Is the US military the best in the world?

[240 is Back]

We are the best military in the world because we hold our service members to the highest moral standards.

I saw a chambermaid make this statement earlier, and it got me thinking...

Which is a more effective fighting force - the US military, or the Iraqi insurgents?

Forgetting being the best military in the world - are we even the best military in iraq?  In Afghanistan? 

[ribonucleic]

It entirely depends on the mission.

We certainly have the most brute strength - being able as we are to lethally irradiate essentially the entire inhabited are of the planet.

But as Iraq demonstrates daily, you can't do needlepoint with a sledgehammer.

[ToxicAvenger]

I saw a chambermaid make this statement earlier, and it got me thinking...

Which is a more effective fighting force - the US military, or the Iraqi insurgents?

Forgetting being the best military in the world - are we even the best military in iraq?  In Afghanistan? 

ISI


nuff said..

19 yr old kids in the US military and the navy seals dont compare to ISI guys that  have a religious investment in ANY fight..but happen to be on the proper side of things..

a seal wont walk into a terrorist camp and blowhimself up to kill 30 terrorists..

an ISI guy will

need i say more..

they r ruthless though..

[ieffinhatecardio]

I saw a chambermaid make this statement earlier, and it got me thinking...

Which is a more effective fighting force - the US military, or the Iraqi insurgents?

Forgetting being the best military in the world - are we even the best military in iraq?  In Afghanistan? 

Yes, I think we're the best military in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for the world, how would one measure such a thing?

We're the most powerful but I don't know if that equates to best. How can a civilian accurately measure what is the best military in the world?

[240 is Back]

Yes, I think we're the best military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We've been at war for 5 years in Afghanistan.
We've been at war for 4 years in Iraq.

We are, by most estimates, "tied" at this point, with progress minimal over the last 2-3 years.


If we are better than them, why can't we beat them in 4 or 5 years? 

[ToxicAvenger]

If we are better than them, why can't we beat them in 4 or 5 years? 

simple..cause ya got people in the paki military involved..

living in a first world nation MOST peop,ke here dont have a fucking clue how corrupt things are and how stuff works..

..most of yall r gonna speculate and speculate..and then speculate AGAIN..

[OzmO]

In western style warfare we have the best military in the world for several reasons:

-  integrated joint operations in real time
-  superior training and technology
-  State of art dominate fighting machines

[trab]

simple..cause ya got people in the paki military involved..

living in a first world nation MOST peop,ke here dont have a fucking clue how corrupt things are and how stuff works..

..most of yall r gonna speculate and speculate..and then speculate AGAIN..

This reply is so on target.  Most Americans live in dream land. Even asking this thread question begs reality.

[Diesel1]

We've been at war for 5 years in Afghanistan.
We've been at war for 4 years in Iraq.

We are, by most estimates, "tied" at this point, with progress minimal over the last 2-3 years.


If we are better than them, why can't we beat them in 4 or 5 years? 

You're not at war you're peacekeeping and that's the problem. If you were in a conventional war against the insurgents then it would be all over within a week. The US Army might be great at fighting wars but they are shite at keepng the peace. They're just not trained for it..

[OzmO]

We've been at war for 5 years in Afghanistan.
We've been at war for 4 years in Iraq.

We are, by most estimates, "tied" at this point, with progress minimal over the last 2-3 years.


If we are better than them, why can't we beat them in 4 or 5 years? 

HH6 made some good sense a while back,  at least i think it was him,  he said we are not fighting a war we are fighting an insurgency.

So to aks why we haven't won in 4-5 years is better asked:

Why haven't we defeated the insurgency.  which has little to do with modern war fare, country versus country.

[trab]

Correct -we could Kill every living thing there in no time. That aint gona happen.
Face it ,this is VERY PROFITABLE for a lot of interests. Theyd like to see it go on indefinitely.

[Hugo Chavez]

I find it hard to believe Russia isn't going to get a little payback for our involvement in nixing their occupation of Afghanistan.  I would bet, they're getting some, I would be very shocked if they didn't covertly attempt to do so.

[trab]

I find it hard to believe Russia isn't going to get a little payback for our involvement in nixing their occupation of Afghanistan.  I would bet, they're getting some, I would be very shocked if they didn't covertly attempt to do so.

Retribution on the USA, Afghanistan , or both?
I think Putin's got it in for plenty of Islamic factions. But He also does a tremendous amt of business in their region.

[Thin Lizzy]

You're not at war you're peacekeeping and that's the problem. If you were in a conventional war against the insurgents then it would be all over within a week. The US Army might be great at fighting wars but they are shite at keepng the peace. They're just not trained for it..

