Why USA wins most wars

biko

Steoob

eh?

GBX

and its a graph showing what? :pac:

Vorsprung

Military spending I'm guessing.

minidazzler

The USA have only won 2 wars. WW1 and WW2, and they entered both late.

Vietnam - Lost
Korea - Neither won or Lost.
Iraq - Ongoing but unwinnable because there will always be people ready to die for Allah.
Afghan - Ditto.
Grenada wasn't really a war.
They had to win the Civil War, because they were both sides.
Somalia - Do they even have a government?
Desert Storm - Gave up too fast.


They don't really Win any wars.

Manic Moran

Perhaps the title should be 'why the US wins most battles.'

No amount of military spending can make up for political will. (Or, more accurately, political won't.) But the ability to call in three airstrikes and a battalion artillery TOT when most normal-thinking fighting men would use a hand grenade does tend to result in a rather positive result for the American soldier.

NTM

The Mad Hatter

"The idea of the superhero seems to me to stem from the American unwillingness to enter into any military situation without a massive tactical advantage.' -Alan Moore

What is that a graph of, btw?

biko

Yeah, not very good graph although it illustrates how much money goes into their military budget compared to other countries.

In dollars
USA 651,163,000,000 Population 300M
European Union 312,259,000,000 Population 500M
China 70,132,100,000 Population 1.3B
Russia 39,600,000,000 Population 140M
Ireland 1,300,000,000 Population 4M
Source

As you can see US spends twice as much as EU, which is much larger and almost 10 times that of China or about 20 times that of Russia.

Poccington

minidazzler wrote: »

The USA have only won 2 wars. WW1 and WW2, and they entered both late.

Vietnam - Lost
Korea - Neither won or Lost.
Iraq - Ongoing but unwinnable because there will always be people ready to die for Allah.
Afghan - Ditto.
Grenada wasn't really a war.
They had to win the Civil War, because they were both sides.
Somalia - Do they even have a government?
Desert Storm - Gave up too fast.


They don't really Win any wars.

Without getting too serious, the US didn't lose Vietnam militarily. They "won" the First Gulf War, they "won" in Grenada and they "won" the little bit of armed conflict in Somalia.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, they "won" in the traditional sense of "war" being 2 sides meeting on the battlefield but whether they'll win against the Insurgency is another thing. Although I feel Iraq is going relatively well compared to a few years ago and it's A'Stan that'll be harder to finish.

[Jackass]

Magnus wrote: »

Yeah, not very good graph although it illustrates how much money goes into their military budget compared to other countries.

In dollars
USA 651,163,000,000 Population 300M
European Union 312,259,000,000 Population 500M
China 70,132,100,000 Population 1.3B
Russia 39,600,000,000 Population 140M
Ireland 1,300,000,000 Population 4M
Source

As you can see US spends twice as much as EU, which is much larger and almost 10 times that of China or about 20 times that of Russia.

So we spend more money on our military, per capita, than China??

That's not good! How do we justify that kind of spending on a backup police and bus serivce?

Outrageous!

Victor

[Jackass] wrote: »

So we spend more money on our military, per capita, than China??

That's not good! How do we justify that kind of spending on a backup police and bus serivce?

Outrageous!

Soldiers in China cheap. Soldiers in Ireland expensive. [/Fr. Ted voice]

Merch

[Jackass] wrote: »

So we spend more money on our military, per capita, than China??

That's not good! How do we justify that kind of spending on a backup police and bus serivce?

Outrageous!

I was thinking we seem to be spending more per capita then Russia, probably still the second most heavily armed force in the world

Jason Mc

possibly our soldiers get better wages?

Merch

I'd say that is definitely true,

I for one am glad we are not spending more but wonder why we are even spending this much?

I am sure when people think wages they think, soldiers but I'd consider what the top brass and all the other people that do nothing in the defence forces are getting not just the privates

You can bet officers are getting way over the odds for what they do.

And if what we are spending is too much it is criminal to think how much is being wasted on military spending, the Yanks aren't winning in Afghanistan, I suggest they should have bought off the country, no war just say we' will run it but build roads and buy your opium crops instead of funding it down the road with police forces trying to catch the drugs and related crimes.

seamus

Jason Mc wrote: »

possibly our soldiers get better wages?

