Actually, post-war Japan and Germany had no problems, because we had a ridiculous number of troops occupying each country.

 

We just haven't had enough troops in Iraq at all, and the generals involved in the invasion say that they didn't have plans for the occupation. It's clear that we weren't ready, from the day that Iraqis started looting in the streets unchecked.

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

How are we getting our asses kicked in Iraq?

 

 

I don't like the war at all, but damn, this ain't Vietnam in terms of troop losses. And even then, we were not losing the war till the Tet Offensive was shown on television.

I don't have exact numbers, but I wonder what the American-to-Iraqi death toll has been since our little "war" began (not including suiciders).

It's not even close. Tons more Iraqis die than Americans.

 

tons more vietnamese died than americans. we still lost that war.

 

right now we're dealing with an insurgency, which means our losses are not going to be quite as heavy. if this gets worse we'll really getting our asses kicked.

 

The average number of US deaths has steadily been declining every single month for the past year.

 

What the hell are you talking about? The mere notion that we're getting our asses kicked in Iraq is nothing short of flat out stupidity.

 

 

you're notion of getting our asses kicked is very limited - you view it in purely military terms. i don't. we're not making significant progress over there. a war is won militarily and politically. we're losing the war politically and it's costing us militarily.

Well then, just a little piece of advice - make something like that clear when you post what otherwise appears to be an asinine opinion.

Theres a good CIA website to look @ too. CIA Scrapbook or CIA Factbook. Got acquainted with it when I was going to apply to the CIA out of highschool...then decided not too.

Theres a good CIA website to look @ too. CIA Scrapbook or CIA Factbook. Got acquainted with it when I was going to apply to the CIA out of highschool...then decided not too.

 

It's the CIA Factbook. It has a lot of useful information.

Its the same website someone brought up a month or so back and I said there is no way in the world the UK is the second most powerful army in the world etc. etc.

 

A major difference in post-war Germany and Japan is that they were the aggressor orginally, the Iraqi people (some anyway) see the US led effort as an invasion, they had fought for a number of years as a nation suffering high casualties, and wanted peace none of which can currently be applied to Iraq.

The number of troops on the site is the number of enlisted soldiets, total in the military. The U.S. Military has 2.3 million enlisted and 1.44 million active duty. Of which 146,000 are activly invloved in war (134,000 in Iraq and 12,000 in Afghanistan).

 

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what helped keept the Cold War cold. Because both countries knew if they got into war they would both be destroyed. Nukes are a deterrant to other countries because they now of the risk of using them. Countries won't use nukes because they now of the consequences, but terrorists do not care, and It will be one scary day when the terrorists get one. That is what is so scary about Iran, they are a terrorist government; they would make 9|11 look like child's play.

 

The most recent figure on the U.S. Death Tool from Iraq was 2,114. The Iraqi death toll is around 35,000. Thats is one American death to every 16 Iraqi's. The Invasion of Iraq was a success, the rebuilding is not going as planned, but is not a failure. The problem is that the Iraqi's want all of the freedoms that we do, and it has taken us 230 years to get where we are today, it takes time.

The number of troops on the site is the number of enlisted soldiets, total in the military. The U.S. Military has 2.3 million enlisted and 1.44 million active duty. Of which 146,000 are activly invloved in war (134,000 in Iraq and 12,000 in Afghanistan).

 

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what helped keept the Cold War cold. Because both countries knew if they got into war they would both be destroyed. Nukes are a deterrant to other countries because they now of the risk of using them. Countries won't use nukes because they now of the consequences, but terrorists do not care, and It will be one scary day when the terrorists get one. That is what is so scary about Iran, they are a terrorist government; they would make 9|11 look like child's play.

 

The most recent figure on the U.S. Death Tool from Iraq was 2,114. The Iraqi death toll is around 35,000. Thats is one American death to every 16 Iraqi's. The Invasion of Iraq was a success, the rebuilding is not going as planned, but is not a failure. The problem is that the Iraqi's want all of the freedoms that we do, and it has taken us 230 years to get where we are today, it takes time.

 

 

Someone's been playing Metal Gear: Solid. :lol

The number of troops on the site is the number of enlisted soldiets, total in the military. The U.S. Military has 2.3 million enlisted and 1.44 million active duty. Of which 146,000 are activly invloved in war (134,000 in Iraq and 12,000 in Afghanistan).

 

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what helped keept the Cold War cold. Because both countries knew if they got into war they would both be destroyed. Nukes are a deterrant to other countries because they now of the risk of using them. Countries won't use nukes because they now of the consequences, but terrorists do not care, and It will be one scary day when the terrorists get one. That is what is so scary about Iran, they are a terrorist government; they would make 9|11 look like child's play.

