EU is NOT socialistic!!! Get that into your heads!

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I didnt exactly grow up "upper class", either. And "City Redneck" is pretty close to being an oxymoron.

Hmmmm... given your assumptions about me, I think I will start referring to you as a "waffle eating hippie"... its probably more accurate

see my definition of "redneck"

and I prefer "waffle eating BEER drinking hippie" :beer:

And just because you think it is defined so doesnt make it so defined.

Hmmmm... thinking it over, I think I will call you "waffle eating, unilaterist hippie", since "unilaterist" appears to be a bigger insult in Europe than "Motherf***er"

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding?

Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.

A policy can have the effect of wealth redistribution and not be socialistic. Is this a concept that you cannot grasp?

Absolutely not. Any type of forced wealth redistribution is a form of socialism. There is nothing to grasp here, except your inability to admit you were wrong.

So under you made up definition of socialism public education is a form of socialism. The US would also be a country under socialism just like many EU countries.

 

[Corn]

So under you made up definition of socialism public education is a form of socialism.

You're damn right it is!!

 

[Dudd]

So under you made up definition of socialism public education is a form of socialism.

Now you are starting to get it. The US has many socialist policies. Welfare, food stamps, public education as you mentioned, all of these are socialistic policies. What we are saying is that the EU in general is more socialistic than the US. Economic systems do not come in strict forms, but in varying shades of gray.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

please, tell me what external issues Belgium has to worry about? Are the sea people planning on invading your innocent country? Or maybe it's the aliens from out of space. Perhaps the french plan on invading. What external issues, apart from immigration, keeps you up at night?

we were talking about external issues concerning Europe and now you are narrowing it down to Belgium, nice logic dude

you are already excluding an important issue (immigration) and you must be a real expert if you think that we have no "external issues". Like everyone in these bad economic times I want to keep my job so the economy is an imporant issue over here (and yes, we do have trade with "external" countries). We are still heavily involved in our former colony (Congo - former Zaire, but hey, an "expert" like you probably knew that). Every 5-7 year or so we have to drop 2000 paratroopers into Congo to save some European and (American) butt. And did I mentioned the Belgian soldiers in Afghanistan and Kosovo?

Do I need to go on??

Yes, you must be the smartest person on this planet if you say that we don't have "external issues". You are a real PRO.

Saving a bunch of dumb adventurers from angry natives, real problems there. I bet if you guys weren't exploiting those Africans for all there minerals, then you wouldn't give two squirts of piss what happened in the jungle. And having a couple of peacekeepers in Afghanistan and Kosovo must be at the height of your priority list. Aside from immigration, which I mentioned, you belgians (and to a larger extent, Europeans), rely on us when you have real external issues. So don't go complaining about issues that a real good map of africa or a border police can't fix.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding?

Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.

A policy can have the effect of wealth redistribution and not be socialistic. Is this a concept that you cannot grasp?

Absolutely not. Any type of forced wealth redistribution is a form of socialism. There is nothing to grasp here, except your inability to admit you were wrong.

So under you made up definition of socialism public education is a form of socialism. The US would also be a country under socialism just like many EU countries.

"Made up?" Jay, it gets sadder with every post. Wealth redistribution IS a form of socialism, Jay. You know it's true, but refuse to admit it. Why?

At any rate, yes, public education IS a form of socialism, just as welfare, food stamps, public transportation and a whole host of other wealth redistribution scams are. And that is the point: Most european countries redistribute MORE money through programs like this than we do, making them more socialistic than we are.

 

[freegeeks]

Saving a bunch of dumb adventurers from angry natives, real problems there. I bet if you guys weren't exploiting those Africans for all there minerals, then you wouldn't give two squirts of piss what happened in the jungle. And having a couple of peacekeepers in Afghanistan and Kosovo must be at the height of your priority list. Aside from immigration, which I mentioned, you belgians (and to a larger extent, Europeans), rely on us when you have real external issues. So don't go complaining about issues that a real good map of africa or a border police can't fix.

