US bomb kills allies in Afghanistan
The US military seems to make a habit of this, do they not? :rolleyes:
Printable View
US bomb kills allies in Afghanistan
The US military seems to make a habit of this, do they not? :rolleyes:
would appear soStill, nobody goes to "war" without expecting a few casulaties, albeit usually caused by the opposition.Quote:
On Monday, four American soldiers were killed while blowing up unexploded rockets, also near Kandahar.
Even the conditions in which this happened seem to bring out the stupidity in them.
Consolation to families: "We're going to launch an investigation"
Translation: "We hope you forget about it"
Why is it never: "American soldiers killed by friendly fire from allies"?
Reminds me of that Simpson's episode when an American fighter jet misidentifies Grandpa (I think) as an iraqi fighter jet...Quote:
"How this can happen is a mystery to us. Without a doubt there was a misidentification," he told reporters
Well ...
they've proven to be unable to distinguish between a roof with a giant red cross painted atop of it and one with the cross NOT painted atop of it :rolleyes:
What the **** is "friendly fire" supposed to mean?? Someone?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Why is it never: "American soldiers killed by friendly fire from allies"?
Its an awful euphemism (spelling?) for something that happens in all conflicts.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
What the **** is "friendly fire" supposed to mean?? Someone?
Combat officers are taught to take it into account when estimating casualties.
It is more understandable when it is inflicted by ground troops rather than 'fly-boys'. The stress, adrenaline, confusion and fear of close combat means mistakes are inevitable.
But the ******s in their multi-million pound planes even get to go home at night.
#1) They kill 'emselves - don't need our helpQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Why is it never: "American soldiers killed by friendly fire from allies"?
#2) No other military in the world has such a pathetic track record. Does the US military hire black hawk pilots from pubs and bars, or what?
:rolleyes:
Agreed 100% again.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
#2) No other military in the world has such a pathetic track record
The US forces are rated the lowest by all other NATO forces.
I believe that not!Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
Agreed 100% again.
The US forces are rated the lowest by all other NATO forces.
ARe you talking "popularity" wise? or for real??
There's going to be a wave of angry flag saluting gun touting USsies in here come 4 o' clock and the arguments will be the same as ever ("Who bailed you out in WWII", "If it weren't for us women would still be wearing burqas over there", "We have the biggest military and the best weapons", "STFU with your pathetic armies" and so on and so on ...)
Predictable really :rolleyes:
That may or may not be true but I do know the SAS don't trust them as far as they could throw them
They blame the US forces for a failed mission in Iraq because the US knew about the raid the SAS were about to do. The info was leaked and several SAS men were killed. They haven't forgiven them as witnessed when the US complained that the SAS wouldn't tell them where they were in Afghanistan.
TBH, only the people in the SAS know where they are half the time.
The only thing the US military has is supierior numbers, and superior technology. And of course, superior arrogance and aggression.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
I believe that not!
ARe you talking "popularity" wise? or for real??
The US special forces (SEALS) are jokes, they (the US military) kill more of their own than the enemy does, and they (the US military) are cowards, as attested by every soldiers, on both sides in the Vietnam War.
I'm talking experience-wise.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
I believe that not!
ARe you talking "popularity" wise? or for real??
US forces are not well respected for anything, they have a reputation for making a big noise then running away if their opponents don't.
Dude... don't even go there. I've been through mega flame wars about 'Nam. It's real touchy.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
..... and they (the US military) are cowards, as attested by every soldiers, on both sides in the Vietnam War.
To who? The americans or the Vietnamese? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Dude... don't even go there. I've been through mega flame wars about 'Nam. It's real touchy.
Tell that to the Australian and Kiwi soldiers who cleared out vietcong boltholes while the yanks ran around claiming they'd done the work. Tell that to all the soldiers affected by agent orange. How pathetic can they possibly get?
Just you wait a few hours when they come wading in. "How can our allies speak about us like that ?"
It's probably because real life doesn't have a happy ending and not all combat situations aren't straight out of JAG or GI Jane ...
Watch this space ;)
I'll just keep saying 'Agreed 100%' to your posts on this subject I think.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
To who? The americans or the Vietnamese? :rolleyes:
Tell that to the Australian and Kiwi soldiers who cleared out vietcong boltholes while the yanks ran around claiming they'd done the work. Tell that to all the soldiers affected by agent orange. How pathetic can they possibly get?
You mean even lower than the french? :eek:Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
Agreed 100% again.
The US forces are rated the lowest by all other NATO forces.
:D
now the A-Team, that would be a different storyQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
It's probably because real life doesn't have a happy ending and not all combat situations aren't straight out of JAG or GI Jane ...
Exactly.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Just you wait a few hours when they come wading in. "How can our allies speak about us like that ?"
It's probably because real life doesn't have a happy ending and not all combat situations aren't straight out of JAG or GI Jane ...
Watch this space ;)
Thats the US naivety that causes so many of their problems.
