Whats the Best Overall Army in the World?

[ApathyEcstasy]

AE,

I don't really want to argue with you, on this one. We've been getting along rather nicely, up until now.

Among the many sources that I use for information is the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I consider this source to be definitive on most issues. Some of the things you've earlier said are backed up by EB. Some are not. I will believe EB before I will accept the chaos of Wikipedia.

The "Reagan Administration" paragraph you quoted doesn't talk about American atrocities. It talks about the overall legality of Reagan's contra effort, post-Boland. In hindsight, President Reagan was correct in providing covert funding for the contra movement, since it brought down the single most destabilising influence in Central America for many decades, the Sandanistas.

To the extent that President Reagan provided funding and weapons for the contras, the United States was indirectly responsible for any "atrocities" committed by foreign mercenaries. But I am telling you that my personal experience in the whole affair is that American mercs did not commit atrocities against anyone, and it feels very much like you are telling me that my personal experience in the region was in error.

One of the most fascinating things about being an American merc is the level of information that one is privy to. You see, a merc is being asked to put his life on the line, without any legal standing whatsoever. If captured by the enemy, he may be tortured and/or put to death at the whim of his captors. Therefore, before you go, you demand information. To the extent that it is possible, you are given the information ... including who is ordering what ... that you demand.

My own personal briefing came from a gentleman and fellow-patriot that we all lovingly remember as Lt. Col. Oliver North. He's Ollie, to us ..

you're still misunderstanding me...i'm not saying that american mercs committed any wrongdoings.. though the fact that american soldiers did in abu ghraib makes me consider the fact that they may have....i'm under the opinion that even if the US is indirectly responsible for supporting actions of the contras that were crimes against humanity..that the US isn't free from blame or guilt

just another note: only a child would think that the world is as simple as "good versus bad/black versus white"..any sensible human being would realize that it's just many shades of greys

[Farnan]

Acutually according to Globalsecurity.org the US navy is rank 1 which means

"Rank 1: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Complete) – This is a navy capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently. E.g., United States"

While the closest is probably Britain which is rank 2

"Rank 2: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Partial) – These are navies that possess most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a "complete" global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major "out of area" operation. E.g., Britain, France."

That mean the US can undertake operations throughout the World, While the Royal Navy at its height could only undertake major operations in one part of the world, see the Revolution, where the ships of the Line stayed near Europe, also the RN in World War two only undertook major operations in Europe, while the US undertook major operations in two theaters.

[Oldgamer]

just another note: only a child would think that the world is as simple as "good versus bad/black versus white"..any sensible human being would realize that it's just many shades of greys

There is good, and there is evil. I do not doubt the shades of grey. But for the most part, "shade of greys" have been invented for the purpose of acting in an immoral fashion.

Where did they put my rattle? ...

[ApathyEcstasy]

There is good, and there is evil. I do not doubt the shades of grey. But for the most part, "shade of greys" have been invented for the purpose of acting in an immoral fashion.

Where did they put my rattle? ...

morality is relative...just as some people think the ends justify the means..and others disagree with that notion..just one example of many that show how morality is relative..thus justifying my "shades of grey" statement

[Rapax]

There is good, and there is evil. I do not doubt the shades of grey. But for the most part, "shade of greys" have been invented for the purpose of acting in an immoral fashion.

Where did they put my rattle? ...

Actually it feels more like black and white have been invented so people don't have to complicate themselves and can divide everything neatly. If it's not white, then it must be black. Maybe not an immature viewpoint, but quite a simple one.

[Oldgamer]

morality is relative...just as some people think the ends justify the means..and others disagree with that notion..just one example of many that show how morality is relative..thus justifying my "shades of grey" statement

AE and Rapax, we could get into a huge "absolute morality" versus "relative morality" discussion, which would take us completely off-topic (where we have been close to, anyway).

Let's leave it at this, in this thread:

AE: Morality is relative ...

OG: Morality is absolute ...

