Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Top Ten Armies of the World
Arditi    3/4/2004 3:54:10 PM
According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely): 1. USA 2. China 3. Germany 4. India 5. France 6. Russia 7. UK 8. Italy 9. Israel 10. Pakistan
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
swhitebull    RE:Israel - french stratege   6/12/2004 11:13:44 PM
..Israel problem is arroguance and its refusing to agree to its prime responsability in the arab-Israel conflict by expelling palestinian of their zone after doing massacre like in der yasin in the same way that nazis does previously agaisnt some population (but in a much more total way I agree)... And what would be the responsiblity of the Jews? You are unclear in what you say. I really really hope that you are NOT comparing an isolated incident on the part of extremist Jews with the deliberate systemic and explicit policies of the Nazis, French Stratege. That would be extremely disappointing to learn that you buy into that bit of tripe. I would have thought that of all people, you would be above making that analogy - as patently absurd as it is. Perhaps a better analogy would be the French official policies during the Algieria War, with the deliberate and forcible relocation of 2 MILLION rural Algerians to more easily controlled areas: The often brutal fighting, stretching across much of the country for nearly eight years, disrupted or emptied many rural villages. The deliberate French policy of resettlement of rural populations gathered more than 2 million villagers in Frenchbuilt fortified settlements under a regroupement program. The total number of Algerians displaced by the war cannot be accurately known, but Algerian authorities place the figure at more than 3 million permanently or temporarily moved. That would be more akin to what the Germans did in WW2 to "troublesome" populations. That is the analogy you really should be making - NOT taking an isolated incident and extropolating that to an overall policy by the Jewish authorities. A consequence of the Deir yassin incident was that the Irgun and Stern gang were forcibly disbanded, whereas the ultimate onsequence of French policies was the loss of Algeria. SO please clarify what our are trying to say - it did not come across clearly. swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

Goths    RE:Israel - french stratege   6/13/2004 11:22:50 AM
what do you expect from a frenchmen they were pro israel until the mass influx of arabs into france now they are pro arab you cant expect a frenchmen to stand on principal they dont understand the concept
 
Quote    Reply

Advocate Of REason    RE:Israel - french stratege   6/13/2004 12:25:31 PM
As I have always said, the french are a bunch of ungrateful backstabbers.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Israel - french stratege   6/13/2004 12:59:55 PM
"I really really hope that you are NOT comparing an isolated incident on the part of extremist Jews with the deliberate systemic and explicit policies of the Nazis, French Stratege. That would be extremely disappointing to learn that you buy into that bit of tripe." I don't put both at the same level: the Nazi did much worse.However for Israel expelling arabs using terror and massacre,it was not the policy of a single group isolated but a policy done by a part of the Israel 1948 forces with full approval of high command in violation of UNO 1948 resolution.And it is the problem with today Israel arrogance.I'm not in favor of Israel or Arabs even I respect much more israelis than arabs. If I were sharon I would try to exchange south of Israel (for exemple 4 time Gaza surface in exchange of half cisjordanie to widen telAviv corridor until 60 km and then give an economical help with US to palestinian) I'm french so in favor of French interest and after western civilisation.I don't see why my governement should be israel ally of arabs ally.
 
Quote    Reply

Advocate Of REason    RE:Israel - french stratege   6/13/2004 9:00:41 PM
You will have to excuse me if I dont believe a single word that comes out of a frenchman's mouth when he speaks of french interests (if you didnt catch it stratege, the words french and frenchman were left uncapitalized on purpose)
 
Quote    Reply

IAFbestinworld    RE:Israel   6/13/2004 9:10:18 PM
"France spend only 0,8%of GNP in military procurement and is air force is on the same category than Israel.Our aerospace industry civilian and military , have one fourth the capcity of US!And dedicated to civilian for 80%." -ISRAEL IS SMALLER THAN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY!!! Not to mention a population of 6 million. The real question is, if israel was the size of france, how much better would israel's military be than france's? And dont give me the "france will fight when it has to" You guys did a great job in WW2.
 
Quote    Reply

TOXICITIE 2    RE:IAFbestintheworld   6/13/2004 9:16:49 PM
Don't go change geography man, the only reason you have a good military is because of your geagraphy. Also France on paper would own Israel... In a total war that is.
 
Quote    Reply

Goths    RE:IAFbestintheworld   6/14/2004 12:41:00 AM
on paper the arabs should of own israel to look at what happen there
 
Quote    Reply

IAFbestinworld    RE:IAFbestintheworld   6/14/2004 2:15:12 AM
On paper Israel should not exist today. However, wars are not fought on paper. The french are anti-american wussies. The french would not have the you know whats to ever get in a fight with Israel.
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World   6/14/2004 9:50:46 AM
<<>> One of the problems with such a tally is that said factors cannot be "added" to one another. How do you measure the respective importance, say, of manpower and training ? Or of technology and resources ? By the way, is this respective importance ALWAYS the same, on every kind of terrain, in every circumstance, against any kind of foe ? Another one is that war is - prepare for a scoop - a ***human*** activity, which means that morale and support from the civilian population are factors ... very unstable factors at that ! Who is agressor, who was attacked ? Whose territory does fighting occur upon ? All this and more will crucially impact the performance of armies. Not to forget the quality of leaders, that absolute intangible. To use but one example, Russia inflicted a severe lesson on Japan who had attacked her in the East in 1939, then encountered enormous difficulties battling small Finland in 1940, which gave way to a series of catastrophic defeats in 1941 against the invading Wehrmacht, followed by a last-minute successful counter-offensive to defend Moscow in December 1941 ... and so on. All things considered, the game of "who has the biggest di... I mean army" remains an interesting one. A few things ***really*** surprise me in the list proposed : 1) China is second only to the US !!!!! But China has close to none power projection ability. How could she be compared to Britain, or France, not to speak of Russia ? If one wants to say China is powerful because she is virtually impossible to occupy entirely, fine, but then a nation like Brazil should be in the list too. 2) Israel is ninth, behind Italy ! But Israel has a numerous, trained and well-armed army, plus a nuclear deterrent. Italy has nothing of the sort. 3) UK is behind France, and France behind Germany. I would argue exactly the opposite is true : French armed forces presently suffer from a lack of training, which is not true about UK, while German armed forces are smaller and less trained than both French and British ones 4) Russia is sixth Yes, Russian armed forces are in disarray, and the shadow of what they were fifteen years ago. But Russia remains the only country that would be able to sink at least one (more probably several) US aircraft carriers, it is in command of a large nuclear deterrent, has a long range bomber force even with limited size (Tu160 Blackjack), a few weapon systems unparalleled anywhere else in the world (Mig31 interceptor, Shkval torpedo, supersonic antiship missiles) and its polity has a proven capability to sustain a bloody limited war (Chechnya) ... I do not give too much trust to this evaluation, no matter which "Intelligence Services" presumably prepared it ...
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics