further to the cameraman thing. 

 

it wasn't a case of neanderthal americans as the girls were randomly trying to interview people coming and going from the polling place.  it was just that the canadian tourists took the time to answer the girl's questions patiently and in much more detail than the voters did.  then when the girls asked who they were going to vote for it was rather amusing when they said oh no we can't vote we're canadians.

Americans and the US government critisizing Canada? As I said, critisizing Americans is a favorite past time of Canadians (and most of the world), but this is a natural thing to do for Canadians, as they live right next to us, and they do suffer from the consequences of the "my way or the highway" attitude of the US sometimes. Now I will critisize Canada, when Canadians critisize me, as I am sure many people here on strategypage do. But I can honestly tell you, that we do not sit around the campfire and say "How about those damn Canadians?" Now I am no psychologist, but we have a word for this; Projection. While I am sure some Americans have critisized Canada, they do not do it on the same scale as Canadians. It seems to me that the entire culture west of Quebec is a carbon copy of the states, yet Canadians define themselves by contrasting themselves to Americans. I can not really blame them, as they live next to the most powerful country in the world, and American culture is everywhere. Hell, that would get on my nerves if I were Canadian. Now I know this may sound like the typical uninformed yank comment, and that I think we are the be all end all. But that is not the point of my argument. It is a fact that Canadians border the culturally dominant US. I am not going to say your jealous, because I don't think you guys are in the least bit. Just a bit of resentment that because you live so close to the US, you cannot culturally define yourselves to the rest of the world. This results, I believe, in a sense of intellectual superiority over your neighbors to the South. By claiming you are more informed, you are contrasting yourself to Americans. As an American who has lived in both countries, I for one do not believe that Americans are intellectually superior to Canadians, and I do not believe Americans are intellectually superior and more informed than Canadians. We, as North Americans, tend to not know about the outside world, mostly due to our geographical position in the world. This is the point I am trying to make. And anecdotal stories of Canadians being interviewed about politics, and Canadians interviewing Americans and asking them why they should stop polar bear hunting in Toronto are not enough to prove the intellectuall superiority of Canadians. As I am sure if I were to take my camera up to Canada and do the same I also could have a field day. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly do not see any major cultural rift between Canadians and Americans. I don't think you could find two peoples who are as similar as Canadians and Americans.

a standard british army soldier is not better trained than a us marine, however they are better trained than standard us army soldiers. also, royal marines are better trained and more professional than us marines. i know from experience.

Well 1st off you would have to know something about US Marines to make a judgement about US Marines & if your experienced, obviously your experience hasn't taught you much.

 

Its common knowledge that Royal Marines run a more intensive Fitness program then the USMC, but unfortunately, combat isn't a push-up contest & the Intensity Baton gets handed off there.  The USMC takes mental & every other stress training related to combat to a level beyond that of the RM.

 

The USMC wants a fit Marine, but thats all in balance w/a load of other talents that Marines needs just as important none superseding the others.

 

Take Boot Camp for example.  Their BC is longer requiring higher fitness standards but not nearly as intense. 

 

Also RM's 32wk BootCamp is more like a Pipeline then just a BC; composed of BC, an infantry skills course, then insertion/extraction Unit-type training.  The USMC keeps them separate to keep the overall intensity of them high.  In the end the RM pipeline is still about 7 or 8wks longer then the USMC's b/c we save the Unit training for... wait for it... Unit Training, Blocks 1-4.

 

But you don't have to take my word for it.  I'll let the RM do the talking.  This is just one of many articles, you can find them on your own.

 

My comments are in red.

 

I think I might have said that earlier.

Training for the Royal Marines' is 32 weeks long. During that time, the drill instructors only live with the recruits for the first two weeks. After that, they go home at night and leave the recruits to themselves. In Britain, the drill instructors only teach drill. Weapons instructors and physical training instructors take care of the rest, according to Morgan.

"I think it's interesting that we are so intense, and the Royal Marines aren't, but we still achieve the same results," said Staff Sgt. Cory Gonya, Recruit Training Regiment scheduling chief, and Morgan's guide here. "I think if we added (School of Infantry) and the following school to recruit training, (American drill instructors) couldn't be as intense as we are now."

