Nato

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 16 2002,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Kosovo conflict showed how poorly a combined European force worked (which the U.S had to come in and shore up).<span id='postcolor'>

Are you kiddning me? If any military didn't work in Kosovo, then it was the US one! From the European side (including Russia) it worked flawlessly while the US had many problems making the NATO/KFOR transition.

Don't confuse lack of political ability (real European problem) with military organization,

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 16 2002,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Kosovo conflict showed how poorly a combined European force worked (which the U.S had to come in and shore up).<span id='postcolor'>

Are you kiddning me? If any military didn't work in Kosovo, then it was the US one! From the European side (including Russia) it worked flawlessly while the US had many problems making the NATO/KFOR transition.

Don't confuse lack of political ability (real European problem) with military organization,<span id='postcolor'>

pardon?  more than 80% of the aircraft in that campaign were American. The vietnamesque "roundtable" of European leaders picking targets was the most ludicrous thing to have come from that venture (not to mention that certain European countries were leaking this info directly to milosevic! :eek: )

[Guest]

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 16 2002,212)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">pardon?  more than 80% of the aircraft in that campaign were American. The vietnamesque "roundtable" of European leaders picking targets was the most ludicrous thing to have come from that venture (not to mention that certain European countries were leaking this info directly to milosevic! :eek: )<span id='postcolor'>

Yepp and that was the lack of political will and ability, which is our problem. On the other hand when there was no political problem left Europe got its shit together while the US military machinery slacked off. You have a good offensive force, but holding ground is not your strong side. This was most evident by the US personell that were with KFOR - undisciplined incompetent slobs. You left your worst people there as opposed to the European countries who sent much better trained men.

The difference was striking.

[FSPilot 0]

Methinks Denoir has a problem with the U.S.

Anyway, back on topic. If the U.N. can be a watchdog for Europe then I don't see a point for NATO.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 16 2002,21:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Methinks Denoir has a problem with the U.S.<span id='postcolor'>

Who hasn't ?

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Nov. 16 2002,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not like America finances European military today. On the contrary, we would have more money since we would not be forced to participate in military operations that are of US interest only (like Iraq now). <span id='postcolor'>

Europe actually spent more money on Desert Storm than the Americans did. We didn't use as much kit, but we paid mostly for the infrastructure and logistics.<span id='postcolor'>

... and we paid in lives.

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This was most evident by the US personell that were with KFOR - undisciplined incompetent slobs. You left your worst people there as opposed to the European countries who sent much better trained men.

The difference was striking.<span id='postcolor'>

Would that be considered inciting a flame war? Indiciplined Incompetent Slobs... Ok.

You're a moderator. I guess its okay for you to say that. I will go slag Sweden on a board that I won't get banned for doing so.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Nov. 16 2002,21:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This was most evident by the US personell that were with KFOR - undisciplined incompetent slobs. You left your worst people there as opposed to the European countries who sent their best.

The difference was striking.<span id='postcolor'>

Would that be considered inciting a flame war? Indiciplined Incompetent Slobs... Ok.<span id='postcolor'>

No, not at all. I am only stating my observations. I'm not saying that all american forces are like that. On the contrary, I said that the ones with offensive duties were good.

But my opinion remains that 90% of the US troops that were/are in KFOR are nitwits chosen for their incompetence. My guess is so they won't sabotage the good soldiers with their incompetence in a shooting war.

Incidently however it is a good show of how much the US cares about peace keeping missions. Which is again a reason to dismantle NATO: Let the US do the bombing and we'll do the peace keeping

[Warin 0]

Hands up! Everyone who has been to Kosovo and seen the situation first hand.

Come on now... Cloney? Pit Viper? Anyone?

I am not saying Denoir is unbiased, but his observations are at least first hand views of his time there.  His opinions may not be 100% bias free, but I put a lot more faith in them as a reflection of the situation there and then than in any of those from us who havent been there/then might put forward.  

And remember..I -have- referred to Denoir as a pinko commie in the past

(BTW: I am not slagging Americans Norman Schwartzkopf is a prime example of how the American Military can adapt to changing realities. Read his biography 'It Doesnt Take a Hero'. Excellent book. )

[cybrid 0]

What would you all think of a G8 defence system? thoses countries all have realativly similar interests, and its somthing else Canada can mooch off of.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cybrid @ Nov. 16 2002,22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What would you all think of a G8 defence system? thoses countries all have realativly similar interests, and its somthing else Canada can mooch off of.<span id='postcolor'>

Similar economic interests, yes but different political ones. I think there might be a big danger there that would make things worse. So, I would be against it very much and I think that the current system is better.

There is an inarguable connection between economic interests and war, but I don't think it is a good connection.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Nov. 16 2002,16:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hands up! Everyone who has been to Kosovo and seen the situation first hand.

