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

IvySlayer

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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

Jesus did it. 3 days later though, some lag!

jackiebaron

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

" since the turn of the century (20th) the US hasn't won a single war on it's own " And how many wars have the British won on their own in the 20th Century ( and before that the Napelonic wars along with Prussia, Russia, Austria and Spain, the Crimean war - when the French saved their bacon from teh fiasco's such as the Battle of Balaclava )

Let me see.... er, emmm, the Boer War ( thanks to concentration camps) and the Falkslands !!! Which they couldn't land on without American satellite photos against a force of part time conscripts. America joined WW1 in 1917, they invovlement was the factor in ending in 1918 Einstein !!! America came into WW2 in 1941 two years into the conflict which dragged on for another 4 years. Hardly could be called " joining the scrap in the dying seconds of the 12th round " now is it. And ofcourse in WW2 the Brits really impressed at Dunkirk, Norway, Crete, Singapore etc

The Brits were only a sideshow in the Pacific. All the major battles were won by America, Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jema etc Stop deluding yourself buddy. The Brits are fine if their fighting men armed with spares, or vastly outnumbered - as we know in this country. Put them up against anything equal in numbers and equipment and their arrogance turns to cowardice pretty quickly.

Are you going to tell me that the Brits could have landed in France without the Americans ?


Just the Brits declaring how wonderful they are :rolleyes:

Hey buddy, enough of the temper tantrum because someone called into question the intelligence, training and success (or lack thereof) of your beloved GI. I don't know why you're ranting on about the Brits and their track record. We're talking about Americans here. It's fairly typical whenever anything American is criticised, the American sympathiser will immediately deflect to something else to throw rocks at rather than examine the criticism. If someone criticises Bush, the blinkered Bush supporter immediately squawks "Well Clinton sucked, you liberal fag" and that's the level of critical thinking. You criticise US foreign policy and the sympathiser immediately demands to know where you're from so they can laud how much they've "saved your ass" and how your country is sh!t instead of even examining the criticism you have initially levelled.

So, PV, to get back to you original bleatings....I'm not singing the praises of British soldiers at ALL. I'm merely agreeing with a previous poster who pointed out America's inability to win wars against miniscule opponents despite having an arsenal that outstrips the rest of the world combined. You see, you can equip a soldier with all kind of weapons and gadgetry and give him his tasty milk-shakes but if he's moron and if his superiors are morons (which is par for the course in the US military) then all that equipment won't be worth a tinkers piss. Dropping little plastic bags of peanut butter into Afghanistan with a note that reads "A gift from the American people" was just one of the countless episodes of US inanity and naivete in their cretinous attempts at "winning hearts and minds".

Anyway PV, the object in Iraq and Afghanistan is not to win but merely to keep the whole bloody enterprise going. If Halliburton and Bechtel Corporations can hire Indian and Filipino workers as cooks for $5 a day and charge the Pentagon $200 a day for them. If they can charge the Pentagon $10 for a can of Coke and $100 to do 5 kilos of laundry and the Pentagon simply passes this cost onto the taxpayer then why would they want these cash cow wars to end? They'd be mad.

jackiebaron

jugger0 wrote: »

Wow your so much better then me because you think gays should be in the army arent you? how can i be great like you?

That was an even more cretinous comeback than your original post. Keep it up. It's good for a laugh.

jackiebaron

getz wrote: »

wasent nelson ?dident he say ;kiss me hardy?

Eh, no.
That's a crock.

Nelson said "Kismet, Hardy" meaning "It is fate, Hardy" as he lay dying.

IvySlayer

getz wrote: »

wasent nelson ?dident he say ;kiss me hardy?

*QI alarm*

getz

jackiebaron wrote: »

Eh, no.
That's a crock.

Nelson said "Kismet, Hardy" meaning "It is fate, Hardy" as he lay dying.

sorry i ment willy nelson,who said kiss my....

Irish Guitarist

Anyone remember Terminator: The Sarah Chronicles on Virgin (the television channel) a couple of years ago? It was sponsored by the British army. You'd see Sarah Connor exterminate an evil cyborg, then before the ad break they would have someone telling you how great the army is. Killing cyborgs may be fun, but unfortunately in the army you have to kill actual human beings.

The US military also makes video games and targets them at teenagers as a way of getting them to sign up.

It's their own fault (both the British and American armies) for brainwashing children to sign up for their murderous organisation.

getz

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Anyone remember Terminator: The Sarah Chronicles on Virgin (the television channel) a couple of years ago? It was sponsored by the British army. You'd see Sarah Connor exterminate an evil cyborg, then before the ad break they would have someone telling you how great the army is. Killing cyborgs may be fun, but unfortunately in the army you have to kill actual human beings.

The US military also makes video games and targets them at teenagers as a way of getting them to sign up.

