Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
British troops are very good, few would argue. You can be very proud of your increasingly small military force. But beware, sometimes numbers matter.
Vietnam was lost due in large to strategic stupidity in Washington DC and liberal media. Of note, the US never lost a battle, but our nation lost its will to win a limited war. Funny, but once we pulled out, and hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamise were murdered, sent to re-educaiton camps, etc. our liberal press and ignorant congress turned a blind eye. And our college students who dreaded the draft and demanded bring the boys home, instead turned to Disco and self gratification. Were there any protests over what happened to the people of South Vietnam? No--the new "ME" generation did not care.
Vietnam was also a bad war to get involved in. A civil war thousands of miles away in the South East Asian Jungles, what could possible go wrong. The fact that France packed up and left and that Britain wanted nothing to do with it should have sent alarm bells ringing in Washington. In terms of environments such as Vietnam, all the tanks and armoured vehicles in the world mean nothing in terms of Jungle Warfare.
Should have got the Vietnamese Communist Leader Ho Chi Minh when he was a pastry Chef at the Carlton Hotel in London, he also worked in a London pub for a while - 'seriously'. LOL
Then again Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and numerous others all lived in London (mainly the East End), as did Osama Bin Laden for a time, the Bin Laden family being very wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webster Ave Guy
Invading Iraq is among the stupidest things our politicans ever undertook. The NEOCON idiots abetted by the imperialist SECDEF ensured that anyone speaking the truth was hung out to dry, then hobbled the military's plans and sadly, lied to the nation and world about WMD. Despite a pie in the sky prediction that our troops would be welcome wiht flowers and joy, the insurgency kicked off right after--as many in uniform predicted. Troops did great in Iraq--our politicans did not. And, I hate the lack of accountablity over that.
I am in total agreement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webster Ave Guy
IN AFG, we need to stay there long term. Recall when we walked out after we help the AFGs kick the Soviets out? We merely set the conditions for radical element to come to power.
"In terns of the UN they do a useful but difficult peacekeeping role that does usually involve carpet bombing, agent orange or napalm."
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
I am saying it's a peace keeping force and not an attacking force, peacekeeping being at times very difficult as it's not simply a case of attacking an enemy on mass, indeed you often can't tell who your enemy is or tell one side from the other. Peacekeeping has become the order of the day following the invasion of Iraq and now in Afghanistan, with troops travelling around in increasingly heavy armoured vehicles and trying to diffuse IED's wherever possible. The truth about peacekeeping is that troops become an easy target for all sides and casualty rates are subsequently often high. Peacekeeping is also an ongoing thing and can last years, indeed decades.
Peacekeeping requires long term public committment from the nation providing the forces. Look at what Britain did in Cyrpus as an example. It is when casualties get too high or there are major political swings that cause the force to be compromised. Unfortunately, with governments peopled by those who have almost zero military understanding or actual service, added to being yes men for speical interets and always focused on the next election, the military is stuck.
I think it's inevitable that US bases in Europe and the US will contract as the current round of US Defence cuts kicks in.
In terms of the long term need for US bases in Europe that is something Americans themselves are going to have to decide. Whilst at the new same time as US defence cuts there is a new emphasis in terms of US Defence commitments to Asia and the Chinese threat rather than Europe and the Russians.
The Chinese are certainly beating their drums of war. They need to expand fast and the US is getting in their way. They also want revenge on Japan for WWII atrocities, or so they claim. The truth is they want the oil and gas in the China Sea and the small islands that Japan controls.
They developed specific weapons to defeat US countermeasures, including high speed long range missiles with multiple warheads designed to take out carrier groups. Some say, based on the technology they've mostly stolen through covert and overt means, they are now superior to us, or soon will be.
With our defense ravaged (in Carteresque fashion) when they (Chinese) believe they can control the entire China sea and South Pacific, major conflicts will most likely begin.
The Chinese are certainly beating their drums of war. They need to expand fast and the US is getting in their way. They also want revenge on Japan for WWII atrocities, or so they claim. The truth is they want the oil and gas in the China Sea and the small islands that Japan controls.
They developed specific weapons to defeat US countermeasures, including high speed long range missiles with multiple warheads designed to take out carrier groups. Some say, based on the technology they've mostly stolen through covert and overt means, they are now superior to us, or soon will be.