Probably a good part of it. China being communist, any food, heat and shelter provided to servicemen/women are probably counted as part of their wages.

I would also suggest that the figure reported by China and the actual figure are quite different as well as some creative classification of expenses - classifying research into nuclear weapons as scientific or educational spending, for example.

Collie D

minidazzler wrote: »

The USA have only won 2 wars. WW1 and WW2, and they entered both late.

Vietnam - Lost
Korea - Neither won or Lost.
Iraq - Ongoing but unwinnable because there will always be people ready to die for Allah.
Afghan - Ditto.
Grenada wasn't really a war.
They had to win the Civil War, because they were both sides.
Somalia - Do they even have a government?
Desert Storm - Gave up too fast.


They don't really Win any wars.

Pretty sure they won the War of Independence

Manic Moran

You can bet officers are getting way over the odds for what they do.

Out of interest, how much do you think officers get paid, and how much do you think they do?

Please feel free to compare work hours, conditions, responsibility, wages and benefits with other equivalent jobs in the civilian world.

NTM

rossie1977

Merch

Collie D wrote: »

Pretty sure they won the War of Independence

And the civil war:pac:

enda1

Collie D wrote: »

Pretty sure they won the War of Independence

Yeah somehow I think the war of independence was before the country, USA existed. I don't know why but...

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, how much do you think officers get paid, and how much do you think they do?

Please feel free to compare work hours, conditions, responsibility, wages and benefits with other equivalent jobs in the civilian world.

NTM

What do you mean?
I'm sure that information is available, work hours?? cant be any worse than the privates and nco's conditions cant be, err not like privates and ncos, responsibility? cmon for what???, you tow the line and pass it on, everyone is already doing that there so you have less hassle and more authority than civilian management, automatic promotion hmm then theres the pension, compare that to the civilian world, ehh if they want a civilian job go for it! anything else?? so are you just in the door? of your job that is???

Capt'n Midnight

The US spends more on military than everyone else put together if you exclude the UK who probably won't attack them given as how the US probably has the launch codes


US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?


BTW they don't like to reminded of what the Canadians did to Washington back in 1812

Karoma

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?

Probably something to do with being the cheapest means of supplying 2.5million personnel and deploying large equipment to their ~740 bases around the world + foightin' poirats!

Manic Moran

Merch wrote: »

What do you mean?
I'm sure that information is available, work hours?? cant be any worse than the privates and nco's

Usually is, actually. The stereotype of the British Officer in colonial times playing cricket whilst the privates slave away is far removed from the real world in a modern army where officers are often up before the troopers and in bed afterwards. It sure as hell isn't 8-5, Monday to Friday.

responsibility? cmon for what???,

You're joking, right?

Take a company commander, a Commandant in the Irish Army unless I'm missing my guess, a fairly respectable rank. With the great authority also comes the great responsibility, that of over a hundred lives, and people are likely to die even if he does his job correctly. Compare that to the average 30-year-old mid-level manager on the civilian side. He is responsible for everything that unit does or does not do, from the training plan which keeps the men alive and allows accomplishment of national goals, through keeping care of their career paths and families to enforcing discipline through methods which can include imprisonment and fines, options not available in the civilian world. In addition to the simple job description of soldiering, one is probably also going to play social worker, diplomat, civil advisor and any other such role as required when interfacing with local populations on foreign missions. He must be a combination of manager, technical expert and athlete, with the ability to make pretty rapid decisions under the slight stress of combat. And, oh, by the way, you're liable to go to places where people might shoot at you just for being there. Yeah, like that's all easier and less responsibility than the typical private-sector person of the same age.

so are you just in the door? of your job that is???

No, I've been in the workforce for a few years.

NTM

Lirange

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BTW they don't like to reminded of what the Canadians did to Washington back in 1812

Common misconception. Aggressively promoted by those uppity Canadians.