 

The most recent figure on the U.S. Death Tool from Iraq was 2,114. The Iraqi death toll is around 35,000. Thats is one American death to every 16 Iraqi's. The Invasion of Iraq was a success, the rebuilding is not going as planned, but is not a failure. The problem is that the Iraqi's want all of the freedoms that we do, and it has taken us 230 years to get where we are today, it takes time.

 

 

Most of the Iraqi people don't know what they want because the concept of a democracy - not just elections, but everything associated with a representative government, such as participation, knowledge of the issues, understanding how government works, etc. - is foreign to them. They have no idea what it entails. Some of the well-educated Iraqis do, but most don't.

 

And what exactly do you mean by "freedom"? I think that's a term that gets thrown around a lot, especially by President Bush, and many people can't really define it well. Including myself. Although I have certainly thought about it a lot.

The number of troops on the site is the number of enlisted soldiets, total in the military. The U.S. Military has 2.3 million enlisted and 1.44 million active duty. Of which 146,000 are activly invloved in war (134,000 in Iraq and 12,000 in Afghanistan).

 

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what helped keept the Cold War cold. Because both countries knew if they got into war they would both be destroyed. Nukes are a deterrant to other countries because they now of the risk of using them. Countries won't use nukes because they now of the consequences, but terrorists do not care, and It will be one scary day when the terrorists get one. That is what is so scary about Iran, they are a terrorist government; they would make 9|11 look like child's play.

 

The most recent figure on the U.S. Death Tool from Iraq was 2,114. The Iraqi death toll is around 35,000. Thats is one American death to every 16 Iraqi's. The Invasion of Iraq was a success, the rebuilding is not going as planned, but is not a failure. The problem is that the Iraqi's want all of the freedoms that we do, and it has taken us 230 years to get where we are today, it takes time.

 

 

Most of the Iraqi people don't know what they want because the concept of a democracy - not just elections, but everything associated with a representative government, such as participation, knowledge of the issues, understanding how government works, etc. - is foreign to them. They have no idea what it entails. Some of the well-educated Iraqis do, but most don't.

 

And what exactly do you mean by "freedom"? I think that's a term that gets thrown around a lot, especially by President Bush, and many people can't really define it well. Including myself. Although I have certainly thought about it a lot.

 

By freedom, I mean that they can move about freely, just as us, and not worry about a car bomb going off, getting shot. The freedoms that we take granted everyday because we live in the best country in the world. The freedom to choose a government that represents them, and listens to them, a government that protects them and the constitution of Iraq; a country that allows them to practice religion and country that they want to live in and be proud of.

 

BTW they put an interesting poll up on top5militaries.itgo.com that you should really vote in.

The number of troops on the site is the number of enlisted soldiets, total in the military. The U.S. Military has 2.3 million enlisted and 1.44 million active duty. Of which 146,000 are activly invloved in war (134,000 in Iraq and 12,000 in Afghanistan).

 

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what helped keept the Cold War cold. Because both countries knew if they got into war they would both be destroyed. Nukes are a deterrant to other countries because they now of the risk of using them. Countries won't use nukes because they now of the consequences, but terrorists do not care, and It will be one scary day when the terrorists get one. That is what is so scary about Iran, they are a terrorist government; they would make 9|11 look like child's play.

 

The most recent figure on the U.S. Death Tool from Iraq was 2,114. The Iraqi death toll is around 35,000. Thats is one American death to every 16 Iraqi's. The Invasion of Iraq was a success, the rebuilding is not going as planned, but is not a failure. The problem is that the Iraqi's want all of the freedoms that we do, and it has taken us 230 years to get where we are today, it takes time.

 

 

Most of the Iraqi people don't know what they want because the concept of a democracy - not just elections, but everything associated with a representative government, such as participation, knowledge of the issues, understanding how government works, etc. - is foreign to them. They have no idea what it entails. Some of the well-educated Iraqis do, but most don't.

 

And what exactly do you mean by "freedom"? I think that's a term that gets thrown around a lot, especially by President Bush, and many people can't really define it well. Including myself. Although I have certainly thought about it a lot.

 

By freedom, I mean that they can move about freely, just as us, and not worry about a car bomb going off, getting shot. The freedoms that we take granted everyday because we live in the best country in the world. The freedom to choose a government that represents them, and listens to them, a government that protects them and the constitution of Iraq; a country that allows them to practice religion and country that they want to live in and be proud of.

 

BTW they put an interesting poll up on top5militaries.itgo.com that you should really vote in.

I dont think it's too simple. Do we think freedom and democracy go hand in hand? Then what happens when the democracy leads to curtailing of freedom? We werent too happy with the democracy in Afghanistan deciding to arrest someone for being a Christian.