Come on now... Cloney? Pit Viper? Anyone?

I am not saying Denoir is unbiased, but his observations are at least first hand views of his time there.  His opinions may not be 100% bias free, but I put a lot more faith in them as a reflection of the situation there and then than in any of those from us who havent been there/then might put forward.  <span id='postcolor'>

He went there as a peacekeeper well after the fact.  We're talking about the conflict itself, not the eternal babysitting operation that has sprung from it.

Denoir, you were probably there when our military resorted to sending National Guard units because of the personnel stresses on our combat forces. They are essentially civilians which are our third string forces. Peacekeeping tends to destroy combat skills anyway.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 16 2002,22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He went there as a peacekeeper well after the fact.  We're talking about the conflict itself, not the eternal babysitting operation that has sprung from it.<span id='postcolor'>

The 'eternal babysitting' is the part that does some good. Anybody can drop bombs and mostly it is bad (Kosovo is a prime example of that).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you were probably there when our military resorted to sending National Guard units because of the personnel stresses on our combat forces. They are essentially civilians which are our third string forces.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that was the essence of what I was saying.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Peacekeeping tends to destroy combat skills anyway.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary, it is much better training then you will ever get at home. Peacekeeping is a large scale war operation without many people getting killed. The units get some hands on experience on what field logistics mean and the otherwise theoretical combat organization theories are put to the test. Also as a peacekeeper you will most likely one time or another bee under enemy fire which is an invaluable experience military wise. Peace keeping is the best combat training possible besides combat iteself, but is immensely cheaper in terms of human lives.

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 16 2002,22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He went there as a peacekeeper well after the fact.  We're talking about the conflict itself, not the eternal babysitting operation that has sprung from it.<span id='postcolor'>

The 'eternal babysitting' is the part that does some good. Anybody can drop bombs and mostly it is bad (Kosovo is a prime example of that).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you were probably there when our military resorted to sending National Guard units because of the personnel stresses on our combat forces. They are essentially civilians which are our third string forces.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that was the essence of what I was saying.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Peacekeeping tends to destroy combat skills anyway.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary, it is much better training then you will ever get at home. Peacekeeping is a large scale war operation without many people getting killed. The units get some hands on experience on what field logistics mean and the otherwise theoretical combat organization theories are put to the test. Also as a peacekeeper you will most likely one time or another bee under enemy fire which is an invaluable experience military wise. Peace keeping is the best combat training possible besides combat iteself, but is immensely cheaper in terms of human lives.<span id='postcolor'>

Its not suprising that European regular units are better than American National Guard Units. NG units train about 2 to 3 weeks a year?

Why would we send a regular infantry unit to do a job that can be done by 2nd line units?

I'm pretty sure we need all the regular units that we can get. I'm also pretty sure than the 82nd Airborne is probably one of the best regular Infantry units in the world. If we really gave a shit they'd be there. Its really not suprising that you Euros never have enough soldier to deploy to hot spots, they are all sitting on their asses in Kosovo when they could be in Afghanistan in a real war. Oh, I forgot, the Euros are peacekeepers there too.*sigh* Why do you use good units for jobs that could be done by 2nd line units? Is it because you need to make yourselves look good with that one unit because the rest of your Army sucks ass?

Except for Maybe Britain, France, Spain and Germany. I don't put much faith in the European armies. Actually I read someplace that he Italians didn't send an infantry unit to the Gulf in '91 because they didn't want to embarrass themselves. This is right when the Cold War ended mind you, so Italian army should have still retained all it Cold War Equipment, Training and Funding. I guess they figured that if the Russians were gonna sweep through Europe, the Americans can do the dying for us. We will only fight when our cheese is threatened.

[KingBeast 0]

In my own untrained opinion, I would say that peacekeeping is invaluable in what it achieves aswell as the potential for training as Denoir has said. If you are peacekeeping, then your combat skills are hardly going to be decreasing! Just because its a peacekeeping mission, doesnt mean that people are going to be peaceful with you

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Nov. 17 2002,00:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm pretty sure we need all the regular units that we can get. I'm also pretty sure than the 82nd Airborne is probably one of the best regular Infantry units in the world. If we really gave a shit they'd be there.<span id='postcolor'>

beautifull mentality .. people have been slaughtered and deported just three years ago and you don't give a shit about it ? you don't give a shit if 10 thousand more people die because of the careless attitude like yours ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its really not suprising that you Euros never have enough soldier to deploy to hot spots, they are all sitting on their asses in Kosovo when they could be in Afghanistan in a real war.<span id='postcolor'>

Afghanistan is the same as kosovo , and most of the Euros don't consider it as a real war , more of an American personnal retaliation

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, I forgot, the Euros are peacekeepers there too.*sigh* Why do you use good units for jobs that could be done by 2nd line units? Is it because you need to make yourselves look good with that one unit because the rest of your Army sucks ass?<span id='postcolor'>

most of the european peacekeeping units are second line units , but i guess you've never served in any peacekeeping mission ......