The troops that burned Washington were entirely composed of British regiments dispatched from France. Along with a smaller group of reinforcements from Bermuda. English speaking Canada was sparsely populated and the British troops there were needed at the garrisons to defend Upper Canada. Upper Canada = everything except Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Any engagements of British soldiers based in Canada with the Americans were limited to the Great Lakes region and upper NY state. Of course there's the other small technicality that Canada didn't exist just as Enda informs us that the USA didn't exist until after the War of Independence.

Overheal

What does that have to do with the topic at all though?

Overheal

I Think this is the real story here:



30 years later we are back up to Cold War levels of Military Spending worldwide.

As for who is spending more, it seems the biggest % increases have not been from the US



The US Defense budget has gone up, but more significantly due to war funding



I'm too tired to read the print but heres the link I found this all at:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

As for the Cold War, you'd probably find the US and Russia constantly tried to match eachother. But another article I found seems to suggest the real figures russia spent might never be found out, as they seemingly went to some great lengths to conceal how much they were actually spending on defense in the Cold War era:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

Capt'n Midnight

Karoma wrote: »

Probably something to do with being the cheapest means of supplying 2.5million personnel and deploying large equipment to their ~740 bases around the world + foightin' poirats!

except they use commercial shipping and commercial airlines for a lot of it.

CCCP^

The US wins most wars because their against third world countries?

With the exception of Germany and Japan in the 2nd World War and Spain in the late 1800s or early 1900s, what other first world major power has the US fought against?

Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Grenada, Iraq, Korea. All third world countries. I don't think you can count Iraq as a war is usually defined as two opposing forces fighting against each other, not one side bombing the holy **** out of a retreating force and it's cities.

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Usually is, actually. The stereotype of the British Officer in colonial times playing cricket whilst the privates slave away is far removed from the real world in a modern army where officers are often up before the troopers and in bed afterwards. It sure as hell isn't 8-5, Monday to Friday.


You're joking, right?

Take a company commander, a Commandant in the Irish Army unless I'm missing my guess, a fairly respectable rank. With the great authority also comes the great responsibility, that of over a hundred lives, and people are likely to die even if he does his job correctly. Compare that to the average 30-year-old mid-level manager on the civilian side. He is responsible for everything that unit does or does not do, from the training plan which keeps the men alive and allows accomplishment of national goals, through keeping care of their career paths and families to enforcing discipline through methods which can include imprisonment and fines, options not available in the civilian world. In addition to the simple job description of soldiering, one is probably also going to play social worker, diplomat, civil advisor and any other such role as required when interfacing with local populations on foreign missions. He must be a combination of manager, technical expert and athlete, with the ability to make pretty rapid decisions under the slight stress of combat. And, oh, by the way, you're liable to go to places where people might shoot at you just for being there. Yeah, like that's all easier and less responsibility than the typical private-sector person of the same age.



No, I've been in the workforce for a few years.

NTM

So you were an officer and what?? is that it you're offended
If you said you were in the British Army I would say you might have a leg to stand on as they actually fight real wars, wether I agree with them or not.
Social worker?? are you insane in what way to who? what army were you in? honestly if you were not in the Irish army I will take back what I am saying.
Technical expert in what?
Orders are handed down thats all there is to it,
There is no pressure like you are suggesting compared to a Multinational Corporation, if thats the case what job did you end up in because I can tell you its mostly a lot worse.
If there was a chance you or whoever was concerned you were going to be shot at, I never understand why people roll that one out, well why join?? wasn't that obvious that it might happen.

It used to be that officers got the position on the basis of either who they knew or that they were from a more well to do background and therefore had a higher educational background.
I know of a few privates that have Phd's some that have masters and many that have degrees. Promotions aren't given out for that kind of thing in the PDF, Officers are given automatic promotion though, compared to what a private, or corporal has to do to what a Lieutenant or captain has to do???
Your suggestion that officers have to do everything for the ranks beneath them may is dated, privates have limited interaction with officers and everything in anything to do The PDF is backwards, it is hole to put money into.
They may be spending more money and to some extent its necessary, I think there are better uses for it.
But it it is only ever about towing the line.

Merch

CCCP^ wrote: »

The US wins most wars because their against third world countries?

