U.S. Forces "Incompetent"

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Yes, Japanese Kanji script comes from Chinese script. So they do share that aspect of their language.

Yeah sure, and both the cyrillic and the latin alfabet have a common source. To use that as to assume some language bond between English and Russian would be a good joke.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Yes, Japanese Kanji script comes from Chinese script. So they do share that aspect of their language.

Yeah sure, and both the cyrillic and the latin alfabet have a common source. To use that as to assume some language bond between English and Russian would be a good joke.

Actually, Japanese written language is wholly derived from Chinese, and so is a large percentage of the spoken language. Kanji (Chinese characters) used by Japan and China have largely synonymous meanings. Japan learned to write as a nation from Chinese. What happened was China inherited Buddhism from China and thus inherited the writing. The biggest difference between Chinese and Japanese written language is that the Japanese started to use contractions of the Chinese characters. These contractions came to be known as 'hiragana' and now stand as an alphabet (phonetic syllabary) along 'katakana.' Hiragana are used with kanji. Katakana are used mainly for foreign words and onometopia. The Chinese common dialect uses about 10,000 different characters whereas the Japanese uses around 2,700 characters along with hiragana and katakana alphabets.

So, Japanese is wholly derived from Chinese and there is a written language bond between the two countries. A Japanese could describe a word with a kanji and a Chinese could read that word perfectly.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Yes, Japanese Kanji script comes from Chinese script. So they do share that aspect of their language.

Yeah sure, and both the cyrillic and the latin alfabet have a common source. To use that as to assume some language bond between English and Russian would be a good joke.

There probably is a link way way back. With all languages maybe.

However, the link between Chinese and Japanese writing systems in undeniable. Almost 100% of the kanjis used in Japanese come from Chinese script, 50% retain their original meaning, despite the change in reading.

I can read, write and speak Japanese. On a recent trip to China I was surprised to see how much of the Chinese script I could read, or rather understand the meaning of.

So there.

Yeah I read about this in the paper last week...

But in my opinion the USA army is jsut as competent as any army on this planet, they just make Hell'a noice every time they are doing anything...

The civilian population in the US doesn't have the organization and fire power to stop any invasion from such a powerfull army that managed to enter in American soil. If you think that armed civilians would stop an invader army is watching to many movies.

As for the US army. The US have superior technology, powerfull armed forces but the moral of the american soldiers is very fragile. The confortable life in the US (and in the Ocidental world) as weaken the individual soldier. A prove of that was the Vietname war, where the lack of Coca Cola, chocolats, cakes, was an important fact for the lack of moral (that is absolutely true). They had to throw by parachutes to bust the moral. How would the US population resist without food, water, heat, etc...

There is no invencible army. History has prove that time after time, after time.

In the sixties and seventies when US was fighting in Vietname, Portugal (a small and poor country compared to the the US) was fighting 3 wars in the same time, and managed to control more or less all fronts. The US army despite all the money and the techology came to Portugal to study the portuguese anti-guerrilla tactics, because the guerrilla from Vietname was out of control. Money and technology isn't enought to fight and win a war.

Many years of Hollywood movies and propaganda have created a feeling of invencibility among many Americans.

Everybody is forgetting the economy factor for the US. Fighting a convencional war against hundreds of millions of soldiers would result in a economical crisis in the US. Only a missile costs millions of dollars. Any military equipment is very expensive. And how many soldiers a normal missile can kill?How much would cost to kill all that pupil?The US have the economical strengh to maintain such a war?


If the US would go to war against China? I think would be a mutual destruction.

Originally posted by Caetano
As for the US army. The US have superior technology, powerfull armed forces but the moral of the american soldiers is very fragile.

Actually, the morale of the soldiers is pretty high. The problem is the moral of the people back at home. Much of what you see in the media isn't actually showing you what the moral of the troops is. That's just their twisted opinion, and what they want to show you to get the ratings they want.

Now the incompetent accusations are just plain silly. I've worked with these guys, shoot, I was even active duty for a number of years. I don't think I would call them incompetent. I never got tired of watching those B-1 Bombers (my base) do touch and gos, never got bored from seeing an F-15 take off and jump into a vertical climb for 20,000 feet. Now there may be a few Gomer Pyles but as a whole the US military is top-notch.

And to Caetano, I'm sure the Chinese military is top-notch as well. Well, except for the goof ball that ran his fighter into the surveillance plane a few years ago.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
Actually, the moral of the soldiers is pretty high.

I should hope they have good morals. However, I am more interested in their morale. From your post I am assuming you served in the Air Force? Correct me if I am wrong. Now nobody can doubt the competence of the pilots, etc. of the US Air Force, plus the pure wow factor of the toys they have. Add to that, the standard of personel required is also much higher, is it not?

I would be interested to know if you have any actual contact with those on the ground in Iraq and would therefore be able to contribute a more accurate assesment of morale on the ground. Not to denigrate your service, but the Air Force would be more a rear echelon type of service, would it not? You would expect those not in the line of fire as much as the likes of the Marines and Army on the ground to have a higher morale?