************ CONFIRMED *******************

Gosh, for a minute I was thinking you were pretending, but I was wrong -- YOU are REALLY STUPID

I gave you some of our external issues, and that is the best answer you can give???
Do yourself a favor and stop posting because you look like a moron

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So under you made up definition of socialism public education is a form of socialism. The US would also be a country under socialism just like many EU countries.

no one (except for snapit who maintains that we're fascists) disputes that.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding?

Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.

A policy can have the effect of wealth redistribution and not be socialistic. Is this a concept that you cannot grasp?

Absolutely not. Any type of forced wealth redistribution is a form of socialism. There is nothing to grasp here, except your inability to admit you were wrong.

So under you made up definition of socialism public education is a form of socialism. The US would also be a country under socialism just like many EU countries.

"Made up?" Jay, it gets sadder with every post. Wealth redistribution IS a form of socialism, Jay. You know it's true, but refuse to admit it. Why?

At any rate, yes, public education IS a form of socialism, just as welfare, food stamps, public transportation and a whole host of other wealth redistribution scams are. And that is the point: Most european countries redistribute MORE money through programs like this than we do, making them more socialistic than we are.

Pierre-
In characterizing the economy of say, Sweden, what is a more accurate description?
A. Sweden has a democratic socialist welfare state (as you labeled EU countries earlier).
B. Sweden has a market based economy with a Keynesian welfare government system.
What's your answer, Rod?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Dari
I've been to Europe (UK, Paris, Vienna, and Bacelona) and boy are most men (on continental Europe) over there borderline gay. It's sad to see what an absence of military culture can do to them. The guys wear tights. They wear those french hats and put on lipsticks. They walk as if they had high-heels on. Whenever they stretch out their hand, the wrist is always flabby. And they gossip. But the worse thing was waiting. I remember going to this coffee shop in Vienna with my gf. After about 5 minutes I asked for our check. The waiter to nearly half an hour to return. I'm a new yorker and waiting half an hour for anything is an eternity. If it wasn't for my gf, I would've left that hole in the wall. In Paris, the guys are always spitting in the street, being careful not to ruin their lipsticks.

Europe is too feminine for me. It is in serious need of a wake-up call.

You make some good points. But then you sometimes follow them up with some cr*p comment like that. Either you are very unaware of what goes on around you, or you're so tied up in your preconceptions that you only see what you want to see.

How many posts have you ever put out that contained negative comments about the French, or some derrogatory remark about citzens of countries in the EU (I've lost count)? What is it exactly you have against Europe? Was there some incident that has particularly twisted you in this way? Maybe it's not everyone else who has a problem - maybe it's you?

I think its time you started being an "apologist" and stopped spreading such rubbish.

Andy "It takes a lot to make me mad"

ps In response to your astute observation that continental european men are "borderline gay" because of the "absence of military culture" (whatever that means) - in the UK we haven't had national service in many years - so I guess we're all homosexual because of that too?

 

[freegeeks]

You make some good points. But then you sometimes follow them up with some cr*p comment like that. Either you are very unaware of what goes on around you, or you're so tied up in your preconceptions that you only see what you want to see.

How many posts have you ever put out that contained negative comments about the French, or some derrogatory remark about citzens of countries in the EU (I've lost count)? What is it exactly you have against Europe? Was there some incident that has particularly twisted you in this way? Maybe it's not everyone else who has a problem - maybe it's you?

I think its time you started being an "apologist" and stopped spreading such rubbish.

Andy "It takes a lot to make me mad"

ps In response to your astute observation that continental european men are "borderline gay" because of the "absence of military culture" (whatever that means) - in the UK we haven't had national service in many years - so I guess we're all homosexual because of that too?

Fencer128

Dari is just a homophobic eurobasher.
He regularly starts threads with one purpose -- bashing europe and especially france.