With the exception of Germany and Japan in the 2nd World War and Spain in the late 1800s or early 1900s, what other first world major power has the US fought against?

Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Grenada, Iraq, Korea. All third world countries. I don't think you can count Iraq as a war is usually defined as two opposing forces fighting against each other, not one side bombing the holy **** out of a retreating force and it's cities.

Germany was defeated by Russia, for the most part, with unacknowledged material aid from the US, the first encounters the US army had with the germans were in north africa and they were trounced. Not that thats an offence the Germans were experienced Ultimately it was airpower and their ability to diminish their access to resources and replenish them that defeated the germans and gave the Western fromt the advantage it needed, plus the Soviets had a greater number of available recruits.
and the US army soldiers had little or no combat experience.

Japan never had a chance in that war no matter what the history may say, initially they had advantages but they were gone very soon in the war. Aircraft production capabilities on its own saw to that. Having deciphered their naval code before the war, well that would suggest things that open more cans. It was brutal and merciless but the chances they would ever have won, it was never going to happen.

Spain was a former colonial power on its last legs

All those other countries, not a chance.
But if you push your weight around long enough someone will get you.

rossie1977

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?

they could lend us one

citizen_p

US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined.
what use is this ?

it means they win wars easier....and they have them in rotations..... the spend like 7 montha=s at sea but 4 of them are spent travelling from usa east to around iraq/afghaistan then to australia and then home.

Capt'n Midnight

CCCP^ wrote: »

With the exception of Germany and Japan in the 2nd World War and Spain in the late 1800s or early 1900s, what other first world major power has the US fought against?

Most of the deaths in WWII were on the Eastern Front. (After that it was China. )

Russia defeated Germany, US trucks helped but Human wave , T34's and IL-2's are what won the war in Europe. US and UK bombing didn't have such a signifigant effect because raw material shortages where the limiting factor.

For Japan US submarines won the war, again it was raw material shortages. It was an all or nothing gamble. The odd thing here is that the Japanese were anti-communist and if either side had stepped back from sabre-rattling then they could have been allies and the Pacific war adverted.

Isoroku Yamamoto wrote:

If ordered to fight, "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years."

Most of Spain's colonies had gained independence by then and the US had become a major power. But they were still fighting rebels in the Philipines for years afterwards,

Manic Moran

is that it you're offended

I'm not offended, I'm correcting what I believe to be a serious misconception which you harbour, I presume due to a lack of knowledge or interest.

If you said you were in the British Army I would say you might have a leg to stand on as they actually fight real wars, wether I agree with them or not.

The skillsets required for a position in the Irish Army are going to be pretty similar to that of the British or American militaries (except the toys are less expensive). That an Irish company commander does not put his skills into real-world practice routinely does not mean that he doesn't have to know those skills so that he can employ them if he ever needs to. For example, what if Timor had turned hot because of Indonesia, or if Liberia turned into a repeat of the Irish experience in the Congo? Or now, as people are worrying, Sudan makes a move into Chad?

honestly if you were not in the Irish army I will take back what I am saying

I was in the FCA a few years ago, does that count? :P

Social worker?? are you insane in what way to who?

Both to the troops under the command, and to the locals one interfaces with out and about. Most deployments these days are not conventional battlefields, they are 95% civil affairs, with officers spending a lot more time attending council meetings or resolving internal disputes as opposed to ordering people to shoot someone. This is particularly so for the Irish Army which has rarely had to fire a shot in anger. On the home front, a commander is responsible for the readiness of his men, and if their minds are on something other than the job, such as with problems at home, they are not only inefficient at work, they can be an active liability to the lives of their colleagues. A commander who thinks his responsibilities to his men stops after final parade in the evening is not a successful one.

Technical expert in what?

In order to employ equipment, and make sure the people under your command know their jobs, you must also know their jobs. Otherwise how do you know they're doing it right? You must be able to perform all the technical functions such as radio programming, vehicle maintainance or gunnery, weapons systems knowledge of use, capability and employment, and so on.