The Chinese spend 2% of GDP on Defence, the US Spends more than twice this amount at 4.4% of GDP, and indeed more still on developing numerous weapons systems, as well as maintaining a vast stock of nuclear weapons. For it's size China doesn't have massive armed forces, and the Chinese will equally look at the US (just like the Russians did before them) and the amount the US spend on Defence, and view the US as a threat. That's when a cold war situation can emerge and an arms race.
The Chinese are certainly beating their drums of war. They need to expand fast and the US is getting in their way. They also want revenge on Japan for WWII atrocities, or so they claim. The truth is they want the oil and gas in the China Sea and the small islands that Japan controls.
They developed specific weapons to defeat US countermeasures, including high speed long range missiles with multiple warheads designed to take out carrier groups. Some say, based on the technology they've mostly stolen through covert and overt means, they are now superior to us, or soon will be.
With our defense ravaged (in Carteresque fashion) when they (Chinese) believe they can control the entire China sea and South Pacific, major conflicts will most likely begin.
LMAO...wow.
Carteresque fashion? We're dropping 700 billion a year on defense.
A 2009 Report by the EU Institute of Strategic Studies Report showed that the number of Main Battle Tanks held by the members of the EU was 9,800, with a mere 7,951 Armoured Fighting Vehicles and a paltry 22,844 Armoured Personnel Carriers and over 2 million Regular Service Personnel and even greater numbers of reserve forces. America accounts for nearly half of world defence expenditure, the EU a further quarter of all defence expenditure and the majority of the rest is spent by China, Russia, India, Japan and countries such as Australia and Canada. So just who are we defending ourselves and are the Americans with 30,00 troops and 29 tanks really pivotal to EU defence.
The bases in the UK out side of missile defenses aren't really there to defend Great Britain. The US & UK practice and drill so they are ready for joint operations elsewhere. There are UK troops stationed in the US as well... The UK doesn't have bases here but their troops are here non the less...
The bases in the UK out side of missile defenses aren't really there to defend Great Britain. The US & UK practice and drill so they are ready for joint operations elsewhere. There are UK troops stationed in the US as well... The UK doesn't have bases here but their troops are here non the less...
The UK works with the US and other countries, but doesn't have unaccountable bases in the US. In terms of troops, there are no regiments or battalions of British soldiers based in the US, they may exercise there but troops from all across NATO exercise in the UK, and we have a lot of joint french military exercises, however neither country has bases in the others country.
In terms of missile defence, both Fylingdales and Menwith Hill which is now the ground receiver and relay station for Space-Based Infrared Satellites (SBIRS), are part of the US Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme.
The Chinese are certainly beating their drums of war. They need to expand fast and the US is getting in their way. They also want revenge on Japan for WWII atrocities, or so they claim. The truth is they want the oil and gas in the China Sea and the small islands that Japan controls.
They developed specific weapons to defeat US countermeasures, including high speed long range missiles with multiple warheads designed to take out carrier groups. Some say, based on the technology they've mostly stolen through covert and overt means, they are now superior to us, or soon will be.
With our defense ravaged (in Carteresque fashion) when they (Chinese) believe they can control the entire China sea and South Pacific, major conflicts will most likely begin.
You are certainly correct. Add to that that China pretty much owns both sides of the Panama Canal, has major investments going in Africa, continue to steal intellectual property, etc. its clear they are going for world dominance.
The Chinese spend 2% of GDP on Defence, the US Spends more than twice this amount at 4.4% of GDP, and indeed more still on developing numerous weapons systems, as well as maintaining a vast stock of nuclear weapons. For it's size China doesn't have massive armed forces, and the Chinese will equally look at the US (just like the Russians did before them) and the amount the US spend on Defence, and view the US as a threat. That's when a cold war situation can emerge and an arms race.
Be careful when you throw out those numbers. Building an Ameican soldier's rifle in the US costs the taxpayer about $744. In China, an AK47 or AKMS costs the Chinese goverment about $88 dollars. US companies spend a lot of R&D money to build more effective weapons or to off set the new weapons the threats is building, like China. China steals the techs and code and saves the R&D dollars. The US is decommissioning many of its naval vessels while China is rapidly building more. The US Army is also downsizing again. China's continues to grow.
The pay difference is a major part of the US DoD budget. About 55% of all DoD dollars go to pay and benefits. In China, it is less than 18%. The US is an all volenteer force, the Chinese use conscription.
It is not wise to simply compare the budgets--many other factors here are even more germane.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