The guy is just garbage, nothing more. Look to his posts about "external issues" in this thread. The dude even claims he some kind of "expert" in foreign affairs.

With his "europe is gay" post he has shown his real face. He's disgusting.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

You make some good points. But then you sometimes follow them up with some cr*p comment like that. Either you are very unaware of what goes on around you, or you're so tied up in your preconceptions that you only see what you want to see.

How many posts have you ever put out that contained negative comments about the French, or some derrogatory remark about citzens of countries in the EU (I've lost count)? What is it exactly you have against Europe? Was there some incident that has particularly twisted you in this way? Maybe it's not everyone else who has a problem - maybe it's you?

I think its time you started being an "apologist" and stopped spreading such rubbish.

Andy "It takes a lot to make me mad"

ps In response to your astute observation that continental european men are "borderline gay" because of the "absence of military culture" (whatever that means) - in the UK we haven't had national service in many years - so I guess we're all homosexual because of that too?

Fencer128

Dari is just a homophobic eurobasher.
He regularly starts threads with one purpose -- bashing europe and especially france.

The guy is just garbage, nothing more. Look to his posts about "external issues" in this thread. The dude even claims he some kind of "expert" in foreign affairs.

With his "europe is gay" post he has shown his real face. He's disgusting.

One other thing. The girls in Europe are easy, too. And as for external, the EU has little to worry about except trade, immigration, and low-level terrorist (such as the Basque or IRA). The Category-A terrorists use all of Europe, especially Germany and the UK as a redoubt for their diabolical attacks on the United States and her interests.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding?

Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.

A policy can have the effect of wealth redistribution and not be socialistic. Is this a concept that you cannot grasp?

Absolutely not. Any type of forced wealth redistribution is a form of socialism. There is nothing to grasp here, except your inability to admit you were wrong.

So under you made up definition of socialism public education is a form of socialism. The US would also be a country under socialism just like many EU countries.

"Made up?" Jay, it gets sadder with every post. Wealth redistribution IS a form of socialism, Jay. You know it's true, but refuse to admit it. Why?

At any rate, yes, public education IS a form of socialism, just as welfare, food stamps, public transportation and a whole host of other wealth redistribution scams are. And that is the point: Most european countries redistribute MORE money through programs like this than we do, making them more socialistic than we are.

Pierre-
In characterizing the economy of say, Sweden, what is a more accurate description?
A. Sweden has a democratic socialist welfare state (as you labeled EU countries earlier).
B. Sweden has a market based economy with a Keynesian welfare government system.
What's your answer, Rod?

If you do not mind, i will answer that one with a combination of your two answers as you did not include democracy in your second choice, Sweden is a democratic country with a market based economy, even more so that most european countries, or canada for that matter because in Sweden, you have a right to private schooling if you want to, there are private hospitals too...

Most americans are oblivious to the fact that most of europe is as capitalistic as the US because of our higher taxes... Canada is way more socialistic if you want a comparison....

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: freegeeks

You make some good points. But then you sometimes follow them up with some cr*p comment like that. Either you are very unaware of what goes on around you, or you're so tied up in your preconceptions that you only see what you want to see.

How many posts have you ever put out that contained negative comments about the French, or some derrogatory remark about citzens of countries in the EU (I've lost count)? What is it exactly you have against Europe? Was there some incident that has particularly twisted you in this way? Maybe it's not everyone else who has a problem - maybe it's you?

I think its time you started being an "apologist" and stopped spreading such rubbish.

Andy "It takes a lot to make me mad"

ps In response to your astute observation that continental european men are "borderline gay" because of the "absence of military culture" (whatever that means) - in the UK we haven't had national service in many years - so I guess we're all homosexual because of that too?

Fencer128

Dari is just a homophobic eurobasher.
He regularly starts threads with one purpose -- bashing europe and especially france.