Orders are handed down thats all there is to it,

They are, but only to the appropriate level. A brigade commander does not tell a company commander where to put his men, what his support structures are going to be, how to implement rotations, or anything else like that. Similarly a company commander does not tell individual troopers where his sectors of fire are or what they should carry in their pouches (usually) and issues instructions no further down than the section level. Ideally, orders should be mission-oriented. For example, a battalion order may say "Company A seizes Hill 312", but does not say how Company A goes about doing it. That is something for the company commander to figure out and communicate briefly, efficiently, and effectively.

Things get even more decentralised in the peacekeeping role, where decisions with far-reaching political implications are made at the lower level, a phenomenon known as 'The Strategic Corporal.' (But really applies to any company-grade rank depending on the situation)

There is no pressure like you are suggesting compared to a Multinational Corporation, if thats the case what job did you end up in because I can tell you its mostly a lot worse.

You will forgive me for being a little skeptical of this claim. I can think of few positions in multinational corporations where life-threatening decisions are made under such time constraints, particularly when your own personal survival is at risk, which tends to be a bit of a distractor. I have no doubt that there is huge organisational pressure to achieve certain results in a multinational, but I'll be fairly sure that such pressure also exists in the military on top of the tactical decisions. I worked in IT for a bit. Nice relaxing environment, actually.

If there was a chance you or whoever was concerned you were going to be shot at, I never understand why people roll that one out, well why join?? wasn't that obvious that it might happen.

The job appeals to some people. Some for the challenge. Some for the intent of doing some good in the world. Some just because it's a family tradition. Regardless, once in a position where your life is at risk, the 'how you got there' bit is pretty irrelevant, the job requirements and external factors are still there.

It used to be that officers got the position on the basis of either who they knew or that they were from a more well to do background and therefore had a higher educational background.

Used to be, indeed. As I said in my previous post, such factors tend to no longer be an issue in a modern Western military.

I know of a few privates that have Phd's some that have masters and many that have degrees.

Good for them. This is a good thing, as far as I can tell. Why not have educated soldiers? Note that given the difference in job description between an officer and an NCO, the mere presence of a degree does not automatically mean that one should be an officer. Some people are better suited tempermentally to the NCO role, some people just don't want the extra responsibilities or work that comes with a commission, and some just want to play with the hardware.

Promotions aren't given out for that kind of thing in the PDF, Officers are given automatic promotion though, compared to what a private, or corporal has to do to what a Lieutenant or captain has to do???

I'm not sure I understand the question.

privates have limited interaction with officers and everything in anything to do The PDF is backwards, it is hole to put money into.

Separation between enlisted and officers is a good thing. Only one army that I'm aware of ever abandoned the officer/enlisted separation, the Chinese, and it worked out rather poorly for them so they went back to it.

US trucks helped but Human wave , T34's and IL-2's are what won the war in Europe

Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics. In this case, the Red Army wouldn't have been able to fuel all those T-34s or truck bombs to the IL-2s without Studebakers. Not discounting the efforts of the guys in the tanks and 'planes, logistics are pointless without something on the sharp end of the line, but one cannot discount the effects of lend-lease.

NTM

Manic Moran

they could lend us one

Hmm. That chart's missing the Japanese Hyuga.



Granted, it's officially categorised as a destroyer.

NTM

An Fear Aniar

Merch wrote: »

the first encounters the US army had with the germans were in north africa and they were trounced. Not that thats an offence the Germans were experienced Ultimately it was airpower and their ability to diminish their access to resources and replenish them that defeated the germans and gave the Western fromt the advantage it needed, plus the Soviets had a greater number of available recruits.
and the US army soldiers had little or no combat experience.

They made up for it at the Battle of the Bulge.

.

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not offended, I'm correcting what I believe to be a serious misconception which you harbour, I presume due to a lack of knowledge or interest.

I was in the FCA a few years ago, does that count? :P

NTM

I was in the PDF for over a decade so your experience or opinions based on the FCA doesnt count in my opinion, with a bit of luck it will be disbanded to save money.
Your opinion is not how it works really in the PDF.
You even answered a statement I didn't make??
I cant be bothered replying to it all, you are some sort of armchair expert.
Wars are stupid, they will happen, I'm glad we are not spending more but I cannot see why we are not spending less.

