and now they are all pulling out leaving us and the more commited forces on the ground. Imagine 2000 soldiers embattled every day with the Taliban with no reinforcements coming, so they have to do the job instead of calling 15 000 laser guided missiles to do it for them. I believe the BBC said it best when the civillians in a Afghani village being assaulted were grateful the Canadians came for them because the Americans would have called in the fast movers instead of checking every house for combatants.

Ahem...

Yeah, Canada is doing soo much compared to the US right, huh conscripted? They totally have room to complain, never mind the US is doing the VAST MAJORITY of fighting and has the vast majority of responsibilities.

Yep, Canada of all people, the country that barely has barely 2500 troops, can complain and demand more from its allies. Totally. Nevermind the fighting Canada has done is fucking minuscule.

At 2/7/08 12:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Because you're just as idiotic as Canadians are.

Feel free to prove your statement.

I would venture to say that Canada's military is so small and does so little in the world due to the fact that its allies will do it for it, that this is only an illusion. The fact that Canada benefits from the military endeavors of the US, takes credit for what goes right, and blames the US for what goes wrong creates the illusion that they are benevolent by contrast.

Agreed.

Now, I believe we where talking about your claim that the Canadian Army is the most abusive in the world?

Delusional Canadians, or just plain liberal idiots like you who side against the US in every conceivable scenario, have no point of reference,and are far too uneducated or honest to see this.

Funny. You have yet to back up you point, at all.

In fact, I'll make it easy. Since your literal claim was that "Canada leads at killing children", we will make the claim easier for you to back up. You can count abuse by the Canadian Military to ANY ages, you can include only modern, first world nations (no having to compare it the China, for example), and you don't even have to show that it's the very top; just amoungst the top.

Do all that, and I'll grant you that you proved my guess completely and utterly wrong.

You might as well say that the allies lost WWI because years later Germany didn't uphold its peace agreements, built up its military, and invaded its neighbors, starting WWII.

Most people consider the end of WWI as one of the main catalysts for WWII, and some even consider them one big war.

In that case WWI didn't "technically" end until 1945......

At 2/7/08 05:29 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 2/7/08 12:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Because you're just as idiotic as Canadians are.

Feel free to prove your statement.

I think YOU prove it all the time.

I would venture to say that Canada's military is so small and does so little in the world due to the fact that its allies will do it for it, that this is only an illusion. The fact that Canada benefits from the military endeavors of the US, takes credit for what goes right, and blames the US for what goes wrong creates the illusion that they are benevolent by contrast.

Agreed.

Now, I believe we where talking about your claim that the Canadian Army is the most abusive in the world?

First, I didn't say that.

Secondly, it's called hyperbole.

I was showing that these things take place in other militaries, especially Canada's who Canadians think is the pinnacle of benevolent peacekeeping and can do no wrong.

Funny. You have yet to back up you point, at all.

And you never back up any of your claims ever, and routinely get proved wrong and caught lying.

Do all that, and I'll grant you that you proved my guess completely and utterly wrong.

Prove that the US military is the most abusive. See, you're only proving what I said earlier. You assume from the beginning as a status quo or given fact that the US military was quilty of the criticism that morefngdbs said.

You didn't ask him to prove what he said, but you jumped in and are now telling you to prove what I said, as if what he said is true by contrast and has to be disproved otherwise it should be considered true. Thus displaying your bias, and thus is the nullification of your argument.

At 2/7/08 06:19 AM, Imperator wrote:

You might as well say that the allies lost WWI because years later Germany didn't uphold its peace agreements, built up its military, and invaded its neighbors, starting WWII.

Most people consider the end of WWI as one of the main catalysts for WWII, and some even consider them one big war.

In that case WWI didn't "technically" end until 1945......

By tying in what happened in Vietnam years after the US left, and suggesting it is a US military defeat even though the US military had already left in the context of a successful peace treaty, someone is using logic that if applied to WWII, would suggest that the allies were militarily unsuccessful in WWI because WWII happened in spite of it.

We all know that it wasn't a military defeat that led to WWII, it was political mistakes, because the allies did militarily defeat the Germans. However the subsequent political mistakes lead to a new war years later.

This is true for Vietnam. The US forced the North into a peace treaty, where the communists signed agreements that they would give up seeking to forcefully annex the south. The US goal in Vietnam was not to destroy the North, but to protect the south. That is what the UN-sponsored treaty accomplished, so the US military was victorious in their stated goals.

So the US left, as part of its agreement in the treaty.