The guy is just garbage, nothing more. Look to his posts about "external issues" in this thread. The dude even claims he some kind of "expert" in foreign affairs.

With his "europe is gay" post he has shown his real face. He's disgusting.

One other thing. The girls in Europe are easy, too. And as for external, the EU has little to worry about except trade, immigration, and low-level terrorist (such as the Basque or IRA). The Category-A terrorists use all of Europe, especially Germany and the UK as a redoubt for their diabolical attacks on the United States and her interests.

The girls in europe are easy???? man, are you stupid or just dumb, i have lived in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Italy and California and let me tell you one thing, US girls are not easy, but they are a helluvalot easier than eurpoean girls... THAT is a fact... the rest of your post is laughable at best... please tell me you were just kidding... please... please... no one can be THAT dumb...

 

[Zebo]

snapiT,

You are correct. In fact Socialism has never existed. And it's not a social contract but an economic and governmental system. Former USSR tried but they missed the key ingredient 'democracy' which socialism is integral to. USSR was a totalitarian dictarorship with state owned industry.

In political science terms, under socialism, yes the state owns all, but the workers elect thier supervisors for those state owned plants/factories (not the other way around as under captitalism), and thier representatives. Democracy is the key. The majority says the who/how/where resources and labor are allocated


It's a slight to call Libs socialists just like calling Repubs facists. Liberals and conservatives generally share the same political principles, differing only on their degree. Both believe in private ownership, the devils in the details you commie.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: freegeeks

You make some good points. But then you sometimes follow them up with some cr*p comment like that. Either you are very unaware of what goes on around you, or you're so tied up in your preconceptions that you only see what you want to see.

How many posts have you ever put out that contained negative comments about the French, or some derrogatory remark about citzens of countries in the EU (I've lost count)? What is it exactly you have against Europe? Was there some incident that has particularly twisted you in this way? Maybe it's not everyone else who has a problem - maybe it's you?

I think its time you started being an "apologist" and stopped spreading such rubbish.

Andy "It takes a lot to make me mad"

ps In response to your astute observation that continental european men are "borderline gay" because of the "absence of military culture" (whatever that means) - in the UK we haven't had national service in many years - so I guess we're all homosexual because of that too?

Fencer128

Dari is just a homophobic eurobasher.
He regularly starts threads with one purpose -- bashing europe and especially france.

The guy is just garbage, nothing more. Look to his posts about "external issues" in this thread. The dude even claims he some kind of "expert" in foreign affairs.

With his "europe is gay" post he has shown his real face. He's disgusting.

One other thing. The girls in Europe are easy, too. And as for external, the EU has little to worry about except trade, immigration, and low-level terrorist (such as the Basque or IRA). The Category-A terrorists use all of Europe, especially Germany and the UK as a redoubt for their diabolical attacks on the United States and her interests.

The girls in europe are easy???? man, are you stupid or just dumb, i have lived in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Italy and California and let me tell you one thing, US girls are not easy, but they are a helluvalot easier than eurpoean girls... THAT is a fact... the rest of your post is laughable at best... please tell me you were just kidding... please... please... no one can be THAT dumb...

Oh, I'm not kidding. I've never been to cali myself, but the chicks in Europe are extremely easy compared to what I've seen here. Easiest girls I've ever bagged. But don't be mad. I heard that swedish chicks are nowhere as easy as the German ones. BTW, let's not forget I'm an American travelling in Europe. Whereas you are a European travelling in Europe. Big difference. Must be my accent.

 

[Mookow]

SnapIT, would you care to comment on my post (probably the 60th in this thread) RE Sweden's armed forces and combat experience? I'm guessing you missed reading it, but I am interested in the answer

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: freegeeks

You make some good points. But then you sometimes follow them up with some cr*p comment like that. Either you are very unaware of what goes on around you, or you're so tied up in your preconceptions that you only see what you want to see.

