US planning Iran Stikes: Report

[Displaced Flames fan]

Not a fan of Biden at all.

It's Hillary's nomination to lose anyway. I don't see anyway that she is not the Dems nominee. I can definitely see her trying with everything she has to get Obama on that ticket though.

I think the Dems missed their shot at a unifying candidate when they shunned Joe Liebermann. Anti-semitism is alive and well in politics.

I'm interested to see who the GOP ends up running against Clinton. McCain (who was my choice over Bush in 2000) is too old. Frist would make me puke. KS Senator Brownback seems to think he's going to run, he's worse than Frist.

The two big names I guess would be Giuliani (does he really have the experience on a global scale that it takes?) and Condi Rice. A female african-american president would have a huge chance at being a unifier. She hasn't made a peep about running though.

I'd vote for Colin Powell, but I don't think he's interested.

This country desperately needs a unifier.

Where's David Palmer when you need him?

[tjinaz]

Do you think the basic Canadian Infantryman has the skill set of the US 75th Ranger Regt?

I have never worked with Canadian Infantry so I would not know but, I would say that would be a bit of an overstatement. What I don't get is how in the same thread the US is a bunch of war mongering savages taking over countries left and right but your basic Canadian infantryman is really as good or better than one of the most elite American units? How is that?

From reading this thread it seems the US military is being underestimated and the prowess of the EU, Iran, and especially North Korea and China are way over the top. Looks like wishful thinking.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Do you think the basic Canadian Infantryman has the skill set of the US 75th Ranger Regt?

I have never worked with Canadian Infantry so I would not know but, I would say that would be a bit of an overstatement. What I don't get is how in the same thread the US is a bunch of war mongering savages taking over countries left and right but your basic Canadian infantryman is really as good or better than one of the most elite American units? How is that?

From reading this thread it seems the US military is being underestimated and the prowess of the EU, Iran, and especially North Korea and China are way over the top. Looks like wishful thinking.

That's an over-reaction. Some comments:

* The Canadian military is taught to do more with less. IMO they are over trained to be soldiers and rely on their knowledge and ability to use aging tools to perform to the same or above those levels of other soldiers using superior technology. A great example are the five sniper units in Afghanistan that have been supporting the American special forces units. On numerous occassions the Americans have surrendered their weapons to the Canadians to make the kills, because the Canadians are better trained and execute their duties better. These units have all been awarded the Bronze Star (three with V) for their contribution and excellence while supporting their American cousins. The Canadians were trained to do more with less and really excel when given the opportunity to use the best technology available.

* No one is saying the American soldiers are blood thirsty animals. That is the job of your government and reflective of their foreign policy. Of course incidents like Abu Grahib and such don't help the reputation of the American military, but I don't think anyone thinks these incidents are reflective of the average foot soldier. IMO it is the American leadership that is responsible, not the average American or soldier.

* It is the usual American hubris coming out when you disregard the abilities of the foreign trained soldiers. The military is the one shining thing that all Americans hold high and think that they have a monopoly on in the world, but the truth of the matter is that American soldiers don't have a monopoly on their abilities and are trained to use their technological advantage rather than their basic human skills. That includes the elite forces. If this were not true then the "elite" American forces would have their way with the weaker soldiers from other countries, and not face the challenges they do. Seems to me that unless the Americans get to use their technological advantages they don't stack up as well against smaller forces using similar or lesser weaponry.

* I think it is you that are under-estimating the fighting ability of the other nations. Just because they don't strut around the world kicking sand in the face of every 98 poound weakling out there does not mean they have a string and well trained military. I don't disregard the ability of those nations who have a proud tradition of peacekeeping or defensive military roles. I know Americans love to make fun of the French, but their military is pretty well fortified and manned. Add their numbers and technology to that of the Germans and Swedes, etc. and you have a substantial force that is trained to operate in all climates and respond accordingly. They are just as technologically advanced as the US, so it comes down to soldiering at that point, and that's where the foreign soldiers are terribly under-rated by Americans. I don't know how many times I've heard stories about training and simulation engagements where the Americans got run over and were suprised about the ability of the other troops. Again, its that American hubris that is is the greatest weakness of the country IMO. Its drilled into the heads of the population from when they are born through the rest of their lives. "America is the greatest and no one else compares at anything". Unfortunately that's just an advertising campaign that is all too readily swallowed as truth here. The reality is that there is always someone better. Where the Americans have a massive advantage is their ability to spend more than the rest of the world combined on their military budget. That's the difference and that's why Americans appear to have this huge advantage over other nations.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Not a fan of Biden at all.