Stercus Accidit

Merch wrote: »

I was in the PDF for over a decade so your experience or opinions based on the FCA doesnt count in my opinion, with a bit of luck it will be disbanded to save money.
Your opinion is not how it works really in the PDF.
You even answered a statement I didn't make??
I cant be bothered replying to it all, you are some sort of armchair expert.
Wars are stupid, they will happen, I'm glad we are not spending more but I cannot see why we are not spending less.

"Location: Camp Atterbury, Indiana"


Hmm, must be boning up on his armchair expertise.

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote:

Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics. In this case, the Red Army wouldn't have been able to fuel all those T-34s or truck bombs to the IL-2s without Studebakers. Not discounting the efforts of the guys in the tanks and 'planes, logistics are pointless without something on the sharp end of the line, but one cannot discount the effects of lend-lease.

110%

Lend lease alone didn't win the war, yes it helped, yes it freed up the tractor factories to make weapons. Yes it shortened the war. But yes the Russians were able to move factories and workforce out of the range of the German invaders. And they got the Siberian troops back to Moscow in 1941.


Can't remember the proportion of US soldiers who were actually at the front line in WWII , was it only 1 in 3 ? and their survival rate was just as bad as WWI. Now I guess the rate is even lower since more can be done remotely, and the survival rate has gone up because of body armour. But the sharp edge of the wedge is still sharp.
D Day worked after the initial assault because of Mulberry and Pluto, as well as air superiority.


IIRC (and I can't remember where I got these stats from) in Vietnam it worked out at one enemy killed per B52 bombload or 400,000 rounds of ammunition. It's the old civil war thing of needing to shoot a mans weight in lead to kill him.

Manic Moran

I cant be bothered replying to it all, you are some sort of armchair expert.

As Mr Stercus alludes to, my military experience does not stop at the FCA. As it happens, I'm currently a company commander in the US Army. (Give me a week, my location will change to "Methar-Lam, Afghanistan".) I did not mention this before, partially because it's public knowledge on Boards, partially because the topic was US Army and I wanted to try to separate the two, and partially because I don't believe the veracity of my argument depends on who I am.

Having gone from enlisted to officer, I became personally well aware of the difference in perception between what it appears to a trooper in a line platoon officers do, and what officers actually do. It wasn't until I was on the other side of the fence that I knew the real difference.

NTM

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

As Mr Stercus alludes to, my military experience does not stop at the FCA. As it happens, I'm currently a company commander in the US Army. (Give me a week, my location will change to "Methar-Lam, Afghanistan".) I did not mention this before, partially because it's public knowledge on Boards, partially because the topic was US Army and I wanted to try to separate the two, and partially because I don't believe the veracity of my argument depends on who I am.

Having gone from enlisted to officer, I became personally well aware of the difference in perception between what it appears to a trooper in a line platoon officers do, and what officers actually do. It wasn't until I was on the other side of the fence that I knew the real difference.

NTM

If that is the case, then why bring up the FCA? and not that firstly, I am talking about the PDF and its associated bull, as i said if you were talking about being in a real army I would take certain things back, but the irish army is a world of difference and not just less expensive tools and less of them. It is backwards. Promotion based on some level of meritocracy strikes me as the way the US army works but all large organisation have their own political internal strifes regardless of hierarchy.
You have also implied you were in private work and the FCA and now a company commander.

Money spent on wars is a sickening waste to secure resources. I feel sorry for the grunts that are stuck in iraq and afghanistan, I would prefer not to be lugging an MG in that heat and when the agenda is so f**ck*d.

Overheal

Merch wrote: »

You have also implied you were in private work and the FCA and now a company commander.

I gather that after spending time in the FCA as a youth and then spending a few years in the US Mil, you do occassionally at some stage/rank/other get a few months of downtime where you are Reserve, not Active. In such times I could see where one might feel like applying for a seasonal position, perhaps in IT

Manic Moran

If that is the case, then why bring up the FCA?

You asked if I was ever in the Irish Army. Although the FCA technically counts, I am aware of the disdain often held by PDF towards the FCA, so I thought I had better ask for clarification appropriate to your point of view. I would not have brought it up had you not asked the question, much as I did not ask you about your background, the topic matter being more an issue of fact than of experience.

