French Foreign Legion - Page 6

Originally Posted by globetrotter

yeah, the IDF is a little unusual - after basic training (which can be very very long) officers and, NCOs and troops eat together and have pretty much identical living conditions. if anything, the NCOs and officers have it a little rougher.

its strange, but the harsh living conditions weren't bad for moral, as far as I can remember. we used to be strangly proud, for want of a better word, of how we could tough it out. for what ever reason, paratroopers didn't wear coats during basic training. and our training camp was at pretty high elevation, and I had the luck to inlist in January. so we were fucking cold. but the other infantry did wear coats, so we thought that made them pussies. for all I know, they weren't allowed to use toilet paper, and they thought we were pussies for having toilet paper.

but most of the hardships weren't artifically introduced - we were just a poor army. we didn't have access to the logistics that would get us warm food, we didn't have laundry service, or real entertainment.

Originally Posted by SField

And yet despite all that the IDF remains one of the most effective armies in history.

Originally Posted by globetrotter

everybody believes in the nessasity of what the IDF is doing.

Originally Posted by SField

I think that is ultimately what determines moral, not celebrity appearances, Burger Kings on base, and casinos.

Originally Posted by SField

You want to say that the IDF has poor moral and bad leadership? The greatest militaries in the world fought under even worst circumstances and have better records than the well fed and often overweight US servicemen.

Originally Posted by SField

And yet despite all that the IDF remains one of the most effective armies in history.

Originally Posted by gnatty8

I'd be careful with this statement, given the enemies in question.

When I think history and effective armies, I think Napoleon's army, Washington's army, and yes, unfortunately, the Nazi army, which was terribly effective for many years. Comparing the armies these organizations did battle with with a bunch of ill-equipped, poorly paid, and badly trained enemies Israel has done battle with is a little silly IMO.

Just saying.

Originally Posted by Steve Smith

No, if I had meant to say that, I would have. I am only relating my opinions which are based my upon firsthand experiences. "Well fed" is a good thing, even for a military organization. As for painting the US services as "often overweight", I won't even bother with that.

Originally Posted by SField

I'm guessing you're not familiar with how most 20th century military historians view some of Israel's victories as nothing short of miracles.

Originally Posted by gnatty8

You would be guessing correct. I judge an army's effectiveness by the enemies they were triumphant over. The south side Crips could probably have prevailed over the enemies that have Israel has triumphed over.

Once again, when I am trying to think of impressive armies, the Israeli army does not spring to mind too often. Compared to the armies I mentioned above, I don't think anyone could argue that one. The German army held the entire world at bay for years in both the first and second world war, and they were not fighting forces who came mounted for battle on camels and Toyota trucks.

Originally Posted by SField

Your lack of knowledge is absolutely stunning. You might possibly be the dumbest person on Style Forum. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by gnatty8

Thank you. However, if your posts are any indication, you are running a close second. For example, check your spelling of morale in #79..