PanchoVilla wrote: » I was watching a Channel 4 documentary about MoD spending and how they waste millions of pounds on chauffeured cars and housing for high ranking officers in Britain while regular soldiers in the field have to make do with outdated equipment. The documentary is called "Dispatches - How the MoD wastes our billions". It was on 4OD on Youtube but it's been taken down. Very interesting doc if you can find it anywhere.http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-2
Nevore wrote: » Do I not remember similar stories about the Americans at the start of Iraq? Sub standard vehicles, families having to send out desert fatigues etc?
PanchoVilla wrote: » Yeah, I don't think the U.S. military was really expecting a war in Iraq so they just weren't prepared. The main difference is the U.S. military took action to deal with the problems while the MoD largely ignored the problems British troops were facing.
Nodin wrote: » ...as opposed to the time honoured tactic of prefering to engage in wars of rifle versus spear.....
Nodin wrote: » 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.
PatsytheNazi wrote: » Those of you who are so pro Brit, maybe instead of buying poppies you should send them a bar of soap instead ?
Fratton Fred wrote: » isn't that the same as....
Nodin wrote: » I was referring more to the British historical preference to expand overseas in what might be called the less developed parts of the world.
LondonIrish90 wrote: » Thats slightly unfair. The Dutch, the Germans, the Belgians, the French, the Portugese, and the Spanish to name a few were all guilty of the same acts of colonisation as the British in the age of empires.
Nodin wrote: » Yes indeed they were. And if the thread juxtaposed the forces of those countries and the US, I'm sure it would have come up.
ejmaztec wrote: » They play havoc with your boiled egg.
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
karma_ wrote: » I was once talking to a former British soldier, and the conversation drifted invariably to Iraq etc. He told me that the Brits have very little regard for the yanks fighting qualities, in fact they even have a saying about them; 'All gear, no idea', which I thought was apt, and funny.
karma_ wrote: » After watching the recent dispatches program about US forces in Iraq, and given the choice who I would want occupying a city where I lived, I would literally take any other armed force in the world over the US. This may also be a controversial opinion, but there is no argument on who individually is the better soldier between the US and Britain, the British have historically been superior, in fact most European forces are individually better than Americans. I was once talking to a former British soldier, and the conversation drifted invariably to Iraq etc. He told me that the Brits have very little regard for the yanks fighting qualities, in fact they even have a saying about them; 'All gear, no idea', which I thought was apt, and funny.
jackiebaron wrote: » Well let's see now....since the turn of the century (20th) the US hasn't won a single war on it's own. It joined the scrap in Europe in the dying seconds of the 12th round and don't kid yourself about the Pacific Theatre. Without the Anzac and British forces (not to mention hundreds of thousands of indigenous forces in Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, etc) the US would never have beaten the Japanese. Sure they can send some tanks and bombers to defeat that superpower Grenada but still slope off, tail between legs from places like Lebanon, Somalia, Vietnam (and coming to a theatre near you) Afghanistan and Iraq. Incidentally this general talks a good lot of the usual US bluster but his soldiers are still issued with little laminated cards that read: "The British will be sharing your base. Do not drink with the British. Do not gamble with the British. Do not fight with the British. You will lose."
Clawdeeus wrote: » Your honestly claiming the US is not the most powerful militarily (even relative to other world powers, at other times) of any nation in human history? That is the consensus of military analysts, bar none. This ridiculous claim that British soldiers are somehow inatley better, because of where they were born, is ridiculous.
karma_ wrote: » He is saying that even though they spend trillions in their defence budget, he really can't believe how shíte they still are!
JupiterKid wrote: » The US military would do better to get its own house in order with respect to its own policies like its disgraceful refusal to allow openly gay men and women serve in its forces - a ban which was lifted in almost all other Western armed forces many year ago. Also, the US army could learn a thing or two from the UK troops. Like intelligence, restraint, informed judgement and proper discipline for starters.
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.
PanchoVilla wrote: » I've seen a lot of stupid posts on AH. Hell, I've even made some pretty stupid posts myself, but that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, congratulations.
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.
jackiebaron wrote: » Well let's see now....since the turn of the century (20th) the US hasn't won a single war on it's own. It joined the scrap in Europe in the dying seconds of the 12th round and don't kid yourself about the Pacific Theatre. Without the Anzac and British forces (not to mention hundreds of thousands of indigenous forces in Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, etc) the US would never have beaten the Japanese. Sure they can send some tanks and bombers to defeat that superpower Grenada but still slope off, tail between legs from places like Lebanon, Somalia, Vietnam (and coming to a theatre near you) Afghanistan and Iraq. Incidentally this general talks a good lot of the usual US bluster but his soldiers are still issued with little laminated cards that read:
The British will be sharing your base. Do not drink with the British. Do not gamble with the British. Do not fight with the British. You will lose."
getz wrote: » the greeks,the romans all promoted gayness,even the once symbol of the catholic church, the knights templar encouraged homosexuality ,and made it part of their code,now you know, CHASE ME
PatsytheNazi wrote: » A bit off topic but I believe Richard the Lionheart was gay. Then their was Alexander the Great. And Village People In the Navy
c_man wrote: » I really disliked the Brits attitude at the start of the Iraq War. That smugness summed up in "we know how to win hearts and minds...", patrolling without helmets, claiming experience from NI. Yeah a few years later they're sent packing from Basra.
getz wrote: » thats not what the facts say,www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed
Iraq snubbed Britain and calls US into Basra battle
c_man wrote: » http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed I'm not sure what you mean. The city is doing well, I never said anything about that. The Brits went in with all manner of smugness about how they could get the job done. They pulled out early, leaving others to clear up the mess they couldn't handle.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671530.ece
getz wrote: » you must try harder,your quote is two years old