 

This is why nuanced academia is so much more important that black and white vague terms like freedom.

I guess the University of Florida history department is totally lazy.

 

 

Here are their sources:

 

Thank you for visiting Top 5 Militaries!

 

Our sources are currently listed on our sources page

which is linked through the main site. We stand by are

information and our list, other sites have other

information and 1 other notable site has a different

list of the top 5.

 

Here are some links which provide you with some

information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...f_active_troops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military

 

Other information can be found through this site.

Thanks your request. If you have any further questions

do not hesitate to ask.

 

 

Wow, talk about some impressive research! Lazy history. Good thing I never applied to goto graduate school there.

 

 

*edit*

 

I also see that they have now added a source link, crappy, but better than nothing I guess.

Lists like these are great to have fun with but static lists like these don't include the global context, comprehensive alliances, terrain, character of the conflict, political structure of the country etc.

 

Also too Israel and China don't have the key component to power projection: a substantial "blue ocean" navy.

 

I'm doing my first real graduate-level paper on the island disputes between the GCC and Iran and if this gets to be called an academic survey then I am f***ing Thucydides.

the University of Florida likes to practice lazy history it seems.

 

 

thats great...I love their explainations they gave me, I laughed.

 

 

I should show that to some SMU profs, we would get a good laugh out of it.

The University of Florida did not make the site, they provided information for the site. Each one of those links has a valid source.

 

Israel does have a navy. It has: Saar 5 class missile boats, and 5 submarines capable of carrying Nuclear missles. It is unknown if they are nuclear subs. They also have a old retired U.S. Battle Ship which they purchased in the early 1990's. That is not the strongest Navy but it is measurable.

 

Power Projection is defined by the United States Department of Defense as the ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

Israel has alot of influence in the Middle East, especially when concerning matters which concern the West. Israel also has a proven military in combat, and if they got in a conflict there is a 9 out of 10 chance the U.S. would be behind them fully. As far as Iran, I think the U.S. will do something first.

The University of Florida did not make the site, they provided information for the site. Each one of those links has a valid source.

 

 

 

Ya they provided the info, big deal...without their info no site. Lazy history.

 

 

period.

Actually, post-war Japan and Germany had no problems, because we had a ridiculous number of troops occupying each country.

 

We just haven't had enough troops in Iraq at all, and the generals involved in the invasion say that they didn't have plans for the occupation. It's clear that we weren't ready, from the day that Iraqis started looting in the streets unchecked.

 

 

At the end of WWII we had no troops in Japan. Japan surrendered after we dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki. We never invaded Japan, we used the atomic bomb to prevent an Invasion, we had troops on outlying islands such as Iwo Jima. We had millions of troops in Germany, Poland, and where the Nazi's once reigned. That did provide stability in the region where they and us rebuilt what the war had damaged. We should have had more troops on the ground in Iraq but that is History, and that is a mistake that has been learned from. We should have had about 350,000 troops to Invade Iraq instead of the 260,000 that we had.

 

Somebody recently asked me (I'm a Military buff) how many troops we need for Iran; I boldly suggested numbers close to those of Desert Storm, and invasion force of about 500,000 U.S. troops with another 100,000 Coalition which would have followed strategic air strikes on the nuclear facilities, military targets (armorment) and the capital of Tehran. The United States Military is fully capable of sustaining a war in Iran. Not to mention that we are already startegically placed in 2 border countries of Iran; Iraq and Afghanistan, that gives us a way in and also porvides us with close military bases. You just can not do airstrikes. You have to go all of the way with Iran, I hope Diplomacy works, but were dealing a man who wants to wipe the U.S., our allies, and Israel off the map. I don't think were gonna get through with him. The scariest thing is the recent claim of how Iran "Has 40,000 suicide bombers armed and ready to go."

If anyone is interested in academic material concerning military and security studies in the Persian Gulf I invite you to check out this awesome survey, it clears up alot of the fog surrounding Iran's military strength and war-fighting capabilities. It's pretty long and comprehensive about 150 pages long (alot of maps and charts) but it's concisely-written and isn't agenda-driven. I can only vouch for this study but this guy, Anthony H. Cordesman, has a ton of studies on just about every security issue in the Middle East.

 

Check it out here.

Highly doubtful information, no proof.

Actually, post-war Japan and Germany had no problems, because we had a ridiculous number of troops occupying each country.

 

We just haven't had enough troops in Iraq at all, and the generals involved in the invasion say that they didn't have plans for the occupation. It's clear that we weren't ready, from the day that Iraqis started looting in the streets unchecked.

