Whatever......NZ does contribute to global conflicts, and, perhaps more importantly, NZ forces don't shoot their own, or their allies.

I'm sure that they are honorable soldiers, but the truth is that they play a minor role and there are not enough of them in one conflict to get confused and make such mistakes.

Whatever......NZ does contribute to global conflicts, and, perhaps more importantly, NZ forces don't shoot their own, or their allies.

I'm sure that they are honorable soldiers, but the truth is that they play a minor role and there are not enough of them in one conflict to get confused and make such mistakes.

Wow!!! That is perhaps the weakest excuse for death by friendly fire.

What you're suggesting is that US troops get confused because there are more of them.

Again, as in the other thread, I don't follow your logic.

BTW, do you think that ANY person armed by authorities with a weapon should be the kind of person that "gets confused"?

Have you ever heard of the fog of war? It is very easy to get confused in combat with explosions and shots being fired everywhere and the more troops and weapons there are, the more confusing it gets. America has one of the best armies in the world, but with so many troops, things are bound to screw up sometimes.

Have you ever heard of the fog of war? It is very easy to get confused in combat with explosions and shots being fired everywhere and the more troops and weapons there are, the more confusing it gets. America has one of the best armies in the world, but with so many troops, things are bound to screw up sometimes.

America has the best equipped army in the world. That does not neccessarily equate to the best army.

I said one of the best and that is not disputed by anyone who knows anything about the military.

I said one of the best and that is not disputed by anyone who knows anything about the military.

Let me rephrase.

America has the best equipped army in the world. That does not neccessarily equate to one of the best armies.

It really does not really matter how you phrase it, the truth is that America DOES have one of the best armies in the world.

I said one of the best and that is not disputed by anyone who knows anything about the military.

Let me rephrase.

America has the best equipped army in the world. That does not neccessarily equate to one of the best armies.

No it would not. However, the fact is that the U.S. does in fact have not only the best army, but the best soldiers in all branches of the armed forces in the world.

Perhaps it could be because of the many conflicts their government creates is involved in?

Just asking, don't get so sensitive here.

Maybe it's because everyone wants the US to act as the world's policeman until it affects them negatively in some manner.

Interesting , why do you think that we like the US to act as a global police kind of force?

Interesting , why do you think that we like the US to act as a global police kind of force?

Because deep down you prefer it to a Russian or Chinese one - which is what you would get.

Whatever......NZ does contribute to global conflicts, and, perhaps more importantly, NZ forces don't shoot their own, or their allies.

I'm sure that they are honorable soldiers, but the truth is that they play a minor role and there are not enough of them in one conflict to get confused and make such mistakes.

Wow!!! That is perhaps the weakest excuse for death by friendly fire.

What you're suggesting is that US troops get confused because there are more of them.

Again, as in the other thread, I don't follow your logic.

I think what he might be trying to say is that when you have 100,000+ troops on the ground and hundreds or thousands of air sorties each week there are bound to be some errors resulting in friendly fire. Whereas if you have zero aircraft and 100 soldiers serving in the back someplace safer there is less chance to hit anyone with any fire, friendly or otherwise.

Most people realize that the US is the only benevolent country that is strong enough to stand up to rogue nations.

Perhaps it could be because of the many conflicts their government creates is involved in?

Just asking, don't get so sensitive here.

Well, experience is a big part of it. Nine years ago we had few troops with actual combat experience. Today, no other army even comes close. How many countries' armies would you have to combine to equal the number active duty combat veterans? Air power - other than the UK, no one else even fights in the air. The Navy? The US has no competition. No other country has a super carrier and the US has maybe a dozen. Most if not all have seen action. How many countries have their own security backed by the USA? Dozens. Sure, other countries have some very good special forces. But armies are made up of more than 4 guys sneaking around.

Whatever......NZ does contribute to global conflicts, and, perhaps more importantly, NZ forces don't shoot their own, or their allies.

I'm sure that they are honorable soldiers, but the truth is that they play a minor role and there are not enough of them in one conflict to get confused and make such mistakes.

Wow!!! That is perhaps the weakest excuse for death by friendly fire.

What you're suggesting is that US troops get confused because there are more of them.

Again, as in the other thread, I don't follow your logic.

I think what he might be trying to say is that when you have 100,000+ troops on the ground and hundreds or thousands of air sorties each week there are bound to be some errors resulting in friendly fire. Whereas if you have zero aircraft and 100 soldiers serving in the back someplace safer there is less chance to hit anyone with any fire, friendly or otherwise.

That is exactly it.

Maybe it's because everyone wants the US to act as the world's policeman until it affects them negatively in some manner.

Well yeah, of course.