I'm sure most Brits on the forum have respect for the US Military, be they Marine or otherwise.  No matter what their initial training is the most significant part of a combatants training is the real life stuff they get in Afganistan.  If this statement is true, then the Brits and the Americans (+ Canadians, Ozzies, Dutch and all the others who actually leave the compounds every now and then) are getting pretty much the same instruction courtesy of the Taliban.

 

The real difference between militaries in my opinion is down to the political leadership.  There the US wins hands down.  The British Labour Party has always put the Armed Forces last on the agenda.  Blair and Brown have a lot to answer for.

Right, & my purpose behind responding to this post was provide information that he and most others have no Idea about.

 

The RM uses extremely demanding Physical Fitness standards as their rubric for establishing its Elite Fighting Force.  While this is a very tangible standard to go by (which is why so many ppl quickly latch on to it as the end all be all of who's more elite), the USMC believes that the Extreme should be Emphasized in another area for a more balanced approach.

 

The USMC maintains high Physical standards, yes, buts thats not the area they "extreme". 

 

Both Organizations believe in training to the Extreme, but the USMC believes the extreme should be placed on combat related Mental stresses & discipline. Thru-out Boot Camp, SOI, or in the Fleet the USMC keeps the Intensity of Mental Stresses on their Marines Extremely High.

 

This is something that is hard to express thru a post. 

 

I could tell u that thru-out training & in daily life US Marines are never allowed much comfort, are constantly push in Tactical Excellence, Aggression, Conduct, Discipline, Leadership, etc. to the Extreme but it would mean Nothing to you, its not a Tangible metric.

 

Its only when its shown thru the eyes of other Elite Units that you'll have an understanding of its Extreme nature & it becomes Tangible.

My purpose is not the Who's more Elite Game, just to show the USMC & RM take slightly different approaches in "Extreme" training to arrive at a Strong, Highly Motivated, Elite Fighting Force. 

 

But the USMC's approach of Extreme Training thru Mental Stresses is less tangible for the Avg Joe to understand then reading about a Unit that Stresses Extreme Fitness.

 

The RM uses extremely demanding Physical Fitness standards as their rubric for establishing its Elite Fighting Force.  This is a very tangible standard to go by (which is why so many ppl quickly latch on to it as the end all be all of who's more elite), the USMC believes that the Extreme should be Emphasized on another area for a more balanced approach.

 

 

This is not about tactics or who's teaching who, just that 2 Elite Units take different routes to the same location.

 

 

Well let's get back to the topic. How does quality of a US Marine compare with that of the strandard British infantry soldier? I don't know anything about the standard British Infantry soldier, although I do respect them and what they do. But why their replacing US Marine soldiers in Baghdad is beyond me. The hard part is done. The fight is over with. Maybe they just proceed to send in the underdog to clean up our rubble?

 

There's no comparison between a US Marine and a standard British Infantry soldier.

 

That original post was fr/ '04 when the Black Watch Reg. move into the Babil Province to replace the 24th MEU(SOC) that had been sent there earlier in the yr to knock the growing insurgency in the area off balance until a permanent force could be sent.

 

A similar MEU, the 11th MEU(SOC), was sent earlier that yr ('04) into Najaf after Al Sadr & the Mahdi Militia after giving the US & Brit Army fits in Najaf, Baghadad, & Basra.  After 3wks they, the MEU, w/some help fr/ the 7th Cav had him cornered in the Golden Mosque inwhich he negotiated a surrender to the Iraqi Govt B4 the Marines raided the Mosque.

 

When they left they turned the AO over to another permanent force, thats what MEU's do, they're a strikeforce.

 

 

 

If you need more on that just look up articles fr/ last yr when the 24th MEU assisted the British Army & Royal Marines in Helmand.  When they took out the insurgent stronghold of Garmsir & completedly turned the momentum back in favor of the Brits who had tried & failed to takedown Garmsir a yr earlier.