nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

amacachi

Clawdeeus wrote: »

No, not everywhere; Western Europe is scaling back, basically most countries here no longer have active combat capability without the US. Everywhere else is doing the opposite, or holding steady. Example, China's military expenditure has increased x6 in the last 10 years.

The military will never be "useless" but the US could probablly afford to cut their defence budget in half and still be completly dominant for decades. So wasteful, but hardly useless.

Not useless if a monumental war broke out but it ain't gonna happen, globalisation has at least had one good effect that no-one can deny; there's little chance of a major war anytime soon.

Also Europe as a whole is still a decent force. I like Britain and France's increasing co-operation, can only hope it expands and the EU can get friendly with the Russians for their nukes.

Clawdeeus

amacachi wrote: »

The yanks can keep building their army, but everywhere is scaling back. Sure they'll be able to wipe most of the world away but they'll also wipe away the infrastructure and cheap labour that maintains their way of life. They've ****ed up with their military like China has with its foreign reserves, they have so much that its now useless.

No, not everywhere; Western Europe is scaling back, basically most countries here no longer have active combat capability without the US. Everywhere else is doing the opposite, or holding steady. Example, China's military expenditure has increased x6 in the last 10 years.

The military will never be "useless" but the US could probablly afford to cut their defence budget in half and still be completly dominant for decades. So wasteful, but hardly useless.

amacachi

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I dont think the Americans are impressed by any of the NATO troops tbh, technology wise, doctrinolly and (obviously) with regard to numbers; the US has been in a different league from Europe for decades now, and the gap continues to grow. Not necessarily a bad thing (who wants to spend more money than you have to on the military?). And when you have a big hammer, problems all start looking like nails.

Whats up with the hygeine thing?

The yanks can keep building their army, but everywhere is scaling back. Sure they'll be able to wipe most of the world away but they'll also wipe away the infrastructure and cheap labour that maintains their way of life. They've ****ed up with their military like China has with its foreign reserves, they have so much that its now useless.

amacachi

If people thought the Brits were bad in NI can you imagine what the yanks would be like? FFS even in hostage situations they can't resist killing the other white people accidentally.

PanchoVilla

Apparently the Brits have more problems to worry about.

cites a litany of concerns which the unnamed officer is said to have had about British allies in the fight against the Taleban.

In it, he is reported to have told the British they are “cautious about the enemy and overestimate their [the Taleban] strength”.

http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/articles/1040-british-troops-cant-patrol-properly-are-ill-disciplined-and-injury--prone-says-us-commander

Clawdeeus

Fallen Buckshot wrote: »

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

Really? you would consider the war on drugs an actual war? Or even the war on terror? I always assumed they were just rhetorical devices. seeing as though you cant actually fight a war against an object, or an idea.

Vietnams purpose was to prevent a communist take over by the communist North of the South, much like Korea, only they lost. Another objective was to keep the French in NATO, who threatened to pull out without American help in holding indochina.

Basically the only 2 wars that were "lost" were Vietnam and (maybe) some of the Indian wars, although the second is debatable.

Clawdeeus

I dont think the Americans are impressed by any of the NATO troops tbh, technology wise, doctrinolly and (obviously) with regard to numbers; the US has been in a different league from Europe for decades now, and the gap continues to grow. Not necessarily a bad thing (who wants to spend more money than you have to on the military?). And when you have a big hammer, problems all start looking like nails.

Whats up with the hygeine thing?

Misanthrope

Obvious case of pot & kettle. US marines smell of roses don't you know.

Nodin

Jonah42 wrote: »

Time to dig out that old phrase:

When the British shoot, the Germans duck.
When the Germans shoot, the British duck.
When the Yanks shoot, everyone ducks.

Its the use of overwhelming firepower. Subtle as a brick, but it works in a good deal of situations. Russians use roughly the same ideology, as far as I know.

Jonah42

Time to dig out that old phrase:

When the British shoot, the Germans duck.
When the Germans shoot, the British duck.
When the Yanks shoot, everyone ducks.

Nodin

PirateShampoo wrote: »

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

...as opposed to the time honoured tactic of prefering to engage in wars of rifle versus spear.....

Einhard

Nevore wrote: »

Neatly ignoring the fact that they handed Eastern Europe to the Communists on a platter and only realised what a bad idea it was after the deed was done.

The fact that the Soviets had millions of soldiers in Eastern Europe at the time probably had something to do with it...

Tubsandtiles

Maybe the US soldiers should concentrate more on not shooting their allies instead of keeping their teeth as white as a Irishman

Overheal

The British Book of Smiles?

Coriolanus

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...

Neatly ignoring the fact that they handed Eastern Europe to the Communists on a platter and only realised what a bad idea it was after the deed was done.

Holybejaysus

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

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

Read up on the nuclear tactics that the Russians planned to use in the event of the Cold war, you will understand what I mean then. It's not so well known in this country that the Soviet strategy in a full nuclear war was to annihilate all of the West, including lil' old Ireland (to preventing any rebuilding or assistance to Western nations.)

Also, listen carefully to what the KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov has to say. We would have faced a rather unpleasant time had the Commies won. It gave me a whole new perspective on the Cold War. So I didn't exaggerate one bit when I said it was the most important victory in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHgYPDvQFU8&feature=related

Princess Peach

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Classy!

Its what I aim for

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

The Waltzing Consumer

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

Classy!

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...

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...

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 .

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

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.

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

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".

[Deleted User]

Einhard wrote: »

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

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

pablomakaveli

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

Einhard

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

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

Agricola

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

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