How many posts have you ever put out that contained negative comments about the French, or some derrogatory remark about citzens of countries in the EU (I've lost count)? What is it exactly you have against Europe? Was there some incident that has particularly twisted you in this way? Maybe it's not everyone else who has a problem - maybe it's you?

I think its time you started being an "apologist" and stopped spreading such rubbish.

Andy "It takes a lot to make me mad"

ps In response to your astute observation that continental european men are "borderline gay" because of the "absence of military culture" (whatever that means) - in the UK we haven't had national service in many years - so I guess we're all homosexual because of that too?

Fencer128

Dari is just a homophobic eurobasher.
He regularly starts threads with one purpose -- bashing europe and especially france.

The guy is just garbage, nothing more. Look to his posts about "external issues" in this thread. The dude even claims he some kind of "expert" in foreign affairs.

With his "europe is gay" post he has shown his real face. He's disgusting.

One other thing. The girls in Europe are easy, too. And as for external, the EU has little to worry about except trade, immigration, and low-level terrorist (such as the Basque or IRA). The Category-A terrorists use all of Europe, especially Germany and the UK as a redoubt for their diabolical attacks on the United States and her interests.

The girls in europe are easy???? man, are you stupid or just dumb, i have lived in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Italy and California and let me tell you one thing, US girls are not easy, but they are a helluvalot easier than eurpoean girls... THAT is a fact... the rest of your post is laughable at best... please tell me you were just kidding... please... please... no one can be THAT dumb...

Oh, I'm not kidding. I've never been to cali myself, but the chicks in Europe are extremely easy compared to what I've seen here. Easiest girls I've ever bagged. But don't be mad. I heard that swedish chicks are nowhere as easy as the German ones. BTW, let's not forget I'm an American travelling in Europe. Whereas you are a European travelling in Europe. Big difference. Must be my accent.

I doubt you ever could score in Europe, european girls don't go for dumbasses...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: SnapIT
If SweForce would meet your marines... heh... well... if they would meet delta force... they would be properly matched, then imgagine a force within SweForce calles the Extras...

It's simple to have an opinion when you don't know anything, isnt't it...

Being Swedish, how much combat experience does the average member of either of those units have? Delta operations only come to public attention when they go bad, such as that little fracas in Mogodishu. Comparing Marines to a SpecOps force is rather stupid, they have entirely different missions. I somehow doubt that any Swedish force can storm a beach with the efficiency of a MEU.

If you want to talk about the Marines and special operations, then you need to start talking about Recon Marines. And Recon Marines, as denoted by the name, generally are sent in for recon. I've met a few ex-Recon guys, and they have stories about not being allowed to bring anything more than a pistol with them on missions, due to restrictions on the mission imposed by the State Dept (they also have fantasies of dragging the same State Dept. officials out of their cars and beating them, but thats a whole other story). This was through terrain that I wouldnt be going into without at least a 375 Mag to deal with the wildlife. All that isnt to say that Recon doesnt go into any combat missions, I know a guy who was working for a certain Company in South America who got saved by a few Recon marines right as he was being stood up against the proverbial wall.

Anyways, I realize I started to ramble along there, so to sum it up:
-compare apples to apples
-combat experience helps quite a bit, and I cannot think of a recent example of Swedish forces getting into a combat situation

Usually, "kustjägarnas" (the name of the swedish special forces that i am a part of) missions are never known, as you said, only if something has gone wrong something is known, this was the case in one mission in lebanon during the early 90's and the Sarajevo incident, which was more of an information mistake...

[edit] my tag does indeed say recon... i am going to take a pic of me in the shirt with the tag if you need proof...

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Usually, "kustjägarnas" (the name of the swedish special forces that i am a part of) missions are never known, as you said, only if something has gone wrong something is known, this was the case in one mission in lebanon during the early 90's and the Sarajevo incident, which was more of an information mistake...

My point basically runs like this...

