Americas Army

[Peisinoe]

America has no real choice though. It faces the crap that any superpower has to face eventually.

As for blaming armies for anything. I laugh at you. Armies don't make policy. Armies execute it. But I suppose it's always easier to spit on soldiers then your representatives. *chuckle*

Yes, taking over the world is 'old school.' You've pretty much nailed it Grimtooth. Not much to add to that.

Whoever thinks that America will be on top for the next two hundred years needs to lose the crack. Economics is where it's at, and the general belief is that America has another 25-50 years before it's not number one anymore. I almost feel sorry for those who have no clue and will go through the crunch when it happens.

Oh well, life goes on. In an ever increasingly global world that we live in, limiting yourself to one nation will be a weakness. STart thinking multi national. Businesses have been for years. Maybe they know something you don't.

[_____________Hithorn]

It is also there to provide a government with a large body of trained, and disciplined Men (and Women). This also has uses in diaster relief, and other things like that.

The fact remains that armies are not created to do this job. Yes, they DO these things, but it is not their purpose. An army trains it's enlistees to fight, first and foremost, whether on land, sea or air, and as an added bonus, the United States uses them to assist in natural disasters.

Do you think Iraq has their soldiers cleaning rubbage and rebuidling houses when disaster strikes? I don't believe they do.

On the topic of taking over the world, please tell me the last time the United States used force to take land, and then rule over it, because post civil war, I do not believe it has happened. (Although we did do this to the Native American in the 1700-1800's) Every time the United States has used military power to depose a government, since 1900 or so, it has put into power a government voted upon by the people. I am not saying these governments didn't turn around, and screw their own people worse than the original governments did, it has happened, but the United States is far from trying to "take over the world"

As for the United States being a big bully, when I was young, and being continually harassed and beat up by someone, and someone else stepped in to protect me, by using force against my oppressor, I didn't call them a bully, I called them a savior. I don't see how you can call US attacks against Iraq in the gulf war, or attacks against Serbian government, as acts of a bully. There was a radio broadcast a while back you should read, I will see if I can find it.

[_____________Hithorn]

I found it, it's a bit dated, but I feel it expresses some of my previous opinions quite well.

Background :

On June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier). When he arrived at radio station CFRB in Toronto that morning, he spent twenty minutes dashing off a two-page editorial defending the USA against its carping critics which he then delivered in a defiant, indignant tone during his "Let's Be Personal" spot at 11:45 AM that day


The Broadcast:

This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.





Info found at www.snopes2.com

[lilnymph]

Originally posted by Asynthe


The fact remains that armies are not created to do this job. Yes, they DO these things, but it is not their purpose. An army trains it's enlistees to fight, first and foremost, whether on land, sea or air, and as an added bonus, the United States uses them to assist in natural disasters.

Armies are created to do any job that requires a large body of trained men. The main use for this is fighting, however as I tried to state, this is not the ONLY reason countries (not all countries I will Admit) keep and fund their Armies. If it is, why does the Royal Navy have a rescue sub (no use in combat, apart from as a target, but very useful in cases of submarine accidents). The British army is trained in diaster relief (cant speak for the American forces, but I would guess it is the same). Just because something is not the main job of a thing, it does not mean that it not part of its role. Are you also going to argue that Armies are not created for peacekeeping roles (that is not fighting)?

On your second note, I fully support America, and admire much about it. It is obviously going to take a lot of flak from the rest of the world as it is the only superpower at the moment (though China seems to be catching up). However the only point I ever try to make in these discussion is not to insult the rest of the world by saying that only you do anything useful in the world. America only got to the moon with the Help of Ex German (Nazi) scientists. One of Americas Biggest advantages in WW2 of the Japanese was Radar (Developed by the British). America also needs to use the Jet engine in its planes and space vehicals (devolped by the British, I think, though the Germans might have got there first. I only know the British had the first Jet Plane). The Angled flight deck and the steam catapult that make your Aircraft carriers so good, where both designed by the British. For the Second world war, when it was at its height, Britian was using 55% of its GNP to fight the war.

so Everyone, no Nation in the world is really better than anyother. Each nation has things to be proud of, and things to be ashmed of (in some case, these are both the same (ie, the British Empire)

hugs

lilnymph

[Resetgun]

BTW: American's Army is pretty good free (propaganda) first person shooter. I am normally playing it when I am bored to AO and people here.

