egafd.com

"The Yanks need the equipment because they're shitty soldiers."

Sam, you know you can do better than that. I'm giving you an "F" and sending you to the back of the classroom for the rest of the lesson.

Every country believes they have the best military in the world - France, South Africa, Israel, US, Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Egypt, etc, etc,.

Armies are a physical and psychological extension of the populations they represent. Consequently, populations want to believe they have the best army and that theirs is better than anybody elses. As a citizen of both the US and UK, I could believe that about either the US or UK militaries. I don't, but neither do I think they are the worst.

WJC

mart wrote:

>>


... and if they were dishing out awards for the most vacuous, insulting and downright pointless posts on this forum, YOU'D be right up there on the podium taking a bow, mart.

I for one enjoy reading OD's posts, not simply because I'm of like mind on many (though not all) of the views he expresses, but also because - agree with him or not - he's one of the most articulate individuals on this forum, arguing his corner with a touch of humour but without resorting to crass insults even in response to others.

A true raconteur, if you will.

Maybe you should take a leaf out of Dibble's book, mart, and see if you can actually manage a post that

(a) is longer than a couple of lines and (this might be the tough bit)
(b) consists of something other than insulting snipes directed at other posters and therefore
(c) is actually relevant to the topic being discussed

Now there's a thought for you to ponder!

WJC,

It's well known in military circles. I probably used the wrong adjective to describe their ability, but there's no denying that US (Marine and regular) soldiers have inferior, and shorter training regimes than most other nations. The British Airborne and Marine training schedules are the longest, most intense training in the world. (While our regular land regiments are up there with the best.)

There's a sort of Military Olympics (forgot the official name, but you can try googling) held every year, involving survival techniques, hand to hand combat, tactics and marksmanship, where different (NATO) countries send their best troops. All troops have the same equipment. Since 1976 (I think) the British troops (from differing corps) have won every year apart from a few times. The Canadians have won three times and the Finnish once.

Remember I did say 'best trained' not 'most powerful'.

Of course all this extra training means nothing with the USA's superior equipment, technology, and size.

Finnish? Finland is not a NATO member.

Maybe it's open to non-Nato nations now? I don't make the rules.

I don't think any country can boast the title of having the "best" military as I don't think you can qualify/quantify such a claim. I think the claim is egotistical at best, utterly useless at worst.

As for military olympic games, they are just that - games - simulations at best. How seriously and how much effort is put into these games will vary from country to country. Games and simulations are no substitute for actual combat experience. I see this all the time in my profession.

While it cannot be compared to risking one's life, money is one of the most important possessions a person has. As a stock trader, you either make money or lose money. I've seen would be traders do great using monopoly money in simulated trading, but when they start using live ammunition, their training, ability to remain calm under pressure and thought process go clean out the window. The same can be said for military games as well. You simply cannot replicate actual combat.

WJC

Well, thanks for that, mart. I'm happy you still find my material worthy of reading and commenting on. The worst thing would be if you thought my scribblings idiotic or banal and not worth the effort of clicking on.

Have a nice day.



Officer Dibble

Thanks for that vote of confidence, Eric. It's always gratifying to be endorsed by one's peers, and particularly by a voice as reasoned as yours. Makes it all seem worthwhile. Keep up the good work.


Officer Dibble

Don't take anything I said to heart, Sam. I have great respect and faith in you as a rational, articulate, individual. Your one of those I take seriously (i.e., not a Muppet). But I couldn?t resist having a go after you left such a wide-open goal with that horrid, offensive, remark about American soldiers. It had to be challenged, even though I believe it was one of those silly, impetuous, spur of the moment things that we have all come out with from time to time. Hopefully, you?ll have learned something from this and it will aid you in becoming a more astute, judicious, and indeed, formidable debater.

By the way, in this instance, I wasn?t making an assumption vis a vis your social standing, so much as the standing of those people I assumed you hung out with ? i.e, your peers (I believe you mentioned university in one post). But if you say you?re a blue-collar kinda guy, that?s good enough for me (though I believe one or two others who express similar sentiments on here ?doth protest to much?). We all make judgments and assumptions about the people we meet and converse with on a day-to-day basis. Those judgements are based on what we already know and have experienced about how different types of people are. In most instances our perceptions and judgements are correct ? i.e., if the person in question appears to be stupid, clever, rich, poor, middleclass or working class, then they usually are. But not always, a few people do not fit into anyone particular box, including me (so my lady friends tell me). So, yes, an element of caution is always prudent when making judgments about folks.



Officer Dibble

Cheers Officer!

Some good advice in all that waffle of yours! !laugh! I was a little harsh on our American cousins, and I suppose I was thinking of American arrogance/ignorance that I have had to put up with on the occasions I've been over there.

Easy does it!