Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Yanks kill More Brits!
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Pages: 1, 2
Pieface
Well as the war in Afghanistan is going on in a fight Our troops got bombed on by the Americans!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6962071.stm
MetGreDKo
And? Friendly fire is nothing new and in fact used to occur more frequently. The fog of war was far greater before the advent of wireless communications, GPS, satellites and other fun electronic toys. Even with the fog of war being removed there likely will always be mishaps of some sort. Your topic title implies though that "Yanks" don't kill fellow "Yanks" and that they killed the "Brits" on purpose. Please clarify the purpose of this thread though. So far as I can tell with what little you had provided us of your opinion this is just another pointless thread where someone vents anti-"insert group" feelings. I do hope that I am wrong.
Pieface
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 06:02 AM) [snapback]1358286[/snapback]
And? Friendly fire is nothing new and in fact used to occur more frequently. The fog of war was far greater before the advent of wireless communications, GPS, satellites and other fun electronic toys. Even with the fog of war being removed there likely will always be mishaps of some sort. Your topic title implies though that "Yanks" don't kill fellow "Yanks" and that they killed the "Brits" on purpose. Please clarify the purpose of this thread though. So far as I can tell with what little you had provided us of your opinion this is just another pointless thread where someone vents anti-"insert group" feelings. I do hope that I am wrong.

Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.
Zacko
QUOTE(Die Führer @ Aug 25 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]1358306[/snapback]
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 06:02 AM) [snapback]1358286[/snapback]
And? Friendly fire is nothing new and in fact used to occur more frequently. The fog of war was far greater before the advent of wireless communications, GPS, satellites and other fun electronic toys. Even with the fog of war being removed there likely will always be mishaps of some sort. Your topic title implies though that "Yanks" don't kill fellow "Yanks" and that they killed the "Brits" on purpose. Please clarify the purpose of this thread though. So far as I can tell with what little you had provided us of your opinion this is just another pointless thread where someone vents anti-"insert group" feelings. I do hope that I am wrong.

Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.


Well I'm sure it happens quite frequently, we just don't hear about it.
NCP
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.
Mekstizzle
We shouldn't be calling in fucking American planes for Air Support anyway. Just how under funded is our military? I mean, if you are going to send them to all these wars. Give them the right shit. If not, then bring them back. Stupid politicians.

We should know by now not to trust American planes for support. Unless the enemy is at least 200 miles away.
psychø
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.

Indeed, that is what I was about to say.

I don't quite see what we are doing in the war anyway, I mean any war with america is going to be a complete fuck up, as there idea of an army is giving a load hill billies bigger guns than normal.
MetGreDKo
QUOTE(Die Führer @ Aug 25 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]1358306[/snapback]
Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.

The American military is playing a central role in either place and so it's to be expected that American forces would be responsible for the majority of friendly fire incidents. Also remember that not all friendly fire incidents result in death. In some cases there would be exchange of gun fire followed by a realization -- for what ever reason -- of the fire being exchanged with a friendly.

Further, I sincerely wonder if media bias comes into play in reporting friendly fire incidents. Then again perhaps friendly fire incidents involving other nations are so rare in occurrence due to the small size of their forces that while they may have occured, they just have not reached the level of killing someone. Perhaps they wounded troops instead or maybe not.

Maybe they didn't have any friendly fire incidents as you try and assert. It's hard to tell since we're basing it on secondary sources that are known to pick and choose what and when to report based upon what people are most likely to want to read, what people are most likely to find entertaining.

I'm actually impressed that in a conflict including hundreds of thousands of troops in a rotation system that so few possibly have been killed due to friendly fire. If you compare this with prior conflicts you'd see far higher rates. Yet, even with these improvements and changes people see a lack of perfection as the system being broken. It isn't. Something can be imperfect and yet not broken. As stated before, we're seeing a shift from the "lives of soldiers mean little" era in warfare itself -- not necessarily refering to the mindset of those in charge -- to a "every life means something" era where what ever practical can be done is done to minimize losses while fighting a war.


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.

That would make Iraq and Afghanistan a genocide as well over half the civilian populations would be dead by now. There's a bit more to military training then if it moves, shoot it.
Damian
Shit happens. :| I don't even know why Brits are there in the first place. I understand why America is there, so many companies can profit off of tax money but Brits aren't getting any types of profits from it I think. You can't destroy something(terroism) that has been with us since the beginning of time, only make it worse(if that's what the Brits are there for).
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Die Führer @ Aug 25 2007, 10:56 AM) [snapback]1358306[/snapback]
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 06:02 AM) [snapback]1358286[/snapback]
And? Friendly fire is nothing new and in fact used to occur more frequently. The fog of war was far greater before the advent of wireless communications, GPS, satellites and other fun electronic toys. Even with the fog of war being removed there likely will always be mishaps of some sort. Your topic title implies though that "Yanks" don't kill fellow "Yanks" and that they killed the "Brits" on purpose. Please clarify the purpose of this thread though. So far as I can tell with what little you had provided us of your opinion this is just another pointless thread where someone vents anti-"insert group" feelings. I do hope that I am wrong.

Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.


There isn't another army as active as the American army, either...

QUOTE
so many companies can profit off of tax money


Care to explain, in detail, Damian?
NCP
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]1358331[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.

That would make Iraq and Afghanistan a genocide as well over half the civilian populations would be dead by now. There's a bit more to military training then if it moves, shoot it.


Yeah, maybe tossing a grenade 20 meters next to the targets. I've seen it. They learn nothing about the cultures and they are so hyped that when they hear shots in a village they immediatly open fire to that village. I suggest you watch Discovery's The War Tapes. About 3 US soldiers going to Iraq. It's just fucking insanity that those guys where send out there.
Blaze-uK
Yet again? I really don't like Americans, this just helps explain why.
FuddMan
Maybe we should decorate our army in luminescent pink so this sort of thing won't happen...
オタク
Wow, how can you even start on talking trash about the american army again.