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I guess they figured that if the Russians were gonna sweep through Europe, the Americans can do the dying for us. We will only fight when our cheese is threatened.

<span id='postcolor'>

wasn't it your intention ?? we could have thought so with all the great reagan's and kennedy's speaches

[ran 0]

and it's not that you let us use our own military really often .. you got a veto riht at the UN council remember .. and i can assure you that the US representants use it

[ralphwiggum 6]

some of ran's posts were deleted.

[Harnu 0]

Ran, considate your posts man lol.

[ran 0]

considate ?

no , frankly , i'm getting a bit pissed ..... everybody (in the us) underestimate european power

what i've read in this thread confirms all i was thinking about american minds

but most of the people who posted here , i'm sure , don't have any real military experience , never did multinational field exercises nor participed to peacekeeping missions , thing wich they talk about a lot but don't know what is

most of the threads of the forum are becoming USAvsEUROPA debates , and i don't like that . but the worst is that i'm joining the bandwagon and throwing myself in those hot discussions .. and i'm sure most of you know how much impulsive i am

so , sorry if most of my remarks seem unconstructive , but they come from a deep lack of understanding from both sides

and if some of my last remarks weren't constructive , what can we say about a few of the earlier posts ?

[Harnu 0]

I completely agree with you. Most of the US think were better than the rest of the world. Most of us in this forum haven't had any military experience (Though I'm planning on it). But still, since you know this, don't get so flustered.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Nov. 17 2002,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But still, since you know this, don't get so flustered.<span id='postcolor'>

i can't , as i said , i'm too impulsive for that

[Othin 0]

I don't really see the use for NATO as it exists right now. I agree with Denoir and Ran that we need a stronger U.N. To me it seems that NATO (and OPEC, EU, ASIAN, etc) undermine the authority of the U.N. I think many things that are handed at the level of NATO (and these others) should be handled at the U.N. level. I know that this is another level of burecracy and tape to go through, but that's kind of the point. I don't think the U.N. has the voice at this time that it should.

As far as the EU military force, I think there are some hard decisions that the member countries are going to have to make. I think the best path lies in specializing. Not only will this cause the member states to rely on each other, it will be more cost effective in the long run. I can't remember which of the new countries that NATO has invited has decided that they will specialize in Chemical and bio clean up forces. They have most of their apparatus left over from the USSR where they were considered the best. I think that is a good example.

The only way that this is going to happen is if the countries increase their military spending for a few years until it is established. It's far cheaper to maintain a force, then build one from scratch...

I'm also curious about all the countries in Europe that still use conscription. Is this something that is going away do you think? Should it?

The only other thing I want to add is that we really need to to stop bashing other countries. We can all sit here for a week and point out every bad thing that each others country has done, but that's not proactive, positive, or meaningful in any way. Destroy ignorance, but don't attack someones Nationalism or Patriotism.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Nov. 17 2002,01<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">most of the european peacekeeping units are second line units , but i guess you've never served in any peacekeeping mission ......<span id='postcolor'>

Not second line, but deticated for peacekeeping. Most Swedish soldiers in the SweInt are former costal rangers, paratroopers etc (at least those that I met in Kosovo). So the quality is high, I would say. Those that were on my team in Kosovo were mainly intelligence types, but we had two german KSK a Brit that was 22nd SAS two Russian paratroopers and so forth. My experience was that the overall quality of men was good.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I read someplace that he Italians didn't send an infantry unit to the Gulf in '91 because they didn't want to embarrass themselves. This is right when the Cold War ended mind you, so Italian army should have still retained all it Cold War Equipment, Training and Funding.<span id='postcolor'>

This is bullshit. In '97 during my service time my unit was on a NATO excersise in Norway (Neptune). The Italian alpine rangers came in third in the competition while the US marines came in on 16th place. The Italian soldiers were quite good and had excellent equipment.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm also curious about all the countries in Europe that still use conscription. Is this something that is going away do you think? Should it?

<span id='postcolor'>

It is going away, and I'm not sure if it is good or not. For example Sweden has a small population 8,5 million people and a professional army would be too small.

[PitViper 0]

Peacekeeping is nowhere near "beneficial" as real training.  In my experience,  peacekeeping boiled down to patrolling the streets waving to the little kids until someone finds an unexploded grenade or a few weapons in an abandonned house.  In essence, it felt like being a half-ass cop. Sorry, I didn't sign up to be a sorry MP. When UN peacekeepers have actually had to go into combat, their performance has been absymal, usually being run off by bands of ragtags rebels until the combat troops come in.