It's April 19, 2024, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: Benny Hill on August 01, 2004, 09:36:57 PMTop Ten By Combat Power United States China Israel India Russia Korea, South Korea, North United Kingdom Turkey Pakistan The most unusual entry here is Israel. But this is because Israel is one of the few nations to have a reserve army that can be mobilized for action more quickly than most countries can get their active duties into shape for combat. The mobilized Israeli armed forces number over half a million troops. In addition, the Israelis have world class equipment and weapons, as well as exceptional intangibles. The downsize of this is that mobilizing its armed forces also cripples the Israeli economy. Under these conditions, Israel must conduct a war that ends within a few months. After that, supplying the armed forces becomes difficult and actual combat power begins to decline. The other nations in the top ten have large armed forces that are well equipped and trained, at least compared to most nations farther down on the list. Britain抯 armed forces, like Israel抯, are better equipped, trained and more experienced than most. Turkey benefits from having a strong military tradition and excellent leadership at the small unit level, as well as good combat training. Overall, the U.S. combat power is about three times that of second place China, and ten times that of tenth place Pakistan. But another modifying factor is how you plan to use that combat power. Wars are not fought in a vacuum, but in places that often inconvenient places for one side. Most armed forces are optimized for fighting on their own borders; for defending the homeland. Only the United States is capable of quickly moving lots of combat power to anywhere on the planet. Moreover, given a few months, the United States can put enough combat power just about anywhere, and become the major military force in that neighborhood. Countries like Britain and France can move some forces to just about anywhere on the planet. But no one can put forces anywhere quite like the United States. ----------------------------------
Top Ten By Combat Power United States China Israel India Russia Korea, South Korea, North United Kingdom Turkey Pakistan The most unusual entry here is Israel. But this is because Israel is one of the few nations to have a reserve army that can be mobilized for action more quickly than most countries can get their active duties into shape for combat. The mobilized Israeli armed forces number over half a million troops. In addition, the Israelis have world class equipment and weapons, as well as exceptional intangibles. The downsize of this is that mobilizing its armed forces also cripples the Israeli economy. Under these conditions, Israel must conduct a war that ends within a few months. After that, supplying the armed forces becomes difficult and actual combat power begins to decline. The other nations in the top ten have large armed forces that are well equipped and trained, at least compared to most nations farther down on the list. Britain抯 armed forces, like Israel抯, are better equipped, trained and more experienced than most. Turkey benefits from having a strong military tradition and excellent leadership at the small unit level, as well as good combat training. Overall, the U.S. combat power is about three times that of second place China, and ten times that of tenth place Pakistan. But another modifying factor is how you plan to use that combat power. Wars are not fought in a vacuum, but in places that often inconvenient places for one side. Most armed forces are optimized for fighting on their own borders; for defending the homeland. Only the United States is capable of quickly moving lots of combat power to anywhere on the planet. Moreover, given a few months, the United States can put enough combat power just about anywhere, and become the major military force in that neighborhood. Countries like Britain and France can move some forces to just about anywhere on the planet. But no one can put forces anywhere quite like the United States. ----------------------------------
Quote from: Don Rizzle on May 10, 2006, 03:16:12 AMiraq would just get annexed by iranThat would be a great solution. If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
iraq would just get annexed by iran
Quote from: 7even the Annoyed One on August 09, 2005, 03:08:07 PMQuote from: Benny Hill on August 09, 2005, 02:47:56 PMQuote from: 7even the Annoyed One on August 09, 2005, 02:29:42 PMlol@calling Vietnam a "conflict" just in order not to admit that you lost a war. One of many patriotic brain washing methods. Just take care that you won't enter a "conflict" with half of the eastern world.to have a WAR you have to declare WAR the US government never declared WAR on vietnam, they simply sent troops by request of the vietnam governmentthis is a fact....and so i win this argumentDictionary definitions build the ground to brainwash people. Who made the definition? A wise, unbiased man, or someone who intends to manipulate you? Or do the people who read the definitions afterwards try to manipulate you? Who knows?Within instinct, feeling and philosophy the truth lies. Spoken, has the Master. (yes I just watched Star Wars)well then, america never lost because who made the definition of the word lose? was this person biased? in fact let's not go by any definition...you make no sense, your argument is erroneous and absurd. once again, you can't argue against facts
Quote from: Benny Hill on August 09, 2005, 02:47:56 PMQuote from: 7even the Annoyed One on August 09, 2005, 02:29:42 PMlol@calling Vietnam a "conflict" just in order not to admit that you lost a war. One of many patriotic brain washing methods. Just take care that you won't enter a "conflict" with half of the eastern world.to have a WAR you have to declare WAR the US government never declared WAR on vietnam, they simply sent troops by request of the vietnam governmentthis is a fact....and so i win this argumentDictionary definitions build the ground to brainwash people. Who made the definition? A wise, unbiased man, or someone who intends to manipulate you? Or do the people who read the definitions afterwards try to manipulate you? Who knows?Within instinct, feeling and philosophy the truth lies. Spoken, has the Master. (yes I just watched Star Wars)
Quote from: 7even the Annoyed One on August 09, 2005, 02:29:42 PMlol@calling Vietnam a "conflict" just in order not to admit that you lost a war. One of many patriotic brain washing methods. Just take care that you won't enter a "conflict" with half of the eastern world.to have a WAR you have to declare WAR the US government never declared WAR on vietnam, they simply sent troops by request of the vietnam governmentthis is a fact....and so i win this argument
lol@calling Vietnam a "conflict" just in order not to admit that you lost a war. One of many patriotic brain washing methods. Just take care that you won't enter a "conflict" with half of the eastern world.