The problem is the moral of the people back at home. Much of what you see in the media isn't actually showing you what the moral of the troops is.

Caetano poses a very interesting question here. The morale of the people back home does really effect the military ability of the US. If they had no morals or compunctions, they would have turned Iraq and any other country that looked at them the wrong way into a glowing crater.

Fortunately, the US public do have a strong moral core and would balk at this. The question is, how does this political correctness effect competence? Does not having the stomach to do the dirty effect the fighting ability of the US. Have no doubt China would go the extra mile. We can all agree that this lack of regard for human life is horrific, but with that much at stake, the opposition being that commited, one does have to question are the US competent enough to play in such a high-stakes game.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I should hope they have good morals. However, I am more interested in their morale.

Mis-spelling, howmuchisthedoggy?
Moral=morale?

I would be interested to know if you have any actual contact with those on the ground in Iraq and would therefore be able to contribute a more accurate assesment of morale on the ground. Not to denigrate your service, but the Air Force would be more a rear echelon type of service, would it not? You would expect those not in the line of fire as much as the likes of the Marines and Army on the ground to have a higher morale?

I was in the Air Force, served in Kosovo and the 1st Gulf War as a Pararescueman or PJ. I currently have Air Force PJ, Army and Marine buddies and family currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, PJ's are not rear-etchlon type and are placed within the line of fire on a regular basis. Your point is near-irrelevant, per se', being that morale has a trickle-down tendency, in that, if the front etchlon in the line of fire troops or servicemen are low in morale, that morale level has a tendency to trickle back to the secondary and rear etchlons. You served in the military or you just portraying the typical arm-chair general mannerisms?

The problem is the moral of the people back at home. Much of what you see in the media isn't actually showing you what the moral of the troops is.

The public or civilain moral=morale has always, always been a problem. It was a problem in WWI and unknowingly to some, it was a problem in WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, even in Kosovo/Bosnia. The 1st Gulf War ended so quickly, there was no time for the public/civilains back home to move from a high morale to a low morale as it currently is with this war, or as it was with WWI and the Vietnam War. The media is anti-war and always has been, possibly excluding WWII. The media since Vietnam has always portrayed the military in a negative light and will continue to do so. Certainly not will they go into this current military's morale. Why? Because the majority of those within the military still have a relatively high morale and the majority are still supportive of this war.

The morale of the people back home does really effect the military ability of the US.

Let Vietnam be your historical guide in how correct what you mention is.
The public's approval or disapproval abilities have the ability to scare the crap out of panzy arse politicians.







seekerof

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Seekerof]

The media is anti-war and always has been

Thats not true Seeker. Prior to the invasion in 2003 the media run story after story showing us how bad Saddam was and what nasty horrible weapons he had hidden in his wine cellar.

Also, for example, the UK media is not pro or anti war. The Falklands war for example showed the MP's the value of "The Sun". That infamous Gotcha headline shows what I mean.



I was going to wade in earlier and correct (many) of AMM's false assertions, but I really can't be arsed and I think Howlrunner et al did a fair job....

[edit on 16/11/05 by stumason]

I have said pull out of Asia many times. Let them war amongst themselves and kill each other. If Japan wants to build up its military, good. Let them take the beating China will most likely give them. Better them than us.

I could care less about the confidence our supposed "allies" show in our forces. I dont care about their welfare and security, that should be their own concern. I am confident, that if all US forces were returned home, that the US would be well defended, and that is the main and only priority the DOD should have. We should not be providing security or occupation to countries who cant or wont secure themselves, or those who believe they can do a better job.

If they can, let them. An armed Japan I believe is in the best interests of the US anyway, since they can keep China occupied.

This statement is laughable from Japan. Do I detect some simmering bitterness at being humiliated and bombed 60 years ago? Boo-Hoo.

Originally posted by Simon666
Yeah sure, and both the cyrillic and the latin alfabet have a common source. To use that as to assume some language bond between English and Russian would be a good joke.

Um, actually there is a bond between English and Russian. They are both Indo-European languages both derived from ancient Sanskrit, the mother language of the Indo-European family tree.

There are bonds between english and Russian at the most basic levels, just like all Indo-European languages have this bond.

Originally posted by stumason
Thats not true Seeker. Prior to the invasion in 2003 the media run story after story showing us how bad Saddam was and what nasty horrible weapons he had hidden in his wine cellar.

I was referencing US mainstream media, stumason. Sorry for my lack of clarification.
WWII and the 1st Gulf War being the only possible exception I can recall.

Thanks for pointing out what you did though, sir.




seekerof

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I would be interested to know if you have any actual contact with those on the ground in Iraq and would therefore be able to contribute a more accurate assesment of morale on the ground.