Least if you nancy girls kill some of our soliders we won't go whining "ohhhh the yanks killed us some more, lets whine!"

Really, really, really pointless. Friendly fire happens. Get over it. But on second thought least we evened up numbers for our losses durning the revolutionary war where you were beat by these so called "boom stick wielding hill billies"
MetGreDKo
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 26 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]1358404[/snapback]
Yeah, maybe tossing a grenade 20 meters next to the targets. I've seen it. They learn nothing about the cultures and they are so hyped that when they hear shots in a village they immediatly open fire to that village. I suggest you watch Discovery's The War Tapes. About 3 US soldiers going to Iraq. It's just fucking insanity that those guys where send out there.

We can't expect soldiers to learn about the cultures. If in training they learn about all of the different cultures they'd literally never stop training because differens run that wide and deep. So far as the bare basics however, yeah, they should be run through them but it isn't priority. The military is not designed to a give a hoot if you believe in something or nothing at all. It's designed to defend and attack as necessary according to those commanding it. Now, tolerance, acceptance and a show of respect for others belief structure does play a part in how long conflicts will go on and possibly even how they will result. This conflict isn't necessarily one where learning about the culture has such a major influence as to bring about a certain result. You say they learned nothing about the cultures and let us say you are right for you probably are so far as most of them go -- there will be exceptions. Even with that, the war is progressing very well. One of the largest militaries in the Middle East was defeated and the occupation of a country with tens of millions of people of an entirely different culture, those who see us as supporting an enemy (Israel) and with a "mini" civil war going on, we only have taken nearing 4,000 casualties in the form of deaths. This is light as fuck compared to wars in the past of similar scale, that include so many troops, so much equipment. So basically that we have taken so few a casualties it goes to show that knowing about their culture in the military isn't as significant as you seem to imply. What's more significant is that we removed a government the vast majority dispproved of and installed one where they decide what's what. I'm getting far off the topic though.

I'm not arguing they aren't hyped up and trained to kill. Indeed, they are. They are trained to accept the fact that they will kill people. A cadet in my precinct is a marine reserve. He got called up for service and he told us how when he first shot and killed someone he cried. The military is trying to train people to think under pressure as to how best to neutralize a threat and to realize that their killing is acceptable. If they don't feel it acceptable then it will take a tremendous toll on their psyche and haunt them for the rest of their lives. Troops jump when they hear fire because the concern is someone may be getting shot up, what if it's turned on them and it might/probably will help the effort, according to their own view.

I've seen documentaries on various differing unit training. I've also heard first person experiences, not to mention the book I have regarding special forces and their training and missions. Again, I would agree that those under going training are "brainwashed" and hyped up. I merely disagree with the slight exaggeration that they are trained to shoot anything which moves.



QUOTE(オタク @ Aug 26 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]1358459[/snapback]
Really, really, really pointless. Friendly fire happens. Get over it. But on second thought least we evened up numbers for our losses durning the revolutionary war where you were beat by these so called "boom stick wielding hill billies"

Getting further off the topic, we didn't beat the British all by our lonesome in the Revolutionary War. We had French and Spanish military assistance. We had French, Dutch and many other nations material assistance as well. Without them, we'd still have been in the British empire and probably now a part of the commonwealth.

As to the statement itself of us "Getting even." What does that accomplish? It's even more pointless then the disliking of the American military because of friendly fire casualties. The Revolutionary War was over two centuries ago. Let it go. It's not like the Brits are trying to take over the America's turning us into thirteen colonies once more. Those alive or dieing now were not alive then so to assert that it's proper or fair to call it even is unreasonable.
NCP
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 27 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]1358500[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 26 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]1358404[/snapback]
Yeah, maybe tossing a grenade 20 meters next to the targets. I've seen it. They learn nothing about the cultures and they are so hyped that when they hear shots in a village they immediatly open fire to that village. I suggest you watch Discovery's The War Tapes. About 3 US soldiers going to Iraq. It's just fucking insanity that those guys where send out there.

We can't expect soldiers to learn about the cultures. If in training they learn about all of the different cultures they'd literally never stop training because differens run that wide and deep. So far as the bare basics however, yeah, they should be run through them but it isn't priority. The military is not designed to a give a hoot if you believe in something or nothing at all. It's designed to defend and attack as necessary according to those commanding it. Now, tolerance, acceptance and a show of respect for others belief structure does play a part in how long conflicts will go on and possibly even how they will result. This conflict isn't necessarily one where learning about the culture has such a major influence as to bring about a certain result. You say they learned nothing about the cultures and let us say you are right for you probably are so far as most of them go -- there will be exceptions. Even with that, the war is progressing very well. One of the largest militaries in the Middle East was defeated and the occupation of a country with tens of millions of people of an entirely different culture, those who see us as supporting an enemy (Israel) and with a "mini" civil war going on, we only have taken nearing 4,000 casualties in the form of deaths. This is light as fuck compared to wars in the past of similar scale, that include so many troops, so much equipment. So basically that we have taken so few a casualties it goes to show that knowing about their culture in the military isn't as significant as you seem to imply. What's more significant is that we removed a government the vast majority dispproved of and installed one where they decide what's what. I'm getting far off the topic though.

I'm not arguing they aren't hyped up and trained to kill. Indeed, they are. They are trained to accept the fact that they will kill people. A cadet in my precinct is a marine reserve. He got called up for service and he told us how when he first shot and killed someone he cried. The military is trying to train people to think under pressure as to how best to neutralize a threat and to realize that their killing is acceptable. If they don't feel it acceptable then it will take a tremendous toll on their psyche and haunt them for the rest of their lives. Troops jump when they hear fire because the concern is someone may be getting shot up, what if it's turned on them and it might/probably will help the effort, according to their own view.