Exactly. They're soldiers being asked to be cops.

[Migs]

we just need to drop 100 a-bombs on the place and kill every person there.   

[trab]

we just need to drop 100 a-bombs on the place and kill every person there.   

How you goin to sell bodybags, rifles, amo, Hummers, planes.... If you just go do that?
Never heard of milking a job?

[Fury]

We've been at war for 5 years in Afghanistan.
We've been at war for 4 years in Iraq.

We are, by most estimates, "tied" at this point, with progress minimal over the last 2-3 years.


If we are better than them, why can't we beat them in 4 or 5 years? 

It's because we have to appease the rest of the world and can't handle it like we want to when you got shitbag countries like Australia and France bitching. If we so much as felt like it, we could go on a massive offensive, flatten the majority of the Iraqi cities and clean up the insurgent problem without breaking a sweat. It's going into these countries and not fighting to win, but to maintain, that's the problem. Just like Vietnam.

We are by far the most powerful military in the world, when we're actually on the offensive. Like someone else said, not this peacekeeping bullshit where we're sitting ducks for the insurgents.

And Toxicsandn1g, blowing yourself up doesn't make you a superior military, it makes you an idiot. Considering most of these clowns blow up their own people. 

[240 is Back]

It's going into these countries and not fighting to win, but to maintain, that's the problem. Just like Vietnam.

I agree compeltely that we're fighting to maintain.  I think it's because large companies are making a lot of money supplying the troops with weapons and logistics.

[Fury]

I agree compeltely that we're fighting to maintain.  I think it's because large companies are making a lot of money supplying the troops with weapons and logistics.

Exactly. If our military had full freedom to actually clean up Iraq, I'd expect the insurgents would be singing a different tune when they're getting blasted back into the fucking stone age.

Too many corrupt companies and contracts costing us billions for nothing.

[240 is Back]

Exactly. If our military had full freedom to actually clean up Iraq, I'd expect the insurgents would be singing a different tune when they're getting blasted back into the fucking stone age.

Too many corrupt companies and contracts costing us billions for nothing.

Amen.  It's Bushco/Halib earning their cash while we install the oil pipeline.  Pentagon already admitted we'll "declare" victory in October 2008 and pull men from cities before election.  And the idiots on here will come on here in Oct 2008 and say "we won!" even though we knew all along they'd declare victory then no matter what the shape.

[ieffinhatecardio]

You're not at war you're peacekeeping and that's the problem. If you were in a conventional war against the insurgents then it would be all over within a week. The US Army might be great at fighting wars but they are shite at keepng the peace. They're just not trained for it..

I agree completely, excellent post.

[Fury]

It's not even that we're not great at keeping the peace. Half the time we're just sitting around at our guard towers and stations just inviting the insurgents to walk up and blow us up/snipe us/launch an attack from the buildings/streets/cars. You can only do so much, regardless of how powerful your military is. Our guys are basically sitting ducks over there. And these shitty offensives where we have to get permission from scumbag arabs like Al-Sadr to even enter an area are bullshit. We should walk in, and do what the fuck we want.

And if we're not the most powerful military who would even be considered the most powerful military then? Israel? 

[240 is Back]

It's not even that we're not great at keeping the peace. Half the time we're just sitting around at our guard towers and stations just inviting the insurgents to walk up and blow us up/snipe us/launch an attack from the buildings/streets/cars.

You don't spend money on intact hummers.  you spend it on demolished hummers.

You don't justify missions when a corner is peaceful.  You justify 200 million a day when you have some shit to deal with.

If we outright won tomorrow, a lot of very rich and powerful Americans would lose a lot of money.  Talk about a conflict of interest!  haliburton makes WAY more money in wartime than peace.  What is cheney's motive for peace?  Lose money? 

[Fury]

You don't spend money on intact hummers.  you spend it on demolished hummers.

You don't justify missions when a corner is peaceful.  You justify 200 million a day when you have some shit to deal with.

If we outright won tomorrow, a lot of very rich and powerful Americans would lose a lot of money.  Talk about a conflict of interest!  haliburton makes WAY more money in wartime than peace.  What is cheney's motive for peace?  Lose money? 

Yeah, it's unfortunate. But, I suspect this goes on in any country that goes to war. It's inevitable.

[Cavalier22]

in a real war, of course.  this is not a war, it is an occupation where the gloves cant come off


how long did saddam and his army last against us?  one of th ebest armies in the whole middle east lasted about two weeks. give me a  break