-any given country can, if it wants, buy top of the line small arms equipment for a small S.F. team
-any country can select from its population motivated people to work in such a team
-Not all countries will have the support units for such a force (ie submarines, choppers, logistical bases, AC-130's , heavy bombers), but generally such things can be worked around, with some degree of impact on the mission effectiveness of the unit.

Now, what generally sets them apart? Training and experience. Training is useful. Obviously. We can all agree that those who train better are better prepared. However, how do you design a better training program? You have to draw off experience in combat to better prepare the next generation for the experience of combat. You train often, and as realistically as possible. For this discussion, I'm going to lump things like doctrine into training, just to keep it in the scope of the discussion.

Acquiring combat experience is a pretty easy thing to do... if you live through it. And I dont think there is a debate that combat experience is going to help a unit the next time it is in combat. I dont have any facts to back it up, but I would say the USA does a few more black ops per year than Sweden. Thus, it has a more experienced set of operatives, which helps in both combat, and in training, since a cadre of operators that have been in the sh!t will be able to provide more realistic training.

In other words, I have a sneaking suspicion that your unit is not quite up to Delta's level.

*much of the above is based off long, occasionally drunken, conversations I have had with the guy mentioned in my first post on the subject. While I do not know entirely what he did after leaving offical US service, I do know he spent four years in Vietnam prior to leaving the armed services. And he wasn't serving in Al Gore's unit, either.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Usually, "kustjägarnas" (the name of the swedish special forces that i am a part of) missions are never known, as you said, only if something has gone wrong something is known, this was the case in one mission in lebanon during the early 90's and the Sarajevo incident, which was more of an information mistake...

My point basically runs like this...

-any given country can, if it wants, buy top of the line small arms equipment for a small S.F. team
-any country can select from its population motivated people to work in such a team
-Not all countries will have the support units for such a force (ie submarines, choppers, logistical bases, AC-130's , heavy bombers), but generally such things can be worked around, with some degree of impact on the mission effectiveness of the unit.

Now, what generally sets them apart? Training and experience. Training is useful. Obviously. We can all agree that those who train better are better prepared. However, how do you design a better training program? You have to draw off experience in combat to better prepare the next generation for the experience of combat. You train often, and as realistically as possible. For this discussion, I'm going to lump things like doctrine into training, just to keep it in the scope of the discussion.

Acquiring combat experience is a pretty easy thing to do... if you live through it. And I dont think there is a debate that combat experience is going to help a unit the next time it is in combat. I dont have any facts to back it up, but I would say the USA does a few more black ops per year than Sweden. Thus, it has a more experienced set of operatives, which helps in both combat, and in training, since a cadre of operators that have been in the sh!t will be able to provide more realistic training.

In other words, I have a sneaking suspicion that your unit is not quite up to Delta's level.

*much of the above is based off long, occasionally drunken, conversations I have had with the guy mentioned in my first post on the subject. While I do not know entirely what he did after leaving offical US service, I do know he spent four years in Vietnam prior to leaving the armed services. And he wasn't serving in Al Gore's unit, either.

Through tens of years of experience, some of those in combat experience, i can safely say that you are wrong... most of the us troops are in need of education when they are training with the Sweforce...

We were trained to take on the Soviet troops originally, you think that the Spetsnaz were tough? well we had to be trained to be tougher, we have trained like the best of the best, in a climat that was unhumane, we have all gone over 40 miles with a 85 pound packing, through snow packed terrain, through mud, over ups and downs, food supplies? no, nothing, we had to supply ourselves with food, and we did...

The training is cruel, and only 5% of those trying get through it, do not take us who do for anything less than we are... We are the best of the best...

 

[freegeeks]

Through tens of years of experience, some of those in combat experience, i can safely say that you are wrong... most of the us troops are in need of education when they are training with the Sweforce...