I've seen documentaries on various differing unit training. I've also heard first person experiences, not to mention the book I have regarding special forces and their training and missions. Again, I would agree that those under going training are "brainwashed" and hyped up. I merely disagree with the slight exaggeration that they are trained to shoot anything which moves.


You act like you know a lot about Western militaries, but most of it you get out of books or from videos. I know, because I can compare their training, compared to mine. We learn about their believes and how some things here a normal, while they're obscure there. You can't learn everything about their culture, but you can atleast learn the basics. The military is designed to engage the enemy, but after the Iraqi army is gone, you got a new enemy, one you can't see. These are civilians and that's why the 4000 casualties seem so immense, because most of them were caused by civilians.

Also if they are trained for combat so well, then they'd know to stay calm when they are fired upon. You first try to spot the shooter and then you start taking him out. You stay calm especially because you know that Iraqi civilians don't have a great shot. Even in a ambush you stay calm and find cover first, it's the first thing we learn. Also what special forces are you referring to? US Marines? Hardly can be called special forces. If you talk about Seals and Delta Force than yes. They are still not close to what we have. The kikvorsmannen are better than the Seals, because they can dive in dark, dirty waters. Seals can't. I know this because I've trained on the Kikvorsman's base. The Delta Force is good, but not as good as the BBE Marines. When on winter training in Norway, anti-terror squads from all over the world came for an exercise. BBE Marines got the best result, fastest time and no wounded or casualties on their side.

The difference between the US and the Netherlands is that we don't have quantity, but quality and in America it's the other way around. If you want to see how the Dutch SF solve an ambush, check out this link: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bnzA_8Juw94

Royal Netherlands Marine Corps.
Bain
QUOTE(Die Führer @ Aug 25 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]1358306[/snapback]
Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.


Yes you do. In fact I remember posing several articles of Brit-Brit friendly fire because of idiotic comments like yours.


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.


Well once your military actually gets off its ass we'll see how well they perform.


QUOTE(Mek-Izzle @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 AM) [snapback]1358314[/snapback]
We shouldn't be calling in fucking American planes for Air Support anyway. Just how under funded is our military? I mean, if you are going to send them to all these wars. Give them the right shit. If not, then bring them back. Stupid politicians.


^This


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 26 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]1358404[/snapback]
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]1358331[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.

That would make Iraq and Afghanistan a genocide as well over half the civilian populations would be dead by now. There's a bit more to military training then if it moves, shoot it.


Yeah, maybe tossing a grenade 20 meters next to the targets. I've seen it. They learn nothing about the cultures and they are so hyped that when they hear shots in a village they immediatly open fire to that village. I suggest you watch Discovery's The War Tapes. About 3 US soldiers going to Iraq. It's just fucking insanity that those guys where send out there.


American military is quicker to respond and more aggressive. It is because the rest of the world just sits there and lets everything go wrong.

"Oh we have quality quality blah blah" but you're just sitting back whining.

Send you troops there if you dont like how we do it.
MetGreDKo
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 27 2007, 07:40 AM) [snapback]1358537[/snapback]
You act like you know a lot about Western militaries, but most of it you get out of books or from videos. I know, because I can compare their training, compared to mine. We learn about their believes and how some things here a normal, while they're obscure there. You can't learn everything about their culture, but you can atleast learn the basics.

How am I acting like I know a lot about Western militaries (a very general term) when we're specifically talking about American training? You suggested I learn something about how the American military trains and I countered telling you I already have learned about it, from more then one source. You however have only stated one source for your information and saying that you're comparing the show to your training. Well, shows don't show everything. The military does indeed keep them from showing them certain things while at the same time the show makers cut things out for the purpose of entertainment, an unintentional goal of projecting a certain image -- it's only logical to assume that a certain perspective of the makers would be shown through the show. Again though, no one is saying you are wrong that they hype soldiers up for the action. Nor is anyone saying that they aren't trained killers. I am agreeing with you. It's the mere extremity of your statement that they shoot to kill anything which moves that I am targetting. I would even go so far as to agree that some may be of that mindset, that the mindset is an untintentional result of hyping up trained killers. The military however does not train nor want to train troops to kill anything that moves unless it is an enemy combatant as that doesn't help them in the long run.


QUOTE
The military is designed to engage the enemy, but after the Iraqi army is gone, you got a new enemy, one you can't see. These are civilians and that's why the 4000 casualties seem so immense, because most of them were caused by civilians.
It is inherently incorrect to call those fighting a war through unconventional means civilians. Yes though, most were caused after the conventional war began but regardless of the causes the ratio of losses to those still alive and participating in the conflict and the area involved dwarfs it. It may initially seem immense when you look at the causes but when you get down to it, it's a relatively small number.


QUOTE
Also if they are trained for combat so well, then they'd know to stay calm when they are fired upon. You first try to spot the shooter and then you start taking him out. You stay calm especially because you know that Iraqi civilians don't have a great shot. Even in a ambush you stay calm and find cover first, it's the first thing we learn. Also what special forces are you referring to? US Marines? Hardly can be called special forces. If you talk about Seals and Delta Force than yes. They are still not close to what we have. The kikvorsmannen are better than the Seals, because they can dive in dark, dirty waters. Seals can't. I know this because I've trained on the Kikvorsman's base. The Delta Force is good, but not as good as the BBE Marines. When on winter training in Norway, anti-terror squads from all over the world came for an exercise. BBE Marines got the best result, fastest time and no wounded or casualties on their side.

The difference between the US and the Netherlands is that we don't have quantity, but quality and in America it's the other way around. If you want to see how the Dutch SF solve an ambush, check out this link: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bnzA_8Juw94

Royal Netherlands Marine Corps.

Who ever said the training was "so well"? You're confusing an argument over whether or not the American military is trained to shoot anything that moves to an argument over general quality.
NCP
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 27 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]1358585[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 27 2007, 07:40 AM) [snapback]1358537[/snapback]
You act like you know a lot about Western militaries, but most of it you get out of books or from videos. I know, because I can compare their training, compared to mine. We learn about their believes and how some things here a normal, while they're obscure there. You can't learn everything about their culture, but you can atleast learn the basics.

How am I acting like I know a lot about Western militaries (a very general term) when we're specifically talking about American training? You suggested I learn something about how the American military trains and I countered telling you I already have learned about it, from more then one source. You however have only stated one source for your information and saying that you're comparing the show to your training. Well, shows don't show everything. The military does indeed keep them from showing them certain things while at the same time the show makers cut things out for the purpose of entertainment, an unintentional goal of projecting a certain image -- it's only logical to assume that a certain perspective of the makers would be shown through the show. Again though, no one is saying you are wrong that they hype soldiers up for the action. Nor is anyone saying that they aren't trained killers. I am agreeing with you. It's the mere extremity of your statement that they shoot to kill anything which moves that I am targetting. I would even go so far as to agree that some may be of that mindset, that the mindset is an untintentional result of hyping up trained killers. The military however does not train nor want to train troops to kill anything that moves unless it is an enemy combatant as that doesn't help them in the long run.


Western militaries or American, when American is also Western. You indeed have stated more than one source. A guy you've met and he told you his experiences, the other two were movies and books. Basicly what I've stated.
I did not only compare the show to my training, I also compare their training with mine. As the US and the Netherlands are allies, they sometimes train together, like Carribean Lion a large training in the Aruba/Curacou area. That's my source, also I talk with fellow Marines about their experiences with other countries. I'd say this is worth a bit more than the experience of one guy or some books or movies. The documentary I told you about: The War Tapes is reality shot by 3 soldiers and the takeouts are on the internet.
I agree with you that killing innocent civilians doesn't help in the long run or even the short run, because ofcourse other people will react to that.


QUOTE(NCP)
The military is designed to engage the enemy, but after the Iraqi army is gone, you got a new enemy, one you can't see. These are civilians and that's why the 4000 casualties seem so immense, because most of them were caused by civilians.

QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 27 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]1358585[/snapback]
It is inherently incorrect to call those fighting a war through unconventional means civilians. Yes though, most were caused after the conventional war began but regardless of the causes the ratio of losses to those still alive and participating in the conflict and the area involved dwarfs it. It may initially seem immense when you look at the causes but when you get down to it, it's a relatively small number.

Correct that's what I tried to say.


QUOTE(NCP)
Also if they are trained for combat so well, then they'd know to stay calm when they are fired upon. You first try to spot the shooter and then you start taking him out. You stay calm especially because you know that Iraqi civilians don't have a great shot. Even in a ambush you stay calm and find cover first, it's the first thing we learn. Also what special forces are you referring to? US Marines? Hardly can be called special forces. If you talk about Seals and Delta Force than yes. They are still not close to what we have. The kikvorsmannen are better than the Seals, because they can dive in dark, dirty waters. Seals can't. I know this because I've trained on the Kikvorsman's base. The Delta Force is good, but not as good as the BBE Marines. When on winter training in Norway, anti-terror squads from all over the world came for an exercise. BBE Marines got the best result, fastest time and no wounded or casualties on their side.

The difference between the US and the Netherlands is that we don't have quantity, but quality and in America it's the other way around. If you want to see how the Dutch SF solve an ambush, check out this link: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bnzA_8Juw94

Royal Netherlands Marine Corps.

QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 27 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]1358585[/snapback]
Who ever said the training was "so well"? You're confusing an argument over whether or not the American military is trained to shoot anything that moves to an argument over general quality.


I think the quality of the army reacts in the results of the soldiers.
Austin
Mistakes happen.. I wouldn't go as far as to say I dislike Americans because of it even if we do hear about friendly fire incidents quite a bit...

I would also agree the average US military type does seem very "FUCK WHAT'S THAT?!" "I DUNNO!" "KILL IT!"..


The fact it always seems to be us getting killed by them could be something to do with our equipment not being up to scratch though.. we often hear how our equipment is really poor compared to the Americans'.
Bain
Lets put it this way.

A lot of our military is based on reaction A.S.A.P. and we are very good at eliminating our targets.

The problem we have is over reacting.

You can hardly hate us for over reacting in a war that Britain should have an equal part in. They have been terrorist attacked as well.
Spoiler
Just my 2 cents worth..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2155699,00.html

IMO, the second last paragraph said it all..
Marneyo Juano

Yanks have more Teamkills cause they are the ones doing most of the fighting.
NCP
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 28 2007, 06:23 PM) [snapback]1358914[/snapback]
Mistakes happen.. I wouldn't go as far as to say I dislike Americans because of it even if we do hear about friendly fire incidents quite a bit...

I would also agree the average US military type does seem very "FUCK WHAT'S THAT?!" "I DUNNO!" "KILL IT!"..


The fact it always seems to be us getting killed by them could be something to do with our equipment not being up to scratch though.. we often hear how our equipment is really poor compared to the Americans'.


I dunno which assault rifle you Brits have, we use the Diemaco C7/C8 with scope. I know the US uses the M4A1 without scope.
Bain
QUOTE(Xyno @ Aug 29 2007, 01:14 AM) [snapback]1359082[/snapback]
Just my 2 cents worth..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2155699,00.html

IMO, the second last paragraph said it all..


This one?:
QUOTE


In May this year a Commons report found that British troops did not have viable combat identification kits to help them avoid the risk of friendly fire.
Damian
QUOTE
QUOTE
so many companies can profit off of tax money

Care to explain, in detail, Damian?

Contractors coming in to do most of the jobs(some horribly) that the army people did by themselves, pretty much sums it up.

http://www.google.com/search?q=contractors...lient=firefox-a
-sources.
Austin
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 29 2007, 07:51 PM) [snapback]1359221[/snapback]
QUOTE(Xyno @ Aug 29 2007, 01:14 AM) [snapback]1359082[/snapback]
Just my 2 cents worth..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2155699,00.html

IMO, the second last paragraph said it all..


This one?:
QUOTE


In May this year a Commons report found that British troops did not have viable combat identification kits to help them avoid the risk of friendly fire.


Yeah that's what I was getting at with the lack of equipment.. We have to be careful about putting all the blame on the Americans.


Gets on my nerves too a bit tbh.. because we'll have called their air support in countless times and they will have probably saved us countless times (yet rarely/never reported in the news).. and when an incident like this happens you get some people coming out hurling shit at them.


Koala-Fire
I just need to know one thing

when you say yanks do you mean people in the north like from new york and shit or do you mean the whole america

or is yanks a shortened version of yankees or like people from new england or something
Qdeathstar
Yanks means all americans.. ever hear that song Yankee Doodle Dandy?
Bain
I like how Austin is being sarcastic.
FuddMan
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 29 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]1359119[/snapback]
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 28 2007, 06:23 PM) [snapback]1358914[/snapback]
Mistakes happen.. I wouldn't go as far as to say I dislike Americans because of it even if we do hear about friendly fire incidents quite a bit...

I would also agree the average US military type does seem very "FUCK WHAT'S THAT?!" "I DUNNO!" "KILL IT!"..


The fact it always seems to be us getting killed by them could be something to do with our equipment not being up to scratch though.. we often hear how our equipment is really poor compared to the Americans'.


I dunno which assault rifle you Brits have, we use the Diemaco C7/C8 with scope. I know the US uses the M4A1 without scope.

SA80. Apparently it was so good they had to redesign the test each new rifle goes through.

Most FF incidents in Iraq occur with surface-to-air or air-to-surface weapons though. I don't think anyone has been killed by being shot in the back by a friendly.

Also, about the Brits never being involved in FF: yes, we kill our own from time to time, but we don't kill the people we're sent to help out.
Austin
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 30 2007, 05:48 AM) [snapback]1359400[/snapback]
I like how Austin is being sarcastic.

I wasn't actually.


Re-reading my post I see how it could of been a very subtle troll attempt but it wasn't.
Koala-Fire
I don't think Louisiana was part of america yet when that song was made.
Spoiler
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 29 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]1359221[/snapback]
QUOTE(Xyno @ Aug 29 2007, 01:14 AM) [snapback]1359082[/snapback]
Just my 2 cents worth..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2155699,00.html

IMO, the second last paragraph said it all..


This one?:
QUOTE


In May this year a Commons report found that British troops did not have viable combat identification kits to help them avoid the risk of friendly fire.




yup! tat's the one..
Bain
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 30 2007, 11:13 AM) [snapback]1359471[/snapback]
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 30 2007, 05:48 AM) [snapback]1359400[/snapback]
I like how Austin is being sarcastic.

I wasn't actually.


Re-reading my post I see how it could of been a very subtle troll attempt but it wasn't.



Since when do you not completely and utterly hate anything even possibly related to America?
Austin
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 31 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]1359721[/snapback]
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 30 2007, 11:13 AM) [snapback]1359471[/snapback]
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 30 2007, 05:48 AM) [snapback]1359400[/snapback]
I like how Austin is being sarcastic.

I wasn't actually.


Re-reading my post I see how it could of been a very subtle troll attempt but it wasn't.



Since when do you not completely and utterly hate anything even possibly related to America?

That was back in the day.. I like Americans these days, still find some of them annoying but I've learnt not to judge countries on small but vocal minorities.
Bain
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 31 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]1359736[/snapback]
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 31 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]1359721[/snapback]
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 30 2007, 11:13 AM) [snapback]1359471[/snapback]
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 30 2007, 05:48 AM) [snapback]1359400[/snapback]
I like how Austin is being sarcastic.

I wasn't actually.


Re-reading my post I see how it could of been a very subtle troll attempt but it wasn't.



Since when do you not completely and utterly hate anything even possibly related to America?

That was back in the day.. I like Americans these days, still find some of them annoying but I've learnt not to judge countries on small but vocal minorities.



And when did this complete 180 in opinion drastically change?
Austin
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 31 2007, 09:48 PM) [snapback]1359751[/snapback]
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 31 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]1359736[/snapback]
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 31 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]1359721[/snapback]
QUOTE(Austin @ Aug 30 2007, 11:13 AM) [snapback]1359471[/snapback]
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 30 2007, 05:48 AM) [snapback]1359400[/snapback]
I like how Austin is being sarcastic.

I wasn't actually.


Re-reading my post I see how it could of been a very subtle troll attempt but it wasn't.



Since when do you not completely and utterly hate anything even possibly related to America?

That was back in the day.. I like Americans these days, still find some of them annoying but I've learnt not to judge countries on small but vocal minorities.



And when did this complete 180 in opinion drastically change?

To be fair I've not been really anti-American for a long time.. When I realised how pissed off I get at ppl judging my nationality on a small minority that's when I realised I do exactly the same thing.
Hardcore Ottoman
I'm unhappy that none of this is due to us or me personally... but glad you've learned how to be more objective about things.
Austin
But it was due to you! You're like a father to me wub.gif Even though you're 3 years younger than me and I can't remember who the fuck you are but still.
Marneyo Juano
plus punxtr is member no. 41 and austin is no. 141.

MetGreDKo
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 28 2007, 07:17 AM) [snapback]1358847[/snapback]
Western militaries or American, when American is also Western.

America is not synonymous with western per se. American is one of the western militaries but does not encompass western militaries as a whole thus your statement that I am acting like I know all about them is inherently false.



QUOTE
You indeed have stated more than one source. A guy you've met and he told you his experiences, the other two were movies and books. Basicly what I've stated.
I did not only compare the show to my training, I also compare their training with mine. As the US and the Netherlands are allies, they sometimes train together, like Carribean Lion a large training in the Aruba/Curacou area. That's my source, also I talk with fellow Marines about their experiences with other countries. I'd say this is worth a bit more than the experience of one guy or some books or movies. The documentary I told you about: The War Tapes is reality shot by 3 soldiers and the takeouts are on the internet.
I agree with you that killing innocent civilians doesn't help in the long run or even the short run, because ofcourse other people will react to that.
Actually, it's several guys I know. Some cops at work, a cadet, some friends, some people I chat with. Some documentaries (not the same as movies but if you wish to call it that then The War Tapes are such as well) and a book. Now, let us get to your experiences. What kind of training did you go through together with the USA? Did you go through the marines training or combat exercises? Were you stationed with marines to experience their year-round training as some units have -- particularly those who are set up to be first response types.

Let's move on to additional questions. Do you concede that certain seemingly minor points from statements to instructor reactions to trainees may differ on a case by case or class by class basis?

Moving further along, what about the training do you specifically consider to train them to just shoot anything that moves? From here I'll go on to ask more questions as time and energy allows.



QUOTE(NCP)
Correct that's what I tried to say.

If that is what you tried to say then that's what I originally stated.

"Even with that, the war is progressing very well. One of the largest militaries in the Middle East was defeated and the occupation of a country with tens of millions of people of an entirely different culture, those who see us as supporting an enemy (Israel) and with a "mini" civil war going on, we only have taken nearing 4,000 casualties in the form of deaths. This is light as fuck compared to wars in the past of similar scale, that include so many troops, so much equipment."



QUOTE(NCP)
I think the quality of the army reacts in the results of the soldiers.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. We're arguing a specific point within the topic though of their training. When they are trained to fight - if they merely see something move or not.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(DuffMan @ Aug 26 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1358424[/snapback]
Maybe we should decorate our army in luminescent pink so this sort of thing won't happen...
Lol Private Matty Hull. His Scimitar had fluorescent orange panels to ensure it wasn't bombed.


QUOTE(オタク @ Aug 27 2007, 12:59 AM) [snapback]1358459[/snapback]
Wow, how can you even start on talking trash about the american army again.

Least if you nancy girls kill some of our soliders we won't go whining "ohhhh the yanks killed us some more, lets whine!"

Really, really, really pointless. Friendly fire happens. Get over it. But on second thought least we evened up numbers for our losses durning the revolutionary war where you were beat by these so called "boom stick wielding hill billies"
Good thing we have some level headed posting itc.


QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 27 2007, 05:49 PM) [snapback]1358569[/snapback]
QUOTE(Die Führer @ Aug 25 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]1358306[/snapback]
Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.


Yes you do. In fact I remember posing several articles of Brit-Brit friendly fire because of idiotic comments like yours.


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.


Well once your military actually gets off its ass we'll see how well they perform.


QUOTE(Mek-Izzle @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 AM) [snapback]1358314[/snapback]
We shouldn't be calling in fucking American planes for Air Support anyway. Just how under funded is our military? I mean, if you are going to send them to all these wars. Give them the right shit. If not, then bring them back. Stupid politicians.


^This


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 26 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]1358404[/snapback]
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]1358331[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.

That would make Iraq and Afghanistan a genocide as well over half the civilian populations would be dead by now. There's a bit more to military training then if it moves, shoot it.


Yeah, maybe tossing a grenade 20 meters next to the targets. I've seen it. They learn nothing about the cultures and they are so hyped that when they hear shots in a village they immediatly open fire to that village. I suggest you watch Discovery's The War Tapes. About 3 US soldiers going to Iraq. It's just fucking insanity that those guys where send out there.


American military is quicker to respond and more aggressive. It is because the rest of the world just sits there and lets everything go wrong.

"Oh we have quality quality blah blah" but you're just sitting back whining.

Send you troops there if you dont like how we do it.
That doesn't really follow, when you think about it, does it?

dry.gif
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 29 2007, 04:09 AM) [snapback]1359037[/snapback]
Lets put it this way.

A lot of our military is based on reaction A.S.A.P. and we are very good at eliminating our targets.

The problem we have is over reacting.

You can hardly hate us for over reacting in a war that Britain should have an equal part in. They have been terrorist attacked as well.
I agree with the post in general, but I don't think that last bit's relevant at all. The war in Iraq is not doing anything to prevent terrorism.

I've always thought, if you want stupidity, and proof that it exists in equal quantity everywhere, get an argument about friendly fire going on the Internet. Dozy pricks from Middle England get accusatory and nationalistic over rare and inevitable mistakes, and reactionary Americans (lol tnx dame) bring out the irrelevance in spades >.>
MetGreDKo
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Sep 4 2007, 10:41 AM) [snapback]1360394[/snapback]
That doesn't really follow, when you think about it, does it?

I believe he was meaning for them to replace ours in the region and if that's the context he meant for it to be read in then it does indeed follow. The line of thought appears to be that if American troops aren't there then friendly fire casualties would never exist. He's challenging that by saying for other nations to deploy an equivalent amount of troops to what we have present and then we'll see if they're right. I don't have the time now nor do I have the statistics but I'm real interested as to how the friendly fire casualties break down in ratios. How many casualties per troops deployed over the course of time.


QUOTE
I agree with the post in general, but I don't think that last bit's relevant at all. The war in Iraq is not doing anything to prevent terrorism.

I agree on the last bit in his post being not very relevant at all but so far as Iraq assisting the war on terrorism, that remains to be seen. There is no question of Hussein's government having payed the family of suicide bombers for their doing so. Most important is the brain washing that he attempted to occur to get the people loyal to him and see others as evil. It isn't anything unusual to attempt to put a spin on things but when you get down to it, it was severe in Iraq. Ultimately it failed because of poor treatment for the majority of the nation. The question is how the new Iraqi education system and society as a whole will develop. Will it become more free, less strict then what others in the Middle East are like? It's very significant because that will determine if the pool of recruitment will increase, decrease or remain stagnant for terrorist organizations.
Bain
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Sep 4 2007, 10:41 AM) [snapback]1360394[/snapback]
QUOTE(DuffMan @ Aug 26 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1358424[/snapback]
Maybe we should decorate our army in luminescent pink so this sort of thing won't happen...
Lol Private Matty Hull. His Scimitar had fluorescent orange panels to ensure it wasn't bombed.


QUOTE(オタク @ Aug 27 2007, 12:59 AM) [snapback]1358459[/snapback]
Wow, how can you even start on talking trash about the american army again.

Least if you nancy girls kill some of our soliders we won't go whining "ohhhh the yanks killed us some more, lets whine!"

Really, really, really pointless. Friendly fire happens. Get over it. But on second thought least we evened up numbers for our losses durning the revolutionary war where you were beat by these so called "boom stick wielding hill billies"
Good thing we have some level headed posting itc.


QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 27 2007, 05:49 PM) [snapback]1358569[/snapback]
QUOTE(Die Führer @ Aug 25 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]1358306[/snapback]
Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.


Yes you do. In fact I remember posing several articles of Brit-Brit friendly fire because of idiotic comments like yours.


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.


Well once your military actually gets off its ass we'll see how well they perform.


QUOTE(Mek-Izzle @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 AM) [snapback]1358314[/snapback]
We shouldn't be calling in fucking American planes for Air Support anyway. Just how under funded is our military? I mean, if you are going to send them to all these wars. Give them the right shit. If not, then bring them back. Stupid politicians.


^This


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 26 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]1358404[/snapback]
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]1358331[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.

That would make Iraq and Afghanistan a genocide as well over half the civilian populations would be dead by now. There's a bit more to military training then if it moves, shoot it.


Yeah, maybe tossing a grenade 20 meters next to the targets. I've seen it. They learn nothing about the cultures and they are so hyped that when they hear shots in a village they immediatly open fire to that village. I suggest you watch Discovery's The War Tapes. About 3 US soldiers going to Iraq. It's just fucking insanity that those guys where send out there.


American military is quicker to respond and more aggressive. It is because the rest of the world just sits there and lets everything go wrong.

"Oh we have quality quality blah blah" but you're just sitting back whining.

Send you troops there if you dont like how we do it.
That doesn't really follow, when you think about it, does it?

dry.gif
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 29 2007, 04:09 AM) [snapback]1359037[/snapback]
Lets put it this way.

A lot of our military is based on reaction A.S.A.P. and we are very good at eliminating our targets.

The problem we have is over reacting.

You can hardly hate us for over reacting in a war that Britain should have an equal part in. They have been terrorist attacked as well.
I agree with the post in general, but I don't think that last bit's relevant at all. The war in Iraq is not doing anything to prevent terrorism.

I've always thought, if you want stupidity, and proof that it exists in equal quantity everywhere, get an argument about friendly fire going on the Internet. Dozy pricks from Middle England get accusatory and nationalistic over rare and inevitable mistakes, and reactionary Americans (lol tnx dame) bring out the irrelevance in spades >.>


Its so irrelevant to mention terrorism in a country thats ripe with Al-Quaeda and other such groups. You're totally right.
NCP
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Sep 3 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]1360162[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 28 2007, 07:17 AM) [snapback]1358847[/snapback]
Western militaries or American, when American is also Western.

America is not synonymous with western per se. American is one of the western militaries but does not encompass western militaries as a whole thus your statement that I am acting like I know all about them is inherently false.


What does your conclusion about western militaries/America make my statement false? You acted like you know all about them. Acting like something doesn't change when you make a different conclusion. You aren't talking with politicians at the moment, but with average people. So there is no need to make excuses etc.

QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Sep 3 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]1360162[/snapback]
QUOTE
You indeed have stated more than one source. A guy you've met and he told you his experiences, the other two were movies and books. Basicly what I've stated.
I did not only compare the show to my training, I also compare their training with mine. As the US and the Netherlands are allies, they sometimes train together, like Carribean Lion a large training in the Aruba/Curacou area. That's my source, also I talk with fellow Marines about their experiences with other countries. I'd say this is worth a bit more than the experience of one guy or some books or movies. The documentary I told you about: The War Tapes is reality shot by 3 soldiers and the takeouts are on the internet.
I agree with you that killing innocent civilians doesn't help in the long run or even the short run, because ofcourse other people will react to that.


Actually, it's several guys I know. Some cops at work, a cadet, some friends, some people I chat with. Some documentaries (not the same as movies but if you wish to call it that then The War Tapes are such as well) and a book. Now, let us get to your experiences. What kind of training did you go through together with the USA? Did you go through the marines training or combat exercises? Were you stationed with marines to experience their year-round training as some units have -- particularly those who are set up to be first response types.

Let's move on to additional questions. Do you concede that certain seemingly minor points from statements to instructor reactions to trainees may differ on a case by case or class by class basis?

Moving further along, what about the training do you specifically consider to train them to just shoot anything that moves? From here I'll go on to ask more questions as time and energy allows.


I did the basic Marine training called EVO, then I applied for the para's and I did the para training. I'm now in 23 para and made 20 jumps already, I got the Dutch wing and the Belgian wing. I went to Norway for wintertraining and I'm going for mountain training this month in Norway aswell. I might apply for the ski-instructor training aswell, but I'm thinking about it still. I went to Wales for a shootingtraining in Sennibridge or something. I'm still stationed in Doorn were basicly every Marine is stationed before he goes away on training or mission. I might go to Congo, but it could become Sudan aswell. I wasn't on Caribean Lion, but a lot of my buddy's were, what I know about that training comes from them.

About your additional question: do you mean minor points or seemingly minor that are actually big points? If they are minor they may differ from instructor to instructor. Some are more tough and make you do 50 push-ups if your upper button isn't open. Other just say that you should open it.

2nd question: the training before the mission in Iraq, basicly the one where you are learned what to do in what kind of situation.

QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Sep 3 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]1360162[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP)
Correct that's what I tried to say.

If that is what you tried to say then that's what I originally stated.

"Even with that, the war is progressing very well. One of the largest militaries in the Middle East was defeated and the occupation of a country with tens of millions of people of an entirely different culture, those who see us as supporting an enemy (Israel) and with a "mini" civil war going on, we only have taken nearing 4,000 casualties in the form of deaths. This is light as fuck compared to wars in the past of similar scale, that include so many troops, so much equipment."


What don't you get, I said that 4,000 casualties don't seem much and in a "regular" war it wouldn't be, but like I said most of the casualties is caused by civilians that's why it seems a lot.

QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Sep 3 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]1360162[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP)
I think the quality of the army reacts in the results of the soldiers.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. We're arguing a specific point within the topic though of their training. When they are trained to fight - if they merely see something move or not.


I was reacting on your comment. This one:

QUOTE(MetGreDKo)
Who ever said the training was "so well"? You're confusing an argument over whether or not the American military is trained to shoot anything that moves to an argument over general quality.


And to Bain: Dutch marines were in the first Gulf War and they were in this war aswell. At the moment they are stationed in Uruzgan, Afghanistan and in Congo. They did Haiti, Cambodia and Bosnia. It's not like were doing nothing.
Austin
Joining the military was one option I considered.. but I don't think I could handle the lack of personal space and being away from family and friends all the time. Just saying this cos NCP's post got me thinking about it.

Does being away a lot bother you NCP?
Bain
Once youre in there its like everyone is your friends and family.

True though about space. Thats one thing I would hate eventually.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Bain @ Sep 5 2007, 06:32 PM) [snapback]1360575[/snapback]
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Sep 4 2007, 10:41 AM) [snapback]1360394[/snapback]
QUOTE(DuffMan @ Aug 26 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1358424[/snapback]
Maybe we should decorate our army in luminescent pink so this sort of thing won't happen...
Lol Private Matty Hull. His Scimitar had fluorescent orange panels to ensure it wasn't bombed.


QUOTE(オタク @ Aug 27 2007, 12:59 AM) [snapback]1358459[/snapback]
Wow, how can you even start on talking trash about the american army again.

Least if you nancy girls kill some of our soliders we won't go whining "ohhhh the yanks killed us some more, lets whine!"

Really, really, really pointless. Friendly fire happens. Get over it. But on second thought least we evened up numbers for our losses durning the revolutionary war where you were beat by these so called "boom stick wielding hill billies"
Good thing we have some level headed posting itc.


QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 27 2007, 05:49 PM) [snapback]1358569[/snapback]
QUOTE(Die Führer @ Aug 25 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]1358306[/snapback]
Friendly Fire happens to the Americans, you never hear of any other army killing there fellow teammates through friendly fire.


Yes you do. In fact I remember posing several articles of Brit-Brit friendly fire because of idiotic comments like yours.


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.


Well once your military actually gets off its ass we'll see how well they perform.


QUOTE(Mek-Izzle @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 AM) [snapback]1358314[/snapback]
We shouldn't be calling in fucking American planes for Air Support anyway. Just how under funded is our military? I mean, if you are going to send them to all these wars. Give them the right shit. If not, then bring them back. Stupid politicians.


^This


QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 26 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]1358404[/snapback]
QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ Aug 25 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]1358331[/snapback]
QUOTE(NCP @ Aug 25 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]1358312[/snapback]
No, it's just that the yanks shoot at anything that moves.

That would make Iraq and Afghanistan a genocide as well over half the civilian populations would be dead by now. There's a bit more to military training then if it moves, shoot it.


Yeah, maybe tossing a grenade 20 meters next to the targets. I've seen it. They learn nothing about the cultures and they are so hyped that when they hear shots in a village they immediatly open fire to that village. I suggest you watch Discovery's The War Tapes. About 3 US soldiers going to Iraq. It's just fucking insanity that those guys where send out there.


American military is quicker to respond and more aggressive. It is because the rest of the world just sits there and lets everything go wrong.

"Oh we have quality quality blah blah" but you're just sitting back whining.

Send you troops there if you dont like how we do it.
That doesn't really follow, when you think about it, does it?

dry.gif
QUOTE(Bain @ Aug 29 2007, 04:09 AM) [snapback]1359037[/snapback]
Lets put it this way.

A lot of our military is based on reaction A.S.A.P. and we are very good at eliminating our targets.

The problem we have is over reacting.

You can hardly hate us for over reacting in a war that Britain should have an equal part in. They have been terrorist attacked as well.
I agree with the post in general, but I don't think that last bit's relevant at all. The war in Iraq is not doing anything to prevent terrorism.

I've always thought, if you want stupidity, and proof that it exists in equal quantity everywhere, get an argument about friendly fire going on the Internet. Dozy pricks from Middle England get accusatory and nationalistic over rare and inevitable mistakes, and reactionary Americans (lol tnx dame) bring out the irrelevance in spades >.>


Its so irrelevant to mention terrorism in a country thats ripe with Al-Quaeda and other such groups. You're totally right.
It's irrelevant to suggest that Britain's terrorism problems mean that they should be in Iraq.
Austin
QUOTE(I Rape Children @ Sep 6 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]1360915[/snapback]
Once youre in there its like everyone is your friends and family.

True though about space. Thats one thing I would hate eventually.

Yeah sleeping with everyone else in the barracks.. washing with everyone else.. eating with everyone else.. day in day out.. not really my kind of thing. Maybe in small units it wouldn't be so bad.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.