which military is the strongest in world now??? (121)
reconmarineLittleton, New Hampshire USA3 Threads 3 Polls 61 PostsThe USA continues to be of course. Just because the president is weak does not mean the military is. The US military can however, be destroyed from within which is a very good possibility with today's government. Any military is only as strong as the government and the people who support it, which is very disturbing to me with the things that are going on.
laviola44: soviet had atom bomb before war but they didnt used it because it was shame for them if use atom bomb, they are real hero not barbary like american
are sure that if they had the opportunity to use the bomb they would say "no we are civilized and although we have a lot to gain we are not going to use the bomb"
I understand how you feel most probably about US, but do not forgett that the red army in WWII was only one generation after the biggest monsters (afte the dinosaurs? maybe not) that walked on earth. And are you sure that during the time they had the goulags and killed their own people only because of thinking they would feel ashamed to use any bomb??
I am not sure...
lonelycowboy101: Anyone that has ever been in the military and has seen the reports knows that there is not another country in the world that can compair to the USA . But even the strongest Army can be defeated case being Iraq we destroyed them in hours then we couldn't control the terror squads. But that being said Many country's could destroy the world many times over USA Russia Isreal . And soon Packistan and India. So is there any winning a war I think not
i think you are spot on but if we talk of success its the srilankan army, but still the war wasent fair, the enemy was outnumbered & less equiped. war was won by aeriel bombing & multibarrel fire
CYRPUS!!!
Ambrose2007: THe U.S. has no problem winning a war. It defeated Iran and Afghanistan easily - militarily. It could've done so in Vietnam as well.
The problems start when it attempts to win the peace. By the way, that applies to ANY invading military force, not just the U.S.
The problems start when it attempts to win the peace. By the way, that applies to ANY invading military force, not just the U.S.
That's a bit playing word games to me. As long as you don't have peace, you're still at war.
Trealach: Yes, but American forces do not targeted civilians on purpose as a strategic goal. quote]
What was straegic about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan?
Why not get off your hiney and look it up on wikipedia?What was straegic about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan?
laviola44: soviet had atom bomb before war but they didnt used it because it was shame for them if use atom bomb, they are real hero not barbary like american
The Soviets didn't create their own A-bomb until after 1945-they were behind in research and technology.guide: Absolutely yes. You We (NATO) accepted the term "side losses" from our governments without doing anything for it. We just turned to the other side of the bed and continued to dream.
Now that another war tactic (we say it here "unorthodox war")is used and they have side losses from their people we do care? It is a simple reaction of people who are fighting for their families, their kids and for what they believe. I know it is difficult to understand it, because your country never fought for freedom (only for others freedom in WWI&WWII) but in this case it is connected with the history of every country.
Concerning who caused more casualties and if people in Afghanistan despite the talibans, i wouldn't be so sure. You seem to forgett that most of the news you (and me of course)hear are mostly pure propaganda.
The U.S. population most certainly did fight for freedom against both our own (in the civil war) and foreigners. I would, for the record, despise any American who set off car bombs amongst civilians as a way to drive out the enemy. As for 'collateral damage', we have spent billions of dollars in training and weaponry to avoid killing civilians and billions more building clinics, hospitals, and the like subsequently. I have run into some commentators on here who feel that since "those people" want to live under sharia law, we should leave them alone, as if the Afghani's, for one, ever got to vote for it. There was celebration among many Afghani's when they were allowed to listen to music, return to school (in the case of girls) and work, in the case of women.Now that another war tactic (we say it here "unorthodox war")is used and they have side losses from their people we do care? It is a simple reaction of people who are fighting for their families, their kids and for what they believe. I know it is difficult to understand it, because your country never fought for freedom (only for others freedom in WWI&WWII) but in this case it is connected with the history of every country.
Concerning who caused more casualties and if people in Afghanistan despite the talibans, i wouldn't be so sure. You seem to forgett that most of the news you (and me of course)hear are mostly pure propaganda.