I wasn't either until I saw him on Real Time. He really had a good head on his shoulders and spoke from the heart. Made some real great non-partisan comments that hammered the political process and focused on what it would take to make America great again. That is the type of leader this country needs right now, not another politician who will do or say what ever he needs to get elected.

It's Hillary's nomination to lose anyway. I don't see anyway that she is not the Dems nominee. I can definitely see her trying with everything she has to get Obama on that ticket though.

I completely disagree. Clinton doesn't get a sniff. If she does, she polarizes the vote again and puts the Democratic party back 20 or 30 years. She'll send the conservative Democrats over to the otherside in droves.

I would ove to see Obama involved. He's one of those guys that wants to make a difference and spits in the face of the political tradition. America needs a guy like him because he's a visionary. America lacks politicians with a vision.

I think the Dems missed their shot at a unifying candidate when they shunned Joe Liebermann. Anti-semitism is alive and well in politics.

Don't disagree there Dis. I think Liebermann would have appealed to the liberal Republicans and defeated Bush. I'm just not sure he was string enough to take the country in the direction it needed to go.

I'm interested to see who the GOP ends up running against Clinton. McCain (who was my choice over Bush in 2000) is too old. Frist would make me puke. KS Senator Brownback seems to think he's going to run, he's worse than Frist.

Mc Cain would have been my choice in 2003. Now, not a chance in hell. When he came out and said that they should allow Bush to run again I lost all respect for him and see him as nothing more than a guy who is willing to do and say anything to get elected. I'm pretty sure that Rove said that if he (McCain) played ball he would be the next president. There is no other reason for McCain to throw his support behind the men that trashed his family, have publicly ****ed all over the things that McCain stands for, and continue to mock McCain himself, except for his own ambitions of being in the White House. America does not need another guy that wants to be president that badly. They need a guy that will look the miscreants in the eye and say **** you!

The two big names I guess would be Giuliani (does he really have the experience on a global scale that it takes?) and Condi Rice. A female african-american president would have a huge chance at being a unifier. She hasn't made a peep about running though.

Giuliani? Ugh! His 15 minutes are up. I think he would rub so many people the wrong way on the international stage that it would be disasterous for America. The country needs someone that can mend fences right now, and Giuliani is a guy who likes to knock them down and rebuild them his way.

Condi Rice? Not a chance. The American people will not elect an African American lesbian. Not a chance in hell. And Rice would be the last person I call a unifier. Some of the books I've read cast her as the original iron maiden.

I'd vote for Colin Powell, but I don't think he's interested.

I would have too, before 2002. Unforunately he showed he didn't have the resolve to stand up for what was right. Powell's legacy will be standing up in front of the UN GA and openly lying about WMD's and Hussien's ability to be a threat to the world. Powell is done on the political stage.

This country desperately needs a unifier.

Yes, and a visionary, and a reformer, and a tough guy willing to stand up to corporate America, and an accountant, and so many other things. America is in tough for the next 40 years. The die has been cast.

Where's David Palmer when you need him?

Doing phone commercials or something like that.

(You almost lost me with that reference BTW, I was thinking real world politics and like who the **** is David Palmer??? )

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

PPCLI?

Was, then I transfered to Sigs in my last year.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Do you think the basic Canadian Infantryman has the skill set of the US 75th Ranger Regt?

I have never worked with Canadian Infantry so I would not know but, I would say that would be a bit of an overstatement. What I don't get is how in the same thread the US is a bunch of war mongering savages taking over countries left and right but your basic Canadian infantryman is really as good or better than one of the most elite American units? How is that?

From reading this thread it seems the US military is being underestimated and the prowess of the EU, Iran, and especially North Korea and China are way over the top. Looks like wishful thinking.

I would agree with this, I've seen the Rangers going to work, and thier training, experience, flexibility and thier dicipline is awesome to watch, there are only a few military units in the world that I would compare to the Rangers, one is the Spetznatz before they got messed up in Afganistan, and probably the other would be Sayeret Matkal which is a special recon unit with a wealth of actual combat experience.