the Congress gave President Johnson extraordinarily wide powers to increase US involvement in the war. It was declared following an alleged attack on the US battleship Maddox by North Vietnamese gunboats in the gulf of the same name. Some historians have seen this as a de facto declaration of war against North Vietnam.
Vietnam Conflict: largely an American term, it regards the war as unofficial, minor or merely a police action (<-- LOOL) and also acknowledges that the U.S. never declared war on any other party in it. Vietnam War: the most commonly-used term in English, it implies that the location was chiefly within the borders of the nation (which is disputed, as many regard the scope as including at least Cambodia); it sidesteps the issue of the lack of an American declaration of war.
Quote from: Benny Hill on August 09, 2005, 04:41:01 PMQuote from: 7even the Annoyed One on August 09, 2005, 03:08:07 PMQuote from: Benny Hill on August 09, 2005, 02:47:56 PMQuote from: 7even the Annoyed One on August 09, 2005, 02:29:42 PMlol@calling Vietnam a "conflict" just in order not to admit that you lost a war. One of many patriotic brain washing methods. Just take care that you won't enter a "conflict" with half of the eastern world.to have a WAR you have to declare WAR the US government never declared WAR on vietnam, they simply sent troops by request of the vietnam governmentthis is a fact....and so i win this argumentDictionary definitions build the ground to brainwash people. Who made the definition? A wise, unbiased man, or someone who intends to manipulate you? Or do the people who read the definitions afterwards try to manipulate you? Who knows?Within instinct, feeling and philosophy the truth lies. Spoken, has the Master. (yes I just watched Star Wars)well then, america never lost because who made the definition of the word lose? was this person biased? in fact let's not go by any definition...you make no sense, your argument is erroneous and absurd. once again, you can't argue against factsI wanted to do it my way but well I can also quote some fact BS, which really isnt my style but so be it:Quotethe Congress gave President Johnson extraordinarily wide powers to increase US involvement in the war. It was declared following an alleged attack on the US battleship Maddox by North Vietnamese gunboats in the gulf of the same name. Some historians have seen this as a de facto declaration of war against North Vietnam.QuoteVietnam Conflict: largely an American term, it regards the war as unofficial, minor or merely a police action (<-- LOOL) and also acknowledges that the U.S. never declared war on any other party in it. Vietnam War: the most commonly-used term in English, it implies that the location was chiefly within the borders of the nation (which is disputed, as many regard the scope as including at least Cambodia); it sidesteps the issue of the lack of an American declaration of war. A declaration of war is really just a formal thing to do. Not necessary to be in war at all, cause if a country wants to backstab the enemy it won't always declare war to warn the opponent will it? Personally, to me it was rather a war than a police action, don't know about you though.Also funny is the fact that "Vietnam Conflict" is an American term, only used by guys like you. You can bet your last damn dolla that you wouldnt call it like that if you actually won the "police action".
^^ okay, let's live in America and hope America goes down.....
Quote from: WestCoasta on August 10, 2005, 12:24:50 AM^^ okay, let's live in America and hope America goes down..... Never said that or wished for it...but they can go down in Iraq, Iran, Somalia Afghanistan, Vietnam, Venezuela, North Korea etc...And the only reason why I'm here is because of your rotten government.
Quote from: K A I N on August 10, 2005, 12:51:32 AMQuote from: WestCoasta on August 10, 2005, 12:24:50 AM^^ okay, let's live in America and hope America goes down..... Never said that or wished for it...but they can go down in Iraq, Iran, Somalia Afghanistan, Vietnam, Venezuela, North Korea etc...And the only reason why I'm here is because of your rotten government.well move your chongo ass back to the jungle in Congo then bitch i hate it when people say this shit
Home
Help
Login
Register
Print