You have also implied you were in private work and the FCA and now a company commander.

I implied nothing. I outright said I was at one point in the FCA and that I at one point worked in IT, in direct response to your questions, and these are factually correct statements. I said nothing else as I do not believe it relevant to the conversation.

Money spent on wars is a sickening waste to secure resources. I feel sorry for the grunts that are stuck in iraq and afghanistan, I would prefer not to be lugging an MG in that heat and when the agenda is so f**ck*d.

Well, as they say, if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined the Army. (I did my Iraq tour in a tank, mind, so I didn't carry a weapon, my weapon carried me! Still, the desert in a steel oven with no air conditioning is a little unpleasant...)

Now, whilst your opinion on the use of blood and treasure in the military is a valid one, that is a different and distinct issue to the job descriptions required to carry out such activities once the political decision is made.

NTM

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

You asked if I was ever in the Irish Army. Although the FCA technically counts, I am aware of the disdain often held by PDF towards the FCA, so I thought I had better ask for clarification appropriate to your point of view. I would not have brought it up had you not asked the question, much as I did not ask you about your background, the topic matter being more an issue of fact than of experience.



I implied nothing. I outright said I was at one point in the FCA and that I at one point worked in IT, in direct response to your questions, and these are factually correct statements. I said nothing else as I do not believe it relevant to the conversation.



Well, as they say, if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined the Army. (I did my Iraq tour in a tank, mind, so I didn't carry a weapon, my weapon carried me! Still, the desert in a steel oven with no air conditioning is a little unpleasant...)

Now, whilst your opinion on the use of blood and treasure in the military is a valid one, that is a different and distinct issue to the job descriptions required to carry out such activities once the political decision is made.

NTM

I have no disdain for the FCA or reserve, in many respects there are guys there that act and are more professional than the PDF. However it is a matter of funding, it is a waste in a nuetral country. We would be better putting that money into something else...useful. But knowledge of how things are done there doesn't reflect any knowledge of how the PDF works.

I'm not going to get into an argument about what you said, to me it seemed as if you were suggesting you were in Private work, something about enjoying it?? now if you say now thats IT fair enough.
I dont know what you mean about if you cant take a joke dont join the army, I really only recal hearing from old sweats back then "dont volunteer" as in for anything.
I signed up, did what i was asked and left. Knowing the waste in the PDF and the return for the tax payesr money, it seems like a waste to me and the bigger the organisation the bigger the waste.
I agree, if a soldier is given an order it is not simply a matter of suddenly becoming a conscientious objector.
But the money spent by militaries would be better spent on education, health and research. When the disparities between the haves and have nots become great in the world, that can lead to trouble.

Manic Moran

Merch wrote: »

But knowledge of how things are done there doesn't reflect any knowledge of how the PDF works.

My point is that the internal politics of the PDF are irrelevant to the matter at hand. It doesn't matter if someone is promoted due to competence, they bought their commission, or they gave the general a blow-job. Once they are in the position they are in, the job requirements to be successful are the same.

to me it seemed as if you were suggesting you were in Private work, something about enjoying it?? now if you say now thats IT fair enough.

I was in IT. I may well go back to it in the future.

I dont know what you mean about if you cant take a joke dont join the army, I really only recal hearing from old sweats back then "dont volunteer" as in for anything.

It may not be a common phrase in the Irish military. Rule #1 in the US is probably the same, though: Never volunteer. The corrollary is Rule #2: Volunteer. You can get some pretty sweet deals by volunteering. The catch is that you never know in advance when rule #1 applies and when rule #2 applies!

But the money spent by militaries would be better spent on education, health and research. When the disparities between the haves and have nots become great in the world, that can lead to trouble.

That is one of the great political questions which has troubled governments the world over. The military is not a revenue-producing organisation. The catch is that it provides a skillset which, when it is required, can be met by no other organisation, and when it is required, it is pretty much a 'must have'

NTM

partyguinness

Over the last 20 years, they generally took on 'armies' that couldnt fight back. Easy really.