Now I would put the average Canadian Infantry soldier slightly higher then the average American combat soldier just because we had to do more with less, and we didn't have the logistical train that the American's had.

On the armour side and speed and mobility side outside of Israel there's nobody that touches the States and what they can do and how fast they can deploy and move.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That's an over-reaction. Some comments:

A great example are the five sniper units in Afghanistan that have been supporting the American special forces units. On numerous occassions the Americans have surrendered their weapons to the Canadians to make the kills, because the Canadians are better trained and execute their duties better.
.

Can you post a link - I've got a few rah rah USA buddies here at the office that would benefit from a quality story like this.

[White Doors]

The sniper's are trained in Gagetown NB

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Can you post a link - I've got a few rah rah USA buddies here at the office that would benefit from a quality story like this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/jtf2.html

http://www.snipercountry.com/Article...2430Metres.asp

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...n/Canadian.htm

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new_page_75.htm

[Flash Walken]

Hersh on cnn, video is pretty useless, I just listened to the audio: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Late-Edition-Her.mov

[tjinaz]

Thank you Capt I agree.

I would agree with this, I've seen the Rangers going to work, and thier training, experience, flexibility and thier dicipline is awesome to watch, there are only a few military units in the world that I would compare to the Rangers, one is the Spetznatz before they got messed up in Afganistan, and probably the other would be Sayeret Matkal which is a special recon unit with a wealth of actual combat experience. Now I would put the average Canadian Infantry soldier slightly higher then the average American combat soldier just because we had to do more with less, and we didn't have the logistical train that the American's had.

I would concur as well. I would say the majority of the infantry of the commonwealth (Kiwis, Aussies, Brits, Canadians) has an edge over the basic American infantry. The majority of the forces that have British influence are well know for doing more with less than the Americans. Because the Americans have more does that make them less effective? Because they have a GPS does it mean they cant navigate with a compass and pace count? No it doesn't. The bias goes both ways. The Americans look down on the other troops because of their obsolete gear and foreign troops look down on the Americans because they have superior equipment. It happens in the American military between the Marines and the Army.

Do these same infantry units have the same capabilites of the more elite American units? Not even close. To say a Basic Canadian Infantry man has the skill set of a US Ranger is fantasy. It is not that they could not be but for the money and infrastructure to do the training.

* The Canadian military is taught to do more with less. IMO they are over trained to be soldiers and rely on their knowledge and ability to use aging tools to perform to the same or above those levels of other soldiers using superior technology. A great example are the five sniper units in Afghanistan that have been supporting the American special forces units. On numerous occassions the Americans have surrendered their weapons to the Canadians to make the kills, because the Canadians are better trained and execute their duties better. These units have all been awarded the Bronze Star (three with V) for their contribution and excellence while supporting their American cousins. The Canadians were trained to do more with less and really excel when given the opportunity to use the best technology available.

Ok I read the article it is an impressive shot.. wait third shot, but you fail to mention the American on the team, you also you elude Americans handing over sniper rifles has happened more than once where it is clearly a one time occurance and you say "American Special Forces" in reference to the 101st Airborne. None of this quite correct. They are obviously doing a bang up job and are to be commended but to say they are better trained and execute their duties better is quite a leap. So of the 5 teams they had a total count of 20 and Canadian snipers are supposedly clearly better than their American counter parts. So how do you explain this? http://www.washingtontimes.com/world...1618-6393r.htm
10 American snipers in Iraq had a total count of 200 including a 3300ft shot with a .308 caliber rifle. I will save you the math and say that one of the US snipers in Iraq equaled the total of your 5 teams. And these men aren't even from the Elite American forces.

You say American Hubris when you clearly claim that the Canadian forces are clearly better than their American counterparts with little or no evidence.

* I think it is you that are under-estimating the fighting ability of the other nations. Just because they don't strut around the world kicking sand in the face of every 98 poound weakling out there does not mean they have a string and well trained military. I don't disregard the ability of those nations who have a proud tradition of peacekeeping or defensive military roles. I know Americans love to make fun of the French, but their military is pretty well fortified and manned. Add their numbers and technology to that of the Germans and Swedes, etc. and you have a substantial force that is trained to operate in all climates and respond accordingly. They are just as technologically advanced as the US, so it comes down to soldiering at that point, and that's where the foreign soldiers are terribly under-rated by Americans. I don't know how many times I've heard stories about training and simulation engagements where the Americans got run over and were suprised about the ability of the other troops. Again, its that American hubris that is is the greatest weakness of the country IMO. Its drilled into the heads of the population from when they are born through the rest of their lives. "America is the greatest and no one else compares at anything". Unfortunately that's just an advertising campaign that is all too readily swallowed as truth here. The reality is that there is always someone better. Where the Americans have a massive advantage is their ability to spend more than the rest of the world combined on their military budget. That's the difference and that's why Americans appear to have this huge advantage over other nations.