You've hit it on the head. Nobody likes their local sherrif to be corrupt and bullying. Nobody likes to be hit with his truncheon accidentally. Nobody has respect for the local copper who lets the neighbourhood rascal get away with it time and time again. Most decent people would prefer the crims faced legitimate justice, not over-the-top illegal beatings. Cops that play favourites, that are corrupt, that have poor aim, that use a cannon to shoot a pickpocket when simple handcuffs would have sufficed, are not popular cops....nor good.

At least you concede that the US, as self-appointed policeman, affects the world negatively.

Maybe it's because everyone wants the US to act as the world's policeman until it affects them negatively in some manner.

Well yeah, of course.

You've hit it on the head. Nobody likes their local sherrif to be corrupt and bullying. Nobody likes to be hit with his truncheon accidentally. Nobody has respect for the local copper who lets the neighbourhood rascal get away with it time and time again. Most decent people would prefer the crims faced legitimate justice, not over-the-top illegal beatings. Cops that play favourites, that are corrupt, that have poor aim, that use a cannon to shoot a pickpocket when simple handcuffs would have sufficed, are not popular cops....nor good.

At least you concede that the US, as self-appointed policeman, affects the world negatively.

And nobody likes to party with friends, have a good time, have a drink or two and get pulled over by a cop.

But they want them to stop the drunk who runs over and kills their loved one.

Nobody likes to get high on the beach and have a cop come by and ruin the party.

But they want them to stop the pushers selling drugs to kids.

Nobody likes flying down the road trying to get to work on time and have a cop stop them for speeding.

But they want them to stop that other idiot speeding by them almost causing an accident.

Nobody likes to have their orange taken away by customs at the border.

But they don't want some foreign insect from destroying their own citrus industry.

Maybe it's because everyone wants the US to act as the world's policeman until it affects them negatively in some manner.

Well yeah, of course.

You've hit it on the head. Nobody likes their local sherrif to be corrupt and bullying. Nobody likes to be hit with his truncheon accidentally. Nobody has respect for the local copper who lets the neighbourhood rascal get away with it time and time again. Most decent people would prefer the crims faced legitimate justice, not over-the-top illegal beatings. Cops that play favourites, that are corrupt, that have poor aim, that use a cannon to shoot a pickpocket when simple handcuffs would have sufficed, are not popular cops....nor good.

At least you concede that the US, as self-appointed policeman, affects the world negatively.

And nobody likes to party with friends, have a good time, have a drink or two and get pulled over by a cop.

But they want them to stop the drunk who runs over and kills their loved one.

Nobody likes to get high on the beach and have a cop come by and ruin the party.

But they want them to stop the pushers selling drugs to kids.

Nobody likes flying down the road trying to get to work on time and have a cop stop them for speeding.

But they want them to stop that other idiot speeding by them almost causing an accident.

Nobody likes to have their orange taken away by customs at the border.

But they don't want some foreign insect from destroying their own citrus industry.

I agree. But nobody really minds when the cop just does his job....except perhaps the lawbreakers....and who cares what they think?

I't when the cop is corrupt, unneccesarily violent, turns a blind eye to criminals in his own family, and commits alot of collateral damage to innocent bystanders, that the public he's supposed to be protecting gets fed up with him.

Then there's the cop's wife, his domestic life; she wants him home on time, she wants him to spend time with the kids, she doesn't want him getting shot at work, and she doesn't want him spending the income on gambling.

Sometimes, especially if he's unpopular on the streets, he should go back to working at the mill and looking after his family.

We seem to be over looking one factor here.

Every empire since the dawn of man has policed it's neighbours for one reason, and one reason only.

To protect the commercial interests of it's ruling class.

Virtually all government oversea's aid is handed out for the same reason a reluctant woman is bought a few drinks. To keep her quiet while she's given a good rogering.

This has been going on since Sargon I conquered the neighbouring Sumerian states.

At least you concede that the US, as self-appointed policeman, affects the world negatively.

When you constantly twist words to suit your agenda, it points out to anyone who can read that anything that you say is not to be taken seriously.

We seem to be over looking one factor here.

Every empire since the dawn of man has policed it's neighbours for one reason, and one reason only.

To protect the commercial interests of it's ruling class.

Virtually all government oversea's aid is handed out for the same reason a reluctant woman is bought a few drinks. To keep her quiet while she's given a good rogering.

This has been going on since Sargon I conquered the neighbouring Sumerian states.

What you are saying is that no human being does anything except out of self interest and they will lie, steal, cheat and manipulate in order to promote their own agenda. Possibly you are right, but that includes you and I and all the so-called 'liberals" as well. Apparently, you feel that no one is too be trusted. They all have their own scam going.

We seem to be over looking one factor here.