CaptainBeirutIII: That's a bit playing word games to me. As long as you don't have peace, you're still at war.
As if it's an either/or situation-Did the majority of the Irish want war? I think not, but the hardliners in the IRA didn't ask their opinion. It doesn't take a majority to wreak havoc thus putting a country on a war footing.BebeII: The U.S. population most certainly did fight for freedom against both our own (in the civil war) and foreigners. I would, for the record, despise any American who set off car bombs amongst civilians as a way to drive out the enemy. As for 'collateral damage', we have spent billions of dollars in training and weaponry to avoid killing civilians and billions more building clinics, hospitals, and the like subsequently. I have run into some commentators on here who feel that since "those people" want to live under sharia law, we should leave them alone, as if the Afghani's, for one, ever got to vote for it. There was celebration among many Afghani's when they were allowed to listen to music, return to school (in the case of girls) and work, in the case of women.
Civil war is by far different compared to resistance to an invador who starts a war for no reason. It does not mean that i smile everytime i hear about bombs that kill civilians.
Concerning the spending of money to save civilians it makes me remember of Yougoslavia. In this NATO invasion did you ever saw in the news dead bodies of young kids because these well trained soldiers were bombing schools, shelters, churches and anything else except of military targets? Most probably not. This is why also in the invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq i doubt that they made a better job (from an interview of a US fighter pilot after returning from his mission: it was a perfect feeling to see the bombs explode in the night like fireworks" and he looked so proud and happy saying this...)Concerning building of clinics i think you are aware that it is not for free. We destroy you, establish a goverment we like and then we will help you build your infrastructure at a good price, but you have to use your companies and tell to the rest of the world how great and civilized we are as conquerors.
Are you really sure that after the invasion in Afghanistan the women stopped wearing burgha, they do not follow the sharia law and that everything is perfect now? Or do you think that they want to be forced to follow a society model that is not in their culture?
These things change with education and not with guns and there is not much we western, democratic and free countries do for them.
Mine!! I'm an Army of 1 lol
guide: Civil war is by far different compared to resistance to an invador who starts a war for no reason. It does not mean that i smile everytime i hear about bombs that kill civilians.
Concerning the spending of money to save civilians it makes me remember of Yougoslavia. In this NATO invasion did you ever saw in the news dead bodies of young kids because these well trained soldiers were bombing schools, shelters, churches and anything else except of military targets? Most probably not. This is why also in the invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq i doubt that they made a better job (from an interview of a US fighter pilot after returning from his mission: it was a perfect feeling to see the bombs explode in the night like fireworks" and he looked so proud and happy saying this...)Concerning building of clinics i think you are aware that it is not for free. We destroy you, establish a goverment we like and then we will help you build your infrastructure at a good price, but you have to use your companies and tell to the rest of the world how great and civilized we are as conquerors.
Are you really sure that after the invasion in Afghanistan the women stopped wearing burgha, they do not follow the sharia law and that everything is perfect now? Or do you think that they want to be forced to follow a society model that is not in their culture?
These things change with education and not with guns and there is not much we western, democratic and free countries do for them.
Concerning the spending of money to save civilians it makes me remember of Yougoslavia. In this NATO invasion did you ever saw in the news dead bodies of young kids because these well trained soldiers were bombing schools, shelters, churches and anything else except of military targets? Most probably not. This is why also in the invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq i doubt that they made a better job (from an interview of a US fighter pilot after returning from his mission: it was a perfect feeling to see the bombs explode in the night like fireworks" and he looked so proud and happy saying this...)Concerning building of clinics i think you are aware that it is not for free. We destroy you, establish a goverment we like and then we will help you build your infrastructure at a good price, but you have to use your companies and tell to the rest of the world how great and civilized we are as conquerors.
Are you really sure that after the invasion in Afghanistan the women stopped wearing burgha, they do not follow the sharia law and that everything is perfect now? Or do you think that they want to be forced to follow a society model that is not in their culture?