Couple of errors here as well. First of all because of the massive military budget the quantity and quality of American equipment is typically a generation ahead of the countries you list so they are not at the same level technologically. Second of all along with the budget for gear is the training budget. How often do the swede pilots fly, how much time do german subs spend in port and how often are they on exersises. Last and most glaringly how many of their leaders are combat vets? While a tradition of peacekeeping and defensive military roles is a good thing it is not the best. You do learn a lot in practice but not nearly as much as playing in the big game. Not just the officers but the NCOs that train the privates how to patrol or wear their kit? Re read the Article on the Canadian snipers and the effect they will have on training the next generation and multiply that by the number of American troops have gone to Iraq or A-stan. It is not just the gear it is the training and the confidence of knowing how to use it.

but the truth of the matter is that American soldiers don't have a monopoly on their abilities and are trained to use their technological advantage rather than their basic human skills. That includes the elite forces. If this were not true then the "elite" American forces would have their way with the weaker soldiers from other countries, and not face the challenges they do. Seems to me that unless the Americans get to use their technological advantages they don't stack up as well against smaller forces using similar or lesser weaponry.

Don't know what history channel program you got this from but it not true and in fact goes the other way. The one thing the elite forces are highly schooled in is basic soldiering. Marksmanship, fitness, land navigation, your basic "shoot, move, and communicate" You don't simply show up to recieve your beret then get trained. The majority of the elite forces are on their second or third tour and have spent years in airborne or infantry units prior to moving into the special ops world. The exception to this would be the Rangers but the selection process is pretty brutal. It is the exact same for all of the elite forces all over the world JTF2, the SAS, GIGN etc. Judging from the performance of the Spec Ops community in the initial phases of Afganistan I would say they did a pretty good job of it. The difference here is that your typical Special forces unit is usually outnumbered, out gunned and miles from any other friendly unit. Of course they are going to use technology to their advantage. It is war. Second place is a dirt nap. With your logic they would put away the laser target designator, tell the B-52 to head for the barn and start trying to pick off the enemy one at a time? That is the way to be a proper soldier?

[mykalberta]

The US will not strik Iran - at least not in GB's era

If anything happens it will be a UN thing. Iran is more Europe's problem - they have never been a legit threat to Isreal so ipso facto they are not a threat to the US. Also remember that mid term elections are coming up and most likely the Dems and Reps are going to be blah blahing about national security.

From the US's side, it will be rhetoric and nothing else.

MYK

[CarlW]

You guys seem to know alot about the skill set of the 'Elite' Canadian and American troops, but I was wondering if anyone actually knows what the 'Elite' troops of China, N.Korea, Russia, etc. can do that would rate them significantly lower then the N.American counterparts?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CarlW

You guys seem to know alot about the skill set of the 'Elite' Canadian and American troops, but I was wondering if anyone actually knows what the 'Elite' troops of China, N.Korea, Russia, etc. can do that would rate them significantly lower then the N.American counterparts?

Thats a great question.

China is interesting because they don't put a lot of special emphasis on special forces, they're more of a brute force numbers military. However they do have a special operations group thats called the Sword of Southern China, Its not a special forces group as such, however it contains thier best officers, all of its members are lavishly equipt with the most advanced equipment and they cross train in Army, Naval and Airforce specialties. They're suppossed to be on the front line of any chines invasion since they're so well trained. But thier operations are no different then a regular army unit, they're just better trained. They also are all airborne certified and could be dropped behind the line.

Russia was in love with the concepts of special forces and have several different groups, the Spetznaz would be considered thier elite unit and specialize in both field operations, covert operations and behind the lines activities. However thier leadership and senior sergents were gutted in both Afganistan and then again in Chechnia and they're having problems with leadership because of that. Where they were great is that they could truly operate in any condition or combat situation and do it well. The Afghans hated them because they were ruthless and you never heard them coming, and they walked everywhere instead of being inserted by copter or armored vehicle.

