America isn't fighting wars right - General

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601781]I'm just saying that argument works both ways.[/QUOTE] Again with the obvious. It's a shitty situation for the civilians regardless and I can understand them hating both the terrorists and America.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601464]The UK doesn't quite have the manpower or equipment to really fight a World War on its own. It could still be a major player, but it's more likely to play Italy to someone's Germany. More importantly, the internal politics of the UK don't look like they favor a war.[/quote] Side-note again, statistics show the UK has one of the best, if not the best-trained armed forces in the world. Every army training regimen we have is several weeks/months longer than those of other majors like US, Russia, or China. Just a side-note.

"To secure peace, prepare for war"

On-Topic, replace Wesker with America and you see the symbolism. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zoqsgMzZX8[/media]

[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601566]That was part of my answer. Nobody was really ready for WW2 - even Germany wasn't prepared. Nobody was ready for WW1, either. And, as I just showed, nobody is ready for WW3.[/QUOTE] And nobody being truly ready vindicates your conviction that "shock and awe"/"blitzkrieg" is the ultimate military doctrine? One of my history instructors/professors was a US Army officer in West Germany during the late 1980s. When the Berlin Wall fell down he noticed that some of the VII Corps' operations staff were planning something that wasn't the Soviets rolling through the Fulda Gap. When he asked the staffs' reply was that they were planning contingencies in [i]Algeria and the successor states of the former Soviet Union[/i]. That and careerism had a role in that. People didn't want to lose their jobs when the Cold War ended. The fact is that while a state's political leadership and population may not be ready for the next unexpected war, you can bet that the officers of state militaries all over the world analyze how their doctrine and military art would work against a potential adversary's in countless contingency studies. I believe that's what students of the US Command and General Staff College do in their courses too.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601802]Again with the obvious. It's a shitty situation for the civilians regardless and I can understand them hating both the terrorists and America.[/QUOTE] But in the end supporting America is in their best interest. We're actually turning them into a peaceful democracy and giving the people freedom. Whereas the terrorists are just killing for the sake of killing. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27601812]Side-note again, statistics show the UK has one of the best, if not the best-trained armed forces in the world. Every army training regimen we have is several weeks/months longer than those of other majors like US, Russia, or China. Just a side-note.[/QUOTE] Are you sure that's not just the SAS that has the best training?

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601865]But in the end supporting America is in their best interest. We're actually turning them into a peaceful democracy and giving the people freedom. Whereas the terrorists are just killing for the sake of killing.[/QUOTE] I'm talking more about the people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the promise of freedom and democracy looks understandably weak when your family got bombed. I'm not saying it's right, just eminently understandable.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601865]Are you sure that's not just the SAS that has the best training?[/QUOTE] Both our SAS and Royal Marines are the best-trained special forces units in the world. Our RMs have about 5-7 more weeks of training than the USMC. Same goes for our regular army. It's been our army doctrine since the New Model Army Acts to focus on Few Number, High Quality. It was put in place then due to the comparatively small population of the British Isles (remember, at this time, we didn't have a massive empire), and the doctrine has carried over to this day.

[img]http://www.crazy-news.net/weird-stories/Politics/Bush/bush1.gif[/img] "Lets dun bomb dem funny lookin towlheads n steel der oil hyuck."

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601889]I'm talking more about the people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the promise of freedom and democracy looks understandably weak when your family got bombed. I'm not saying it's right, just eminently understandable.[/QUOTE] We're also helping Afghanistan and we're trying to help Pakistan, but christ, you know it ain't easy.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601865]But in the end supporting America is in their best interest. We're actually turning them into a peaceful democracy and giving the people freedom. Whereas the terrorists are just killing for the sake of killing. [/QUOTE] You know that few trillion we spent on war could have been used to solve world hunger or cancer, heart disease. you name it. not to mention the results we are getting in this war.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27601948]You know that few trillion we spent on war could have been used to solve world hunger or cancer, heart disease. you name it. not to mention the results we are getting in this war.[/QUOTE] I think you'll find that money cannot solve everything.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601934]We're also helping Afghanistan and we're trying to help Pakistan, but christ, you know it ain't easy.[/QUOTE] Maybe we shouldn't, you know? America doesn't have the exclusive right to go try and help countries that it feels need it in ways it sees fit. I'm sure there would be more effective ways to go about it than covert ops and bombings that engender hate directly towards America in the populace.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601959]Maybe we shouldn't, you know? America doesn't have the exclusive right to go try and help countries that it feels need it in ways it sees fit. I'm sure there would be more effective ways to go about it than covert ops and bombings that engender hate directly towards America in the populace.[/QUOTE] We have the support of the United Nations and NATO, that justifies a lot of the things we do.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601968]We have the support of the United Nations and NATO, that justifies a lot of the things we do.[/QUOTE] If we have their support so much then maybe we should work with the global community to try and improve these countries though non-violent means rather than just trying to route out terrorists and bring freedom to these places ourselves/with the support of a few other allies. Pakistan is broken in quite a few ways, military action isn't going to much help that.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601968]We have the support of the United Nations and NATO, that justifies a lot of the things we do.[/QUOTE] Actually, there are few, if any, nations that actually support, ideologically, America's goals and actions. It's just the rest of the world's superpowers are too lazy to do anything about it. "As long as it doesn't affect us, do whatever you want."

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27602008]If we have their support so much then maybe we should work with the global community to try and improve these countries though non-violent means rather than just trying to route out terrorists and bring freedom to these places ourselves/with the support of a few other allies. Pakistan is broken in quite a few ways, military action isn't going to much help that.[/QUOTE] The Pakistani people are oppressed and persecuted. It is our duty as the world police to bring peace, prosperity, and freedom to the region.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27602039]The Pakistani people are oppressed and persecuted. It is our duty as the world police to bring peace, prosperity, and freedom to the region.[/QUOTE] America has no right to go into places and act as a policeman if that country doesn't want them there.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27602039]The Pakistani people are oppressed and persecuted. It is our duty as the world police to bring peace, prosperity, and freedom to the region.[/QUOTE] Not really, no. Show me where we were made world police.

The problem is America's still in this 'protector of freedom' mode that it started in the Cold War. They're under the impression that they MUST stop every tiny thing that goes wrong in the world (by starting losing wars over the problems) because if they don't freedom will be destroyed. Once again, the other world superpowers don't agree with this, but they're too lazy to set America straight.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601957]I think you'll find that money cannot solve everything.[/QUOTE] except world hunger and disease. You dont think spending 6000 times more on solving heart problems will help find new ways to treat heart problems?

[QUOTE=Fuhrer;27601930][img_thumb]http://www.crazy-news.net/weird-stories/Politics/Bush/bush1.gif[/img_thumb] "Lets dun bomb dem funny lookin towlheads n steel der oil hyuck."[/QUOTE] To be honest, I don't get what was so bad about George W. Bush.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601746]And if a suicide bomber killed their family member instead of a drone?[/QUOTE] They'd become an insurgent. Insurgents are the faction that's fighting against both the US AND the terrorist groups. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Fatman55;27602067]To be honest, I don't get what was so bad about George W. Bush.[/QUOTE] More like [b]What WASN'T bad about George W. Bush.[/b]

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27601812]Side-note again, statistics show the UK has one of the best, if not the best-trained armed forces in the world. Every army training regimen we have is several weeks/months longer than those of other majors like US, Russia, or China. Just a side-note.[/QUOTE] You can train for years but it won't stop a bullet. Training helps but it makes you far from invincible if you haven't got resources and technology to back it up.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27602034]Actually, there are few, if any, nations that actually support, ideologically, America's goals and actions. It's just the rest of the world's superpowers are too lazy to do anything about it. "As long as it doesn't affect us, do whatever you want."[/QUOTE] [b]US Allies in the War on Terror[/b] United Kingdom North Atlantic Treaty Organization Albania Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey Australia El Salvador Ethiopia Israel Kenya Republic of Korea Lebanon New Zealand Pakistan Philippines South Africa International Security Assistance Force Bahrain Azerbaijan Bangladesh Congo Cyprus Egypt Georgia India Japan Jordan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Macedonia Malaysia Oman Qatar Sudan Switzerland Tajikistan Thailand Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Ukraine Uzbekistan Northern Alliance Philippines Algeria Chad Morocco Niger Mauritania Mali Senegal Kenya China Singapore Uganda Somaliland Somalia Djibouti Awakening Councils Iraqi Government (post-liberation) Afghani Government (post-liberation) Peshmerga Kazakhstan Armenia Mongolia Iceland Dominican Republic Nicaragua Tonga You were saying?

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27602158][B]US Allies in the War on Terror[/B] You were saying?[/QUOTE] Now post the ones supplying more than 5,000 troops. Your list will look like this:

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27602083]They'd become an insurgent. Insurgents are the faction that's fighting against both the US AND the terrorist groups. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] More like [b]What WASN'T bad about George W. Bush.[/b][/QUOTE] I thought the insurgents were the terrorists?

The US like to twist other countries' arms to make it look like they have support when they really don't.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27602248]Now post the ones supplying more than 5,000 troops. Your list will look like this:[/QUOTE] Some of those countries don't even have armies of 5000+ troops...

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27602251]I thought the insurgents were the terrorists?[/QUOTE] What. You were making this distinction fine before, what went wrong.