I think that Bridge map is best (if you are in assaulting side). There should be soon come markanship patch...

... Edit: If you are intrested to discuss from purpose of army and war I recommend that you read:

• "On War" by General Carl von Clausewitz, I think that best part is "Preface to First Edition" by Marie von Clausewitz (Why? Well... use some time to think about it...)
• The Art of War" by Sun Tzu(I hope that someone of the WW1 Generals was readed this...)

[__________Maxtor 1-7]

Originally posted by lilnymph
Armies are created to do any job that requires a large body of trained men. The main use for this is fighting, however as I tried to state, this is not the ONLY reason countries (not all countries I will Admit) keep and fund their Armies. If it is, why does the Royal Navy have a rescue sub (no use in combat, apart from as a target, but very useful in cases of submarine accidents). The British army is trained in diaster relief (cant speak for the American forces, but I would guess it is the same). Just because something is not the main job of a thing, it does not mean that it not part of its role. Are you also going to argue that Armies are not created for peacekeeping roles (that is not fighting)?

I believe the National Guard handles most inside-US stuff that arises. They are the ones who come in to finally stop any riots (some people have no social lives, and many of them think rioting is a wise use of their time) that can get out of hand. They and the Red cross cover most relief efforts, and the Coast Guard might handle flooding in some occasions.

According to a few old laws, it is illegal for an army in the US to fight crime or handle certain issues; the army is too big and a bit trigger-happy compared to the police force. Some people are trying to get that law changed, but it won't budge.


In some other cases, US marshals can completly take over as a police force (as what happened recently when a lawyer noticed that police are not allowed to arrest people or give tickets in a certain area because of a glitched clause in the little constitution thing, hehe).


I fully agree on the last point, btw, and the second one is great .

[engelstein]

Originally posted by Maxtor 1-7


Yet the Clinton admin. was the most corrupt in US history;

I'd say that prize goes to Harding. http://www.americanpresident.org/KoT...H_In_Brief.htm

Oh yeah, the California power crises and that Amilio Gonzales guy who was 'kidnapped' by federal agents and sent back to Cuba, but hundereds of thousands of illegal immigrants were able to become American citizens.

You can hardly blame Clinton for California's stupidity. And when someone deliberately and publicly defies the gov't, guess what? You get beat down. Hence the raid to get Elian.

Oh, and that entire military campaign in Africa, which was underfunded (Clintons cheapness caused dozens of unneccessary US casualties), but the news sources never got to that one much. They stayed with Sadam in Iraq and his ability to hide biological weapons after Clinton gave him a warning before searching the bunkers so he could avoid a 'war'.

Don't forget that the House of Representatives passes the budgets. Maybe you should ask the Republicans on the Armed Services committee why they didn't push for more money for the military.

Ack, I forgot how much Clinton 'lowered' taxes and used Social Security and welfare to buy votes! And WTF is with that guy rejecting the mid-pregnancy abortion bill over and over and over?

Bush is doing the same thing. Prescription drug coverage, anyone? IIRC, welfare is administered through the states with block grants. You might want to look to the states for any welfare payola. Although you probably won't find much; welfare reform was a big thing a couple years ago.

[__________Maxtor 1-7]

I thought everyone forgot about Harding, and I don't like Clinton anyway (20 years from now we shall see if Hardings reputation still is worse than Clintons).


They did ask for more money, but as you must have heard, the amount of money they ask for gets cut in half (except for 9/11 stuff, that gets doubled). About how much more expensive do you think an AH 64 Apache is than a little troop transport with a machine gun mounted on the top? an F16 is even more expensive, and stealth aircrafts are almost never used because they cost 1+ billion (US dollars) and arn't as powerful as one would hope.
Take a guess how much those anti-tank missiles cost, 8 per standard AH 64 also, unless they replace the smaller missiles with them (the air-to-air ones).

[The Cheshire Cat Silke]

Bush sucks

[Redbow]

Yeah, i play it.

Its an intresting game once you get into a group where there is actually TeamPlay, and not multiple Rambo war.
You have to have the intelligence to think of it as another game, and not as USofA war propaganda.
(wich i have thought of myself, but never given a second one. (though i surley think of wether the game
actually contains a "spyware" from the US army.))
Neither of the things scares me anyway.

Just to put this thread back to the basics ...

Have phun

Zubok the fiiiiiiixer.