2 whole years after the US left, the North Vietnamese broke the treaty, built up their military again with a shitload of new soviet tanks and vehicles, and invaded the south, thus effectively starting a new war, which they won because the US was not there.

At 2/6/08 10:58 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Total US forces in Vietnam: 8,744,000

FACT CHECK
This many Americans did not fight and/or deploy to Vietnam. This is the total number of Vietnam era soldiers which means this is how many people who cycled in an out of the military during the conflict. Now just because you served in the military during this time does not mean you deployed to Vietnam.

My grandfather was in the USAF and was frozen at Beale AFB, CA working on the tankers that refueled the SR-71. The USAF would not allow him to transfer to another base to work at a depot in theater fixing B-52s damaged in Vietnam...so he retired.

My HS best friend's dad got drafted into the USMC. However, an orders mix-up kept him in California. The problem was not corrected until 6 weeks before his enlistment was up and despite pressure from his NCOs...he did not re-enlist.

One of my best USAF friend's mom's boyfriend (only in Missouri, right?) served in the Army during Vietnam but was stationed in Germany.

Why did I write this? Because these men are considered Vietnam era veterans and yet never went to Vietnam. So it is wrong to conflate how people served in the military in total with how many people deployed to Vietnam. This number comes to about 2.6 Million and you have to remember, that for the span of the entire conflict. I doubt that boots on the ground at any one time was significantly higher than 500,000.

At 2/7/08 12:50 AM, cOnScRiPtRED wrote: Good lord you actually think Canadians are idiots? I'll level with you I dont think Canada is any more intelligent than the majority of the Western world, but certainly were not stupid.

Also Canada isn't just there to kill Taliban fighters.
Canada went there with one of its primary goals to help the people rebuild.
So far Canada has,
Assisted in the collection, storage & decomissioning of 10,000 heavy weapons, including artillery,tanks & rocket launchers.
has cleared about 1/3 of the estimated 15 million mines.
has loaned money to ove 140,000 people in Afghanistan
Has helped in the training of Afghan Police & Army.

We may not be the best, but for such a small force (about 2500) we are trying & are on the front lines in Southern Afghanistan. A position we took over from the American forces that were there.

America has the most, absolutely no question... doesn't make it the best. Not by a long shot....Speaking of long shots the American Military has presented Canadian snipers with the recognized world record for long distance shooting of the enemy & presented them with bronze star medal.

Don't have to have the most to be the best... look at the Israeli's granted they are backed by U.S. equipment, but the people using that equipment are from Israel....This is a second vote for Israel !

At 2/7/08 11:56 AM, Transkar wrote: Morefngdbs, just admit that America has a better Navy, Airforce, and Army than you.

;
What are you implying ?
That I have a Navy, Army & Airforce? When did I ever say that?

Oh, I get it you mean Canada !
Ok I'll admit it, The U.S. has a bigger Navy ,Airforce & Army than we do... isn't nearly as good as we are man for man , BUT it is definately Bigger !

There are you happy ?

go polish you gun :p

At 2/7/08 12:13 PM, Transkar wrote: We have better technology accociated with our troops, we spendhundreds of thousands of dollars to maybe train one man.

I can hardly believe your recruits are so poorly set up that it costs that much to whip 'em into shape... I'm not surprised though, anyone who can't do anything else starts at the bottom of the military.
When your marks are that low & your background is poverty, it probably looks good.
But officer training looks like where the real future is.

We fight lots However, who gets the award at the end? I think its the movie maker.

Actually the so called 'stars' get the big splashy awards...they fit the movie makers somewhere in off camera.
;
Hopefully, you survive your basic training & get sent to one of those hell holes we talk about here so flippantly .
I sincerly hope you & your friends return safely & in one piece.
You see I don't like violence, but I recognize the need , doesn't mean I have to like it.
Part of the whole who's "killing machine is better" I also find distasteful.-More

At 2/7/08 12:05 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Ok I'll admit it, The U.S. has a bigger Navy ,Airforce & Army than we do... isn't nearly as good as we are man for man , BUT it is definately Bigger !

I really wouldn't compare the Canadian with the US military man for man. I'm an E-5 in the USAF and one of my classmates is an E-4 in the Canadian forces (Army type...artillery). We have, man for man, better resources and better training. Man for man, we simply invest more into our military than you do which does produce better soldiers.

At 2/7/08 12:22 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/7/08 12:13 PM, Transkar wrote: We have better technology accociated with our troops, we spendhundreds of thousands of dollars to maybe train one man.