Well, my experience was from Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia. The esprit de corps was pretty high for us and I had the chance to visit some Army troops at remote locations. They were in pretty good spirits even after being there for over a year. Didn't take much to make them extremely happy. A letter from home, a new CD, a fresh story they never heard. We took some guys at a patriot missile site a fridge to keep their water cold. They did back-flips for months over that little fridge. You see here in the states we're spoiled with continuous cheer so we don't appreciated everything we have. Over there it doesn't take as much as you think to make someone's day.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Not to denigrate your service, but the Air Force would be more a rear echelon type of service, would it not? You would expect those not in the line of fire as much as the likes of the Marines and Army on the ground to have a higher morale?

The Air Force not in the line of fire? Ha! Saddam loved throwing scuds our way. The worst night had 13 incoming I believe, and not all of them were intercepted. Ever try sleeping in full chem-gear? It's not pleasant. You don't know if the next one will be full of mustard or nerve gas. Still our spirits remained high and we'd laugh about stuff like the outgoing patriots looking like a Fourth of July show. We'd laugh about that stuff too. "Hey are they waiting for the scuds to hit before they turn the sirens on? We saw the Patriots launch 2 min. ago".

Wait for a Marine or Army to speak up because it is more tense for them, no doubt. I think they generally have a good attitude. As long as they feel they are getting support from their chain of command and they have the tools/supplies that they need.

P.S. you misspelled "assesment" it has 4 's' in it.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I should hope they have good morals. However, I am more interested in their morale.

Mis-spelling, howmuchisthedoggy?
Moral=morale?

I think maybe he did ms-spell the word. Morale to me means espirit de corps, while moral is something totally different. Is morale spelled moral in the US?

I was in the Air Force, served in Kosovo and the 1st Gulf War as a Pararescueman or PJ.

Okay, okay. Stop right there. The difference between a Pararescueman and the dude strapping bombs to a plane miles away safe in the rear is a quite big difference if I am not mistaken? Aside from that, cool, PJ? Wow!!

Your point is near-irrelevant, per se', being that morale has a trickle-down tendency

You may have misunderstood my point. Those under fire every day will suffer a degradation of morale much greater than those in the rear echelons. Also, the mood from home, transmitted through emails and phone calls, never mind what the soldiers themselves are reading in the military, can only have a negative effect.

You served in the military or you just portraying the typical arm-chair general mannerisms?

My military "service" was a joke and I make no bones about it! I prefer to use it as a means of context for trying to understand what is being talked about. I resent being called an arm-chair general as all I am doing is asking questions out of interest.

Originally posted by dbates
Well, my experience was from Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia.

Whoa. Hold on there.

Who is talking about Desert Storm?

I am talking about the current debacle and the assessment(with 4 s's now.....where's me spellchecker!!) of morale on the ground of the current service people.

Of course the morale was high during Desert Storm, as everyone was behind you for that one and it was over before you knew it.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by stumason
Thats not true Seeker. Prior to the invasion in 2003 the media run story after story showing us how bad Saddam was and what nasty horrible weapons he had hidden in his wine cellar.

I was referencing US mainstream media, stumason. Sorry for my lack of clarification.
WWII and the 1st Gulf War being the only possible exception I can recall.

Thanks for pointing out what you did though, sir.

seekerof

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Seekerof]

No worries. I know you guys always talk about things in a US only context alot of the time and forget us dirty foreign types are lurking about in the shadows.

It has to be said though that the US media is very political, wether that be the official stance of the network or the owners pulling the strings. Perhaps you guys should break up the big networks and encourage more competition, you might get a more balanced view.

Having said that though, because you guys are so polarised (left/right, Dem/Rep, Lib/Con) I doubt it would make much difference.

You need a broader political spectrum and I think you'll find things would be much better.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I have said pull out of Asia many times.

Then why don't you!?!?

Half the problems in the region are caused by your very presence, so that would lead to some peace and quiet for a while.

I am confident, that if all US forces were returned home, that the US would be well defended, and that is the main and only priority the DOD should have.

So what is the US still doing here after 60 years? Oh right, defending democracy and all thay jazz. Right. A very insular view of geopolitics that really doesn't surprise me coming from planet america.

This statement is laughable from Japan. Do I detect some simmering bitterness at being humiliated and bombed 60 years ago? Boo-Hoo.

I hope you don't wonder why the rest of the world is coming to despise you when you can make statements like this and think it is funny. You don't see Japan pouring salt in your 9/11 wounds.....

I don't know if this has already been said but, who does japan think they are? Are they able to take on China? No.

Originally posted by punkmonkey14
I don't know if this has already been said but, who does japan think they are? Are they able to take on China? No.

They have in the past, quite adequately, if I must say so.
The difference today is what? Technology, Arms, Numbers?



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by punkmonkey14
I don't know if this has already been said but, who does japan think they are? Are they able to take on China? No.

They have in the past, quite adequately, if I must say so.
The difference today is what? Technology, Arms, Numbers?

Constitution, anybody?