[ApathyEcstasy]

AE and Rapax, we could get into a huge "absolute morality" versus "relative morality" discussion, which would take us completely off-topic (where we have been close to, anyway).

Let's leave it at this, in this thread:

AE: Morality is relative ...

OG: Morality is absolute ...

okay, in that case, i agree to disagree

[BassV2]

Are Iran India and China just fillers? The UK and France all have better armies then them!

hohoho..

Please look into France WWI, France WWII.

[Rapax]

hohoho..

Please look into France WWI, France WWII.

And you please look when these wars took place and then have a look at todays date.

[ApathyEcstasy]

And you please look when these wars took place and then have a look at todays date.

france and uk haven't had a "total war" since then...so i don't think anyone can say just how effective the uk and france are today in terms of warfare...iraq didn't count because afaik, the US was the only one involved with the real invasion...the foreign troops were only involved with occupation and humanitarian missions

[Richard]

can somoene define what "best" means? man for man, i'd say the British because of their training. overall, as in, who would win a fight though, i'd say the US. if all the contestants there were evenly matched in numbers, i'd say the British, Israelis, then the US.

[Rapax]

france and uk haven't had a "total war" since then...so i don't think anyone can say just how effective the uk and france are today in terms of warfare...iraq didn't count because afaik, the US was the only one involved with the real invasion...the foreign troops were only involved with occupation and humanitarian missions

Unfortunately you are not "aifaiked" very good, because british troops did take part in the invasion of iraq, yes, with actual fighting and stuff.

The point you miss though is that Bass has obviously been trying to discredit the french by pointing out their performance in WW1 and 2, though this is completely irrelevant since it is 60 years ago. Both france and britain have a fairly modern army, certainly on a better level than iran or india.

[Richard]

i believe the british took Basra. they have far better urban combat troops than the US, many british soldiers have ben trained for combat with the ira

[machinbidule]

Please look into France WWI, France WWII.

What is the problem with the french army of WW1 ?
You can say whatever you want about the french people of today or about the conduct of our leader during WW2 but please don't spit on the memory of million of frenchmen who died during WW1.

[Marcus Scaurus]

but please don't spit on the memory of million of frenchmen who died during WW1.

With all respects, but the French army acted foolishly during WW1. I'm not talking about the French soldiers and corporals in their trenches, but most of the officers and generals sending their men into a certain death. During attacks, the lieutenants and captains stayed behind to keep contact with the HQ. The sergeants made sure no one was left behind in the trenches. So the attacks were led by experienced corporals and soldiers.

But what happened in WW1 or WW2 says nothing about there army nowadays. They have a very good one.

[mib]

With all respects, but the French army acted foolishly during WW1. I'm not talking about the French soldiers and corporals in their trenches, but most of the officers and generals sending their men into a certain death. During attacks, the lieutenants and captains stayed behind to keep contact with the HQ. The sergeants made sure no one was left behind in the trenches. So the attacks were led by experienced corporals and soldiers.

You know, that's pretty much what all sides did in WWI... human wave.

[Lee1026]

I really doubt that the Japs did that.

Bus seriously, the Germans did not do it any where as much - look up the "fire waltz".

[Polemides]

they have far better urban combat troops than the US, many british soldiers have ben trained for combat with the ira

What a ridiculous statement. You care to back that up with any actual evidence or do you rely soley on conjecture and hearsay? When was the last time the British Army has fought against the IRA, sometime in the 70s?

Look at how successful the Americans were at driving the insurgents out of their Fallujah stronghold. 71 Americans killed for a trade of over 1,200 insurgents. That's a pretty good ratio, especially considering the Americans were assaulting.

I'm tired of hearing people state that the British soldiers are better pound for pound than American soldiers without any sort of backup, only their own warped perception. If Brits are better soldiers than Americans, PROVE IT.

[ApathyEcstasy]

Jtf2>*

[JP226]

I really doubt that the Japs did that.

did what?