<Take a moment to think, then run like hell>

[__________Maxtor 1-7]

OK Silke, if I can't change your opinion then I won't spend hours to confirm that.

*runs from the new SilkeX*

[______________Dysart]

Yes. The wonders of free speech. Where a bunch of us who actually have no clue about what goes on in the upper echelons of the government can come here and sound like we know everything on a forum on an online game where nothing we are saying here will ever...EVER...matter to the government.

God bless America, someone needs to.

[coldwarkid]

Originally posted by Asynthe
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

Not quite correct. Britain is still paying off its war debts to the US and finishes paying them off in about 5 years time.

Germany, Japan and Italy had their economies rebuilt for very good reasons - people had seen what a punitive settlement like the Treaty of Versailles produced. That's not to say that rebuilding them wasn't a good thing, just that it wasn't done out of the goodness of anyone's heart. Britain also had a hand in rebuilding the German economy, since we had a very direct stake in seeing a stable Germany that was friendly towards the emerging west. There was always the threat that countries which were not propped up by the US and Britain might end up being financed by the USSR, and thus fall into the arms of the Soviet Bloc.

The upshot of this was that in 1945 Britain was flat broke with a struggling economy, paying off its debts to the US and at the same time attempting to get Germany back on its feet ASAP. The British economy didn't really start to recover for about 35 years.

I'm not bashing the US for this, any more than I'm saying that Britain acted altruistically. In discussions of this type it's important to get away from the stereotype of good country vs. bad country. Governments do things for very hardnosed, pragmatic reasons. Some of those things are good and some of them are bad, but the reasons behind them are always coldly rational.

Individual politicians may be corrupt of course, so exceptions occur when your government takes the form of a dictatorship with one person in total control. In that circumstance, that one person's prejudices, attitudes and fears may guide the policy of a whole nation. Stalin was a famous case in point, but it's important to note that when strong leaders eventually do fall they're usually replaced by a more bureacratic form of government, and we're back to cold, logical reality again.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it's time to stop bashing each others' countries and bragging about our own on the grounds of who did what to or for whom X number of years ago. In the real world, governments do bad things and good things alike for what are usually coldly pragmatic reasons. The decision isn't always the correct one in hindsight, but it was usually motivated primarily neither by spite or malice.

Realpolitik,

~R~

[________________xoox]

Jeb Bush sucks too. Bubba should go back to Texass !

There will always be wars, its the nature of human beings.

Whilst I dislike American aggressiveness, I might as well be on the winning side.

China will be the next superpower. I mean they manufacture, like, everything !

America should stop playing the Worlds cop.

I dont like where the Bush administration is headed :

War, economic ruin, unemployment for the masses.

[Barokk]

Originally posted by The Cheshire Cat Silke
Bush sucks

I couldn`t agree more .
This dude has killed a hell of a lot people while beeing the governour of texas, perhaps even innocent people (with all this talk about DNA traces). Guess what? Busch continues his path of killing people, and generally screwing over other countries.

And Asynthe, I`m sure that the countries who recieved the Marshall help etc appreciated the help, but fact remains that the US wouldn`t have been so generous if it hadn`t been benefitial to themselves (anyone remembers the cold war?)

And its not about the us taking land from other countries, im sure they never did that in the modern times, the thing I dislike is the doublemorality of the US. I think this says it all: www.markfiore.com/animation/whoops.html
www.markfiore.com/animation/spinny.html

oh I wont even mention all the human rights violations:P
of course this allso goes for a lot of other countries (cough China cough..)

EDIT: err I propably should say (in case someone gets me wrong), I dont hate America (in fact I`d like to travel a bit there ), I just disagree with some of the politic.

[______________Cronos]

Hmm with all this talk of Bush and Clinton I thought i'd suggest that those among you with the incentive to read about this check out this book HERE.

you'll see EVERYTHING about how bush bs'ed his way into presidency and what clinton did wrong too. and if ya like that you can check out his other book from a couple years ago.

Edit: note that Stupid White Men was released just before 9/11, so there is no mention of it. still very interesting, and who wants to read about 9/11 anyway?

I've read both and i think he's a social/political commentator thats both extremely funny and full of interesting facts. (also creator of Roger and Me, the largest grossing documentary of all time)

*see new movie in theatres now (US release), Shooting for Columbine.

i'm not trying to sell his book to you but if you read one book this winter....