I can hardly believe your recruits are so poorly set up that it costs that much to whip 'em into shape... I'm not surprised though, anyone who can't do anything else starts at the bottom of the military.
When your marks are that low & your background is poverty, it probably looks good.
But officer training looks like where the real future is.

Okay, this is proof you don't really know what you're talking about. We spend so much on training because tank driving, F-16 engine maintenance, fighter avionics maintenance, infantry manuevers are not really anything you find in the civilian sector.

You see we're not just talking about physical fitness, the cost of "whipping 'em into shape" is not that expensive. It is the cost of giving recruits job training in speciality skills that may or may not available in the civilian sector.

I mean, satellite operation (an enlisted AND officer specialty) is not exactly a subject taught in high schools and the VAST majority of colleges. I mean I guess someone could take nursing and mechanics in HS and Jr College vocational programs, but that just gives them an edge.

To make this argument really does display an ignorance of what you're trying to speak of.

At 2/7/08 06:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: By tying in what happened in Vietnam years after the US left, and suggesting it is a US military defeat even though the US military had already left in the context of a successful peace treaty, someone is using logic that if applied to WWII, would suggest that the allies were militarily unsuccessful in WWI because WWII happened in spite of it.

I actually think you're both being stubborn here, and not listening to each other very well.

The issue is what each of you consider the distinction between military and political objectives, and thus military vs political victory/defeat.

he's considering the defeat of the US in the objectives of:
1.) keeping the NVA from taking over South Vietnam
2.) crippling the NVA
3.) Preventing Communism from spreading

as miltary goals. I think you see them as more political.

Personally, I think they're mixed, and no distinction should be made anyways.

Plus, you're arguing that we technically didn't lose because the Viets somehow "cheated" by invading after the Peace Treaty. I think you're placating to winning the argument now instead of making an accurate point.

Our objective goals (if we can even decide there WERE any) for the war were to defend the South Vietnamese democracy/ stabilize the SV government. This did not happen.
To stop the spread of Communism into the South. This did not happen.
To cripple the Communist forces. This did not happen.

I see these as being both political and military goals, none of which were accomplished. You can argue otherwise, but I think it's difficult to actually pry apart the difference between what the politicians wanted to do, and what the army needed to do. Neither were successful. I'm pretty sure Petraeus' dissertation is a response in part on this, but I've only read snippets thus far.

It takes two to tango, and unfortunately saying that the war ended with the peace accords (and ergo we actually won it militarily) is disingenuous. What ended was our involvement in the war, not the war itself.

A more accurate statement would be to say the military left without completing any of its objectives, rather than saying it was "defeated" in any capacity, or "victorious" in any capacity.

At 2/7/08 06:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I think YOU prove it all the time.

I prove that Canada leads the world in innocent killings?

Stop fucking around, back the point up.

First, I didn't say that.

True. You did, however, say something awefully similar.

Secondly, it's called hyperbole.

Like I said; I didn't say, "prove it leads in killing kids", just prove that it's amoungst the most abusive nations in non-third world dictatorships.

I was showing that these things take place in other militaries, especially Canada's who Canadians think is the pinnacle of benevolent peacekeeping and can do no wrong.
And you never back up any of your claims ever, and routinely get proved wrong and caught lying.

As do you.

And I'll take it by this point that you don't have any evidence that backs up your Canada assertion.

Prove that the US military is the most abusive. See, you're only proving what I said earlier. You assume from the beginning as a status quo or given fact that the US military was quilty of the criticism that morefngdbs said.

I never said it was the most abusive, ever. And I have no idea what morefngbs said, because I attempt not to read what he says unless it's imperative to the topic.

And on that note, by the way... not only did I not call America the most abusive, but I would go as far as to say that amoungst the "free" nations, it ISN'T the most abusive. I don't know, but I always got the implied message that Russia had a pretty fucked up military.

You didn't ask him to prove what he said

I didn't bother reading what he said. I read what you said because I was hoping to get more posts like the one at the top of the page in which you discuss dragon skin.

but you jumped in

Actually, I originally jumped into the thread in your favor. Yet when you made the Canada claim, I called you on it.

and are now telling you to prove what I said, as if what he said is true by contrast

Again, I have no idea what he said.

and has to be disproved otherwise it should be considered true. Thus displaying your bias, and thus is the nullification of your argument.

Ahaha. Nice try, now stop bullshitting. You said Canada leads the world in killing civilian children. I said I thought that was B.S, you said that I'm an idiot for disagreeing with you. Now either prove your point and shut me up, and admit the statement was wildly inaccurate, and that you once again look like an asshole for personally insulting you for disagreeing with a point that eventually gets proven wrong.