It's their own fault (both the British and American armies) for brain washing children to sign up for their murderous organisation.

do not forget 2000 australians also went into iraq

c_man

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The US military also makes video games and targets them at teenagers as a way of getting them to sign up.

http://www.americasarmy.com/

Clawdeeus

getz wrote: »

you must try harder,your quote is two years old

UK pulled out of Iraq 2 years ago or therebouts.

All areas where they pulled out needed replacing with US brigades.

Irish Guitarist

getz wrote: »

do not forget 2000 australians also went into iraq

The Australian army has an online game based on the American one. The US armies brainwashing tactics are worldwide.

Clawdeeus

jackiebaron wrote: »

Hey buddy, enough of the temper tantrum because someone called into question the intelligence, training and success (or lack thereof) of your beloved GI. I don't know why you're ranting on about the Brits and their track record. We're talking about Americans here. It's fairly typical whenever anything American is criticised, the American sympathiser will immediately deflect to something else to throw rocks at rather than examine the criticism. If someone criticises Bush, the blinkered Bush supporter immediately squawks "Well Clinton sucked, you liberal fag" and that's the level of critical thinking. You criticise US foreign policy and the sympathiser immediately demands to know where you're from so they can laud how much they've "saved your ass" and how your country is sh!t instead of even examining the criticism you have initially levelled.

So, PV, to get back to you original bleatings....I'm not singing the praises of British soldiers at ALL. I'm merely agreeing with a previous poster who pointed out America's inability to win wars against miniscule opponents despite having an arsenal that outstrips the rest of the world combined. You see, you can equip a soldier with all kind of weapons and gadgetry and give him his tasty milk-shakes but if he's moron and if his superiors are morons (which is par for the course in the US military) then all that equipment won't be worth a tinkers piss. Dropping little plastic bags of peanut butter into Afghanistan with a note that reads "A gift from the American people" was just one of the countless episodes of US inanity and naivete in their cretinous attempts at "winning hearts and minds".

Anyway PV, the object in Iraq and Afghanistan is not to win but merely to keep the whole bloody enterprise going. If Halliburton and Bechtel Corporations can hire Indian and Filipino workers as cooks for $5 a day and charge the Pentagon $200 a day for them. If they can charge the Pentagon $10 for a can of Coke and $100 to do 5 kilos of laundry and the Pentagon simply passes this cost onto the taxpayer then why would they want these cash cow wars to end? They'd be mad.

So your original point was the US has not won any wars? Vietnam, sure (although the military actually lost no major battles during the war, even the Tet offensive was a massive military failure for the N Vietnamese)

Your other examples were not wars, they were UN peace keeping operations that were cancelled following the escalations in violence. Again NOT wars, and retaliation would be impossible. Check it up.

Im confused, do you believe they are all "morons" because they joined the military, or because they joined the American military?

Clawdeeus

jugger0 wrote: »

Yea because gays are such renowned warriors, have you ever met a gay? sure while were at it, lets let in 12 year olds with leukemia too, because everyone should be allowed fight in a war right?

War is mens work, they should stick with the dont ask dont tell policy.

UK troops with restraint!?! Northern Ireland comes to mind...
Or what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE
The Americans are doing all the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, European nations including the Brits are just glorified spectators.

The US, UK, Aus, and Canada do the heavy lifting really.

Ancient writers actually believed a gay army was vastly more effective than a straight one.

The fear is certainly not that they cant fight as well as straight people, but that it would damage the esprit de corp of the army. Ironically, homosexuality was used for years to build just that elsewhere.

Manic Moran

JupiterKid wrote: »

Also, the US army could learn a thing or two from the UK troops. Like intelligence, restraint, informed judgement and proper discipline for starters.

if he's moron and if his superiors are morons (which is par for the course in the US military)

Well, let's take a random sample, so. There happens to be at least one US troop here on Boards. Would you consider Manic Moran to be un-intelligent, unrestrained, uninformed (or unable to make a reasonable judgement) or of poor discipline? And, despite the similarity in spelling, would you consider the term 'moron' to be applicable?

There are plenty of posts to pore over on the record in the various fora on Boards.ie to aid you in coming to a conclusion on the matter. Feel free to make any quotations you wish in order to support your conclusion.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, let's take a random sample, so. There happens to be at least one US troop here on Boards. Would you consider Manic Moran to be un-intelligent, unrestrained, uninformed (or unable to make a reasonable judgement) or of poor discipline? And, despite the similarity in spelling, would you consider the term 'moron' to be applicable?

There are plenty of posts to pore over on the record in the various fora on Boards.ie to aid you in coming to a conclusion on the matter. Feel free to make any quotations you wish in order to support your conclusion.

NTM

More importantly, what deodorant do you use?:D

Manic Moran

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More importantly, what deodorant do you use?:D

Oooh.. Good question.

Gillette gel. Though the Old Spice adverts and their spin-offs (Seen the Sesame Street version?) have proven so entertaining I'm almost tempted to go that way to mark my appreciation.

NTM