The Soviet Navy created the Vympl or Pennant unit and thier specialization was the capture or sabatoge of high value targets such as power plants or chemical plants.

The North Korea has hundreds of different groups with different specializations, but they're more like Guerrilla units that pay tribute to Kim Il-Jong and his adventures during the pre second world war period.

These groups are highly trained in insertion, submarine insertion, blending into an environment or civilian population for a long period of time, assasination, sabotage and stirring civil unrest. I know for a fact that no other country as numerous as the North Korean's who have about 150,000 specially trained commando's. They're not as well trained as thier counterparts in other countries or as well equipt. But they're selected more due to thier fanatism and political reliability. They're designed more around inciting civilian terror then fighting in a modern battlefield.

Hope that helps.

[tjinaz]

I don't know much about Chinese or N. Korean Special forces but I have talked to some Spetznaz.

They are pretty damn hardcore. Definitely not someone to meet in a dark alley. Much more emphasis on hand to hand, edged weapons, and martial arts than their western counterparts. They can do everything the western forces can but their some of their systems for commo, target designators, body armor, weapons, etc are pretty crude by our standards. They do come up with some interesting technical solutions though.

check out this weapon.

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn72-e.htm

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats a great question.

China is interesting because they don't put a lot of special emphasis on special forces, they're more of a brute force numbers military. However they do have a special operations group thats called the Sword of Southern China, Its not a special forces group as such, however it contains thier best officers, all of its members are lavishly equipt with the most advanced equipment and they cross train in Army, Naval and Airforce specialties. They're suppossed to be on the front line of any chines invasion since they're so well trained. But thier operations are no different then a regular army unit, they're just better trained. They also are all airborne certified and could be dropped behind the line.

Russia was in love with the concepts of special forces and have several different groups, the Spetznaz would be considered thier elite unit and specialize in both field operations, covert operations and behind the lines activities. However thier leadership and senior sergents were gutted in both Afganistan and then again in Chechnia and they're having problems with leadership because of that. Where they were great is that they could truly operate in any condition or combat situation and do it well. The Afghans hated them because they were ruthless and you never heard them coming, and they walked everywhere instead of being inserted by copter or armored vehicle.

The Soviet Navy created the Vympl or Pennant unit and thier specialization was the capture or sabatoge of high value targets such as power plants or chemical plants.

The North Korea has hundreds of different groups with different specializations, but they're more like Guerrilla units that pay tribute to Kim Il-Jong and his adventures during the pre second world war period.

These groups are highly trained in insertion, submarine insertion, blending into an environment or civilian population for a long period of time, assasination, sabotage and stirring civil unrest. I know for a fact that no other country as numerous as the North Korean's who have about 150,000 specially trained commando's. They're not as well trained as thier counterparts in other countries or as well equipt. But they're selected more due to thier fanatism and political reliability. They're designed more around inciting civilian terror then fighting in a modern battlefield.

Hope that helps.

Thanks, this is all really interesting stuff, I'm actually surprised the Chinese military doesn't have more special forces but when your standing army is something like 1-2 million people i guess they don't worry too much .

[Shawnski]

New video of Bush's plans to bomb Iran.... (insert chuckling emoticon here)

http://www.punchbaby.com/media/latrz...y/bombIran.wmv

[Gugstanley]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

We know the Vietnamese know how to kick American ass, so you're wrong there already.

Lanny you seem like a guy with too much time on your hands. Why don't you use a little of it to research that war?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Gugstanley

Lanny you seem like a guy with too much time on your hands. Why don't you use a little of it to research that war?

What part of it? You mean like all the body bags coming home? Or the Americans running home with their tails between their legs? Or the malaise that still grips this country every time the war is brought up? The Americans completely under-estimated the enemy and got run out of the country. It was a humiliating failure and it is still a sore spot in the United States. People just refuse to get over it because they can't believe they got lost and how the war ripped the nation to pieces. Here's what the Vietnamese remember as the last American action in their country. Runaway!!! Runaway!!!

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Update on the Iranian situation.

"Iran said on Sunday it will reject any U.N. resolution seeking an end to its atomic fuel work and renewed its rhetoric about following North Korea in quitting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/07052006/...ic-treaty.html