We were trained to take on the Soviet troops originally, you think that the Spetsnaz were tough? well we had to be trained to be tougher, we have trained like the best of the best, in a climat that was unhumane, we have all gone over 40 miles with a 85 pound packing, through snow packed terrain, through mud, over ups and downs, food supplies? no, nothing, we had to supply ourselves with food, and we did...

The training is cruel, and only 5% of those trying get through it, do not take us who do for anything less than we are... We are the best of the best...

My d*ck is bigger then yours -- na nananananan

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Through tens of years of experience, some of those in combat experience, i can safely say that you are wrong... most of the us troops are in need of education when they are training with the Sweforce...

We were trained to take on the Soviet troops originally, you think that the Spetsnaz were tough? well we had to be trained to be tougher, we have trained like the best of the best, in a climat that was unhumane, we have all gone over 40 miles with a 85 pound packing, through snow packed terrain, through mud, over ups and downs, food supplies? no, nothing, we had to supply ourselves with food, and we did...

The training is cruel, and only 5% of those trying get through it, do not take us who do for anything less than we are... We are the best of the best...

Probably. However, most US servicemen are not members of Delta. That is the part that I am taking exception to... not the average US Army member who might be enlisted for as little as two years

 

[Fencer128]

One other thing. The girls in Europe are easy, too. And as for external, the EU has little to worry about except trade, immigration, and low-level terrorist (such as the Basque or IRA). The Category-A terrorists use all of Europe, especially Germany and the UK as a redoubt for their diabolical attacks on the United States and her interests.

Are you trolling? "low-level terrorist" threats? How does this this differ from the US situation (trade, terrorism, immigration)? From what I know of Europe - I don't see how you could reach such conclusions about its people and culture.

Andy

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Usually, "kustjägarnas" (the name of the swedish special forces that i am a part of) missions are never known, as you said, only if something has gone wrong something is known, this was the case in one mission in lebanon during the early 90's and the Sarajevo incident, which was more of an information mistake...

My point basically runs like this...

-any given country can, if it wants, buy top of the line small arms equipment for a small S.F. team
-any country can select from its population motivated people to work in such a team
-Not all countries will have the support units for such a force (ie submarines, choppers, logistical bases, AC-130's , heavy bombers), but generally such things can be worked around, with some degree of impact on the mission effectiveness of the unit.

Now, what generally sets them apart? Training and experience. Training is useful. Obviously. We can all agree that those who train better are better prepared. However, how do you design a better training program? You have to draw off experience in combat to better prepare the next generation for the experience of combat. You train often, and as realistically as possible. For this discussion, I'm going to lump things like doctrine into training, just to keep it in the scope of the discussion.

Acquiring combat experience is a pretty easy thing to do... if you live through it. And I dont think there is a debate that combat experience is going to help a unit the next time it is in combat. I dont have any facts to back it up, but I would say the USA does a few more black ops per year than Sweden. Thus, it has a more experienced set of operatives, which helps in both combat, and in training, since a cadre of operators that have been in the sh!t will be able to provide more realistic training.

In other words, I have a sneaking suspicion that your unit is not quite up to Delta's level.

*much of the above is based off long, occasionally drunken, conversations I have had with the guy mentioned in my first post on the subject. While I do not know entirely what he did after leaving offical US service, I do know he spent four years in Vietnam prior to leaving the armed services. And he wasn't serving in Al Gore's unit, either.

Through tens of years of experience, some of those in combat experience, i can safely say that you are wrong... most of the us troops are in need of education when they are training with the Sweforce...

We were trained to take on the Soviet troops originally, you think that the Spetsnaz were tough? well we had to be trained to be tougher, we have trained like the best of the best, in a climat that was unhumane, we have all gone over 40 miles with a 85 pound packing, through snow packed terrain, through mud, over ups and downs, food supplies? no, nothing, we had to supply ourselves with food, and we did...

The training is cruel, and only 5% of those trying get through it, do not take us who do for anything less than we are... We are the best of the best...

To think Dari called you a "euro wimp". LOL