 

 

At the end of WWII we had no troops in Japan. Japan surrendered after we dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki. We never invaded Japan, we used the atomic bomb to prevent an Invasion, we had troops on outlying islands such as Iwo Jima. We had millions of troops in Germany, Poland, and where the Nazi's once reigned. That did provide stability in the region where they and us rebuilt what the war had damaged. We should have had more troops on the ground in Iraq but that is History, and that is a mistake that has been learned from. We should have had about 350,000 troops to Invade Iraq instead of the 260,000 that we had.

 

Somebody recently asked me (I'm a Military buff) how many troops we need for Iran; I boldly suggested numbers close to those of Desert Storm, and invasion force of about 500,000 U.S. troops with another 100,000 Coalition which would have followed strategic air strikes on the nuclear facilities, military targets (armorment) and the capital of Tehran. The United States Military is fully capable of sustaining a war in Iran. Not to mention that we are already startegically placed in 2 border countries of Iran; Iraq and Afghanistan, that gives us a way in and also porvides us with close military bases. You just can not do airstrikes. You have to go all of the way with Iran, I hope Diplomacy works, but were dealing a man who wants to wipe the U.S., our allies, and Israel off the map. I don't think were gonna get through with him. The scariest thing is the recent claim of how Iran "Has 40,000 suicide bombers armed and ready to go."

 

I think that they need to prove that they have 40,000 suicide bombers ready to go ,if theyare going to scare anyone. Say, they should get together in some square or assembly point of some kind so we can get an accurate count to see if it is 40,000.

 

Then we can make them go poof!

Iran does have a number of it's armed forces earmarked for unconventional warfare, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, better known as the Pasdaran which is roughly a 120,000 strong, the Qods division which acts like a specialized unit meant for foreign operations which is 5,000 strong, and the Basij which is controlled by the Guards is like a huge para-military force can get up to 300,000 men during wartime.

 

In the Iran-Iraq war the first suicide bombing ever was allegedly done by a teenage Guards conscript against an Iraqi T-62. The legend goes that the destroyed tank stalled the the enemy tank column long enough for the regular army's tank divisions to dig in.

 

So the idea of Iran having 40,000 suicide bombers isn't an impossibility or exageration, it could easily delegate that many (or more) between the Padrasan, Qods, and the Basij. Considering the disrepair in Iran's conventional military you could even see some proffesional soldiers be used as suicide bombers.

 

If a powerful conventional army invaded Iran their best military option would be a heavy use of suicide bombers, after the use of thier relatively robust missle defences and maybe a massive privateering campaign in the Persian Gulf.

U.S doesn not have 2,300,000 enlisted personel. What a lie!

U.S doesn not have 2,300,000 enlisted personel. What a lie!

 

 

It says it in World Book 2005. The U.S. has 2.3 million enlisted soldiers, but only 1.4 million are active duty. The bulk that makes up the difference is the National Guard.

 

In a war with Iran we and the Coalition would dominate them. The scariest thing is the 40,000 suicide bombers claim, what even makes it scarier is the fact that Iran sponsers Hezbellah and Hamas, which makes the claim beleivable. If we attacked Iran, and they set Suicide bombers off in the U.S. it would hurt them more then it would hurt us. It would create the 9|11, United We Stand, phase again when we would band together and want retaliation against the enemy, which would make us fight harder.

U.S doesn not have 2,300,000 enlisted personel. What a lie!

 

 

It says it in World Book 2005. The U.S. has 2.3 million enlisted soldiers, but only 1.4 million are active duty. The bulk that makes up the difference is the National Guard.

 

In a war with Iran we and the Coalition would dominate them. The scariest thing is the 40,000 suicide bombers claim, what even makes it scarier is the fact that Iran sponsers Hezbellah and Hamas, which makes the claim beleivable. If we attacked Iran, and they set Suicide bombers off in the U.S. it would hurt them more then it would hurt us. It would create the 9|11, United We Stand, phase again when we would band together and want retaliation against the enemy, which would make us fight harder.

 

 

I don't think Iran would do anything outside of the Middle Eastern theatre maybe with the Qods units, to be honest. Though they would probably try to entice Israel into entering the war and with that you would probably see the Arab monarchies withdraw thier support of the U.S. and jack up oil prices into the stratusphere. Iran isn't stupid they wouldn't do things to galvanize the American people into backing the war, I think they would seek to divide American opinion, taking notes out of bin Laden's strategy.

 

The Khatami-Rasanjani reformist movement still has a strong foothold in Iran's youth and I think it would be irresponsible (in my opinion, sinful) to ignore that and excercise a military option so readily. That sort of clumsy, heavy-handed foreign policy in Mid East has been the key source in lending legitmacy to movements like al-Qaida, also predictable bluster and military responses are a reason why bin Laden has outmanuevered us in the Arab street.

They now have a page for the Top 5 Air Forces.

 

Click Here to visit the page!