Every empire since the dawn of man has policed it's neighbours for one reason, and one reason only.

To protect the commercial interests of it's ruling class.

Virtually all government oversea's aid is handed out for the same reason a reluctant woman is bought a few drinks. To keep her quiet while she's given a good rogering.

This has been going on since Sargon I conquered the neighbouring Sumerian states.

Times have changed. In the past, over 90% of the population were basically serfs and had very little. They didn't see the benefits of the "policing". Today a much, much, much larger percentage of the population has a stake in these "commercial interests" not just the "ruling class". At least this is true in the country doing most of the policing.

We seem to be over looking one factor here.

Every empire since the dawn of man has policed it's neighbours for one reason, and one reason only.

To protect the commercial interests of it's ruling class.

Virtually all government oversea's aid is handed out for the same reason a reluctant woman is bought a few drinks. To keep her quiet while she's given a good rogering.

This has been going on since Sargon I conquered the neighbouring Sumerian states.

What you are saying is that no human being does anything except out of self interest and they will lie, steal, cheat and manipulate in order to promote their own agenda. Possibly you are right, but that includes you and I and all the so-called 'liberals" as well. Apparently, you feel that no one is too be trusted. They all have their own scam going.

So look me in the eye General, place your hand on your countries flag and swear to me you never plied a reluctant woman with liquor with the intentions of giving her a good rogering!

I'm afraid I do tend to be overly cynical in regard to the motives of both people and countries. Once again, I read history.

Err...with the exception of those delightful young ladies working in the bars of Thailand, I've never doubted I'm a hansum man.

place your hand on your countries flag and swear to me you never plied a reluctant woman with liquor with the intentions of giving her a good rogering!

I certainly have plenty of experience with reluctant women and liquor is most helpful in this regard. However, I have found that a few qualudes really help them to appreciate my good looks.

That's all fine and dandy Koheesti, but why the need for such a big and expensive defense apparatus?

Think about WW2, the US was supporting Russia during the war and after it was finished suddenly they became sort of enemies right?

Why?

The US and many other countries (corporations) supported Germany before the war and perhaps even during.

Which companies profit from all those wars/conflicts?

Same for Afghanistan and Iraq, who profits from those wars?

Do you ever ask yourself that question or do you choose to remain ignorant?

Aliens from space are behind all of it!

So, would that be the aliens from the galaxy to the far right of planet Earth?

That's all fine and dandy Koheesti, but why the need for such a big and expensive defense apparatus?

1. creates jobs

2. makes a great deterrent. As I have read here often, the rest of the world hates the US so we need the big guns and plenty of them.

Think about WW2, the US was supporting Russia during the war and after it was finished suddenly they became sort of enemies right?

Why?

Only someone ignorant of history would ask this question. Sorry, I'm not going to waste the bandwidth on this one. You'll have to read for yourself - but you may want to skip the Italian Communist sources.

The US and many other countries (corporations) supported Germany before the war and perhaps even during.

Which companies profit from all those wars/conflicts?

Same for Afghanistan and Iraq, who profits from those wars?

Do you ever ask yourself that question or do you choose to remain ignorant?

Plenty of people profit by it, not just old white men sitting in board rooms. With the high percentage of people invested in the stock market nowadays, many are profiting from it and don't even know it. I wonder how much you yourself have made from it?

That's all fine and dandy Koheesti, but why the need for such a big and expensive defense apparatus?

1. creates jobs

Correct but a recent study of Proffesor Stiglitz shows that more jobs would have been created using the money spend on war to create domestic jobs. (Read the book: The three Trillion dollar war.

2. makes a great deterrent. As I have read here often, the rest of the world hates the US so we need the big guns and plenty of them.

What do you mean by saying the world hates the US. People around the world do not like what your government is doing. It does not mean people do not like Americans. Look at Iran for example.

Think about WW2, the US was supporting Russia during the war and after it was finished suddenly they became sort of enemies right?

Why?

Only someone ignorant of history would ask this question. Sorry, I'm not going to waste the bandwidth on this one. You'll have to read for yourself - but you may want to skip the Italian Communist sources.

You really have no idea right? or have you? I think your idea is that communist where a threat to the US while dividing countries after WW2.

The US and many other countries (corporations) supported Germany before the war and perhaps even during.

Which companies profit from all those wars/conflicts?

Same for Afghanistan and Iraq, who profits from those wars?

Do you ever ask yourself that question or do you choose to remain ignorant?

Plenty of people profit by it, not just old white men sitting in board rooms. With the high percentage of people invested in the stock market nowadays, many are profiting from it and don't even know it. I wonder how much you yourself have made from it?

Again you are ignoring my question. Have you investigated which companies directly profit from those wars?

Do you agree that wars are made for profit?

Alex