These things change with education and not with guns and there is not much we western, democratic and free countries do for them.
very true !!
lolol 
None of the above it has to be the Samoan Army they are the toughest baddest army around
laviola44: which military is strongest in world. i just want u all what think???
Noone from the list. I think The taliban army is the strongest...
Antjo39: Noone from the list. I think The taliban army is the strongest...
Yikes I sure the hell hope not
Dawn7z: Yikes I sure the hell hope not
As I said, we fought a civil war and against foreigners. So which war are you refering to that was started for NO reason? I was well aware of the killing of civilians in Yugoslavia-the result of restricting our pilots to flight levels of 15,000 ft., which caused the bombs to go off course, and no, schools, churches and shelters were NOT DELIBERATELY TARGETED. The Taliban only controlled a small proportion of Afghanistan, not the whole country. I wasn't aware that Afghanistan had a plethora of building contractors being frozen out of the bidding process by Western countries, nor that any citizen was compelled to give us a good review. Some women wear the burqua by choice but others were murdered for not doing so-there is a tremendous amount of difference between the two. They can't be educated if half the population is denied access to school in the first place. Apparently, you don't know any soldiers who have served there, or listen to anything outside of the usual suspects in the media.
CaptainBeirutIII: That's a bit playing word games to me. As long as you don't have peace, you're still at war.
I don't think so - I think it's a meaningful point. We NEVER have peace in any absolute sense. There has been a continuing "resistance" in many countries historically and in the present where we still consider the "military" portion of the war to be over. For example, Germany defeated France, surely, and yet there wasn't absolute peace, since there was the French Resistance.
There isn't peace in any absolute sense in the U.S. There are always protests, both above and under ground, against prevailing laws (some of this lack of peace can be measured by the number of drug-users filling U.S. prisons, for example), but who would deny that the USG is the ruling force in the U.S.?
BebeII: As if it's an either/or situation-Did the majority of the Irish want war? I think not, but the hardliners in the IRA didn't ask their opinion. It doesn't take a majority to wreak havoc thus putting a country on a war footing.
The IRA - England conflict is a good illustrator of my point. Clearly, England won the war. The IRA's actions were about political influence.
There are many underground protest groups - some of which are violent - in the U.S., but who would doubt that the USG rules the US?
The UNITED nations created more change in one century than any of the above individual nations have ever done in the history of war. Consider the results if ALL nations united. 
BClady: The UNITED nations created more change in one century than any of the above individual nations have ever done in the history of war. Consider the results if ALL nations united.
The U.N. is 64 years old, and has yet to prevent a war or stop one in progress.BebeII: The U.N. is 64 years old, and has yet to prevent a war or stop one in progress.
They are not warring amongst themselves and in 64 yrs kept an all out third world war at bay. 64 years is longer than the timespan between the break out of both world wars. That's progress.
technology it would be usa most numerical china, most will power to get job done uk
depening on your point of view 1 of those 3 best army
depening on your point of view 1 of those 3 best army
BClady: They are not warring amongst themselves and in 64 yrs kept an all out third world war at bay. 64 years is longer than the timespan between the break out of both world wars. That's progress.
I don't expect U.N. ambassadors to war amongst themselves, and it depends on what you mean by "world war". An estimated 76,000,000 people have died in wars since 1945.
Swiss
CuspofMagic: Swiss
Yeah, they keep the "peace" by paying Al-Quaeda for their hostages...Germany !!!
We have Autobahn, Beer and dont work on Weekends
We have Autobahn, Beer and dont work on Weekends
pak army is a bloody joke as is their leadership.they get kicked everytime they tangle with the indians but like dumb idiots they keep coming in ably supported by american weaponry and saudi petrodollars!
More Threads
Common Issues with the BMW X1
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
Sleepy Don!
Feel Good Music
How far is too far?
rarotonga
everything is changing
The Best of the GOP
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
Salami, Salami, Baloney
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »