British troops have poor hygiene and too many injuries - US commander

PatsytheNazi

Looks like the Americans aren't too impressed with the quality of British soldiers in Afghanistan. In an interview with the New Statesman, a US commander suggested that the British military “are cautious about the enemy and overestimate their strength”. The commander was quoted as saying: “Your standards of personal hygiene and field discipline aren’t good enough.” Maybe the British army should be training them in personal hygiene instead of square bashing ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6793971.ece

PirateShampoo

Maybe the British should follow America policy of "if it moves kill it"

Wagon

Winning wars has never been America's strong point though so the commander (like the rest of his army) is just another highly trained muppet.

Fallen Buckshot

...or maybe they should tell them to feck right off and withdraw all troops/support

mike65

Most of them are injured by American helicopters I think

My name is URL

The Americans know all about keeping their hands clean.. that's why they wore gloves while torturing those prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Pity they were too retarded to realise that taking pictures was a bad idea though innit

PatsytheNazi

Wagon wrote: »

Winning wars has never been America's strong point though so the commander (like the rest of his army) is just another highly trained muppet.

Off the top of my head America beat the British in 1776 and again in 1815 under Andrew Jackson. Beat the Mexicans a few times, beat the Spainish in 1898, where on the winning side in WW1 and WW2. In WW2 they were practically the side which defeated Japan in the Pacific. Don't know how you can say that winning wars has never been America's strong point

PatsytheNazi

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Maybe the British should follow America policy of "if it moves kill it"

So your telling me that the British never had a policy of "if it moves kill it" ? So gunning down innocent villagers in India, Africa etc doesn't count in your book ?

Fallen Buckshot

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Off the top of my head America beat the British in 1776 and again in 1815 under Andrew Jackson. Beat the Mexicans a few times, beat the Spainish in 1898, where on the winning side in WW1 and WW2. In WW2 they were practically the side which defeated Japan in the Pacific. Don't know how you can say that winning wars has never been America's strong point

prolly ment Modern day wars .. Korea .. waste of time
Vietnam .. what was the purpose again ?
War on drugs ? Haha dont get me started
War on Terrorism ? America should go to war with itself .. its as big of Terrorist as any.
etc etc

CrazyRabbit

Being at war is 2nd nature to the American's. I think the UK should listen to them. After all, it makes sense to listen to advice from people who have almost 200 years experience in the area.

ejmaztec

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Looks like the Americans aren't too impressed with the quality of British soldiers in Afghanistan. In an interview with the New Statesman, a US commander suggested that the British military “are cautious about the enemy and overestimate their strength”. The commander was quoted as saying: “Your standards of personal hygiene and field discipline aren’t good enough.” Maybe the British army should be training them in personal hygiene instead of square bashing ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6793971.ece

It's unusual for you to be dishing the dirt on the British army.:P

Fallen Buckshot

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Being at war is 2nd nature to the American's. I think the UK should listen to them. After all, it makes sense to listen to advice from people who have almost 200 years experience in the area.

I think the Brits have been warring a lot longer .. they were at war with the French (at least 100yrs)or Spanish practically from the existence of the countries.

Agricola

I would have thought that in warfare "being cautious about the enemy and overestimating their strength" would generally be a fairly sound strategy. Better than being gung-ho and underestimating them anyway.

Fallen Buckshot

Agricola wrote: »

I would have thought that in warfare "being cautious about the enemy and overestimating their strength" would generally be a fairly sound strategy. Better than being gung-ho and underestimating them anyway.

hahah .. no no no .. its all about rushing in ... using all available ammo and calling it a day back to base for a tea/beer/wotever.

Princess Peach

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

ejmaztec

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

They play havoc with your boiled egg.

Princess Peach

ejmaztec wrote: »

They play havoc with your boiled egg.

Kinky

Agricola

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

Would you let them go on manoeuvres................Ohhhhhhaaaaaaaaaahhhhh

Einhard

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

All depends on the size of his gun, eh?!

pablomakaveli

The average american soldier probably thinks he'll respawn at the last checkpoint if he dies hence there gung-ho mentality.

coffee_cake

Einhard wrote: »

All depends on the size of his gun, eh?!

He'd have to make sure the safety was on though

biko

I don't see why what the Yanks think of the Brits personal hygiene would concern the Irish.
They're in the fecking desert, I would probably have BO* too.



*American for "body odor".

Princess Peach

Einhard wrote: »

All depends on the size of his gun, eh?!

Size of the gun doesn't matter, its how he uses it that counts

ejmaztec

The Americans are probably too busy checking their make-up in the Humvee mirrors too get involved in any fighting, and stinking like a polecat is probably safer than trailing a cloud of scent behind you everywhere you go.

Agricola

biko wrote: »

I don't see why what the Yanks think of the Brits personal hygiene would concern the Irish.
They're in the fecking desert, I would probably have BO* too.



*American for "body odor".

or bisexual orgies

Latchy

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Maybe the British should follow America policy of "if it moves kill it"

Indeed ,the British might err on the side of caution to prevent unnecessary kills ( civillians ) but GI yankee Joe will shoot anything and his mother that moves ...no wonder they have time to look all bright and shiney for the cameras and the American military deploys enough white trash soldiers into war zones as anybody .

Holybejaysus

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Off the top of my head America beat the British in 1776 and again in 1815 under Andrew Jackson. Beat the Mexicans a few times, beat the Spainish in 1898, where on the winning side in WW1 and WW2. In WW2 they were practically the side which defeated Japan in the Pacific. Don't know how you can say that winning wars has never been America's strong point

Not to mention the most important victory in the history of mankind-the Americans won the Cold War. (Thus preventing an invasion by hostile Communist forces into Western Europe.) The anti-U.S. brigade are very quick to forget that...

Sugar Free

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's unusual for you to be dishing the dirt on the British army.:P

Using an article from August 2009...

The Waltzing Consumer

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

Classy!

The Waltzing Consumer

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Not to mention the most important victory in the history of mankind-the Americans won the Cold War. (Thus preventing an invasion by hostile Communist forces into Western Europe.) The anti-U.S. brigade are very quick to forget that...

I am pretty sure that whole paragraph was taken from Team America :P

Princess Peach

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Classy!

Its what I aim for