"We help you a little bit, so how can you even question us"
I'm not a fan of the French people, but their modern military is very good. Still French unfortunately but very good.Quote:
Originally posted by Jamagei
You mean even lower than the french? :eek:
:D
I know I started this thread but I didn't really intend for it to degenerate into too much American bashing.
Let's not drag the French into this either, what have they got to do with it?
Don't start on the ****ing French. They've gone and riled up all of Australia AGAIN. They want to dig up some AUSTRALIAN war graves to develop or some crap. So we save the bastards, and they desecrate our war graves. ****ers. :mad:
And the ***** pm or whoever they have said we were just 'being stupid'...
That seemed like the only way it would lead.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I know I started this thread but I didn't really intend for it to degenerate into too much American bashing.
Let's not drag the French into this either, what have they got to do with it?
Even Germans are well trained. And don't start yelling WWIII yet, they're professionals and only 80.000 men strong.:eek:
Let's not start on the should'ves and could'ves. A slanging match is a slanging match. After all - they did bail us all out in WWII... :pQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
I know I started this thread but I didn't really intend for it to degenerate into too much American bashing.
Let's not drag the French into this either, what have they got to do with it?
The french have nothing to do with it. But I thought if the US was going to get flamed we may as well bring in some other nations. It's only fair, then the US won't feel discriminated against :)
They were trained in the first place - I wouldn't **** them bastards. They were just misguided... now, imagine if we had the Third Reich on our side... :p ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Even Germans are well trained. And don't start yelling WWIII yet, they're professionals and only 80.000 men strong.:eek:
They were trained in the first place - I wouldn't **** them bastards. They were just misguided... now, imagine if we had the Third Reich on our side... :p ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Even Germans are well trained. And don't start yelling WWIII yet, they're professionals and only 80.000 men strong.:eek:
(We could finally get rid of those NZ bastards, and put an end to their tyrannical rugby rule)
Now is probably the time to invest in a Euro rapid intervention force ;)
Like the idea though ...
well we know their nuclear warheads work at least :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
I'm not a fan of the French people, but their modern military is very good. Still French unfortunately but very good.
Unworkable.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Now is probably the time to invest in a Euro rapid intervention force ;)
Like the idea though ...
There could never be an effective command structure.
Can you imagine French telling Dutch what to do, or anybody listening to Italians.
And we simply won't.
hmmm, thought all EU members agreed on the force (on their own terms of course).
Nobody ever said there should be a joint command structure.
how about quotas ? If a crisis arises, you pledge your quota to the effort. The rest is decided in EU parliament (who gets which tasks, how many soldiers and so on).
Why would a french go about telling dutch what to do if every quota has a set out mission and sticks to it ?
Politicians agreed not soldiers.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
hmmm, thought all EU members agreed on the force (on their own terms of course).
Nobody ever said there should be a joint command structure.
how about quotas ? If a crisis arises, you pledge your quota to the effort. The rest is decided in EU parliament (who gets which tasks, how many soldiers and so on).
Why would a french go about telling dutch what to do if every quota has a set out mission and sticks to it ?
And any military action needs a complete command structure.
Not just bits for each piece of action.
There would need to be an overall CinC, and the idea of say a Greek general being CinC for a force containing British troops is laughable.
So you prefer as it is now ?
When a crisis arises, the EU has a hard time assembling a decent task force due to national interests and is almost forced to play second fiddle to a larger US contingent.
Look at our takeover of the Balkan Nato forces. Delays and delays.
No-one is sure how this force will look like much less how much they are willing to contribute.
Some fist we make :rolleyes:
wally's right. One reason for the USs strength/arrogance/ or whatever the **** you call it is a definite unity. Europe's not one country, and EU is probably a step in the right direction for europeans. I think it'll take some time though.
The reason the Balkans was a cluster**** was because it was an attempt to use a multi-national force.
I can't remember any military action by a real multi-national force that has worked.
Don't suggest the Gulf war 'cos that was a massive US bullying mission with others tagging along, the command chain was all American.
But who will you let it handle ? IFOR that fooked up on several occasions ? Nato forces ? EU forces ? UK forces ?
Your call
Handle what?Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
But who will you let it handle ? IFOR that fooked up on several occasions ? Nato forces ? EU forces ? UK forces ?
Your call
Balkan situation or every other crisis where multi-national forces are preferred
When has a multi-national force actually worked, within the last 20 years?
Any large organisation is prone to inefficiency, it's almost a law of nature. The US Military is large and will on occasions fcuk up and/or not be very effective but it's not like they set out to screw up
Hence the need of a clearer structure, not scorn.Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
When has a multi-national force actually worked, within the last 20 years?
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
The US Military is large and will on all occasions fcuk up
The structure is clear.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Hence the need of a clearer structure, not scorn.
One problem - One force.
Not a mish-mash bits and pieces cluster****
not quite what I said but probably closer to the truth ;)
I think their problem is that they think they are judged on how many Aircraft carriers they've got (12 incidently), not the quality of their troops. Which is curious.
And what will that one force be ? UK troops ?
We'll soon have rows of UK representatives in the EU parliament lamenting that the other EU members are unwilling to assist.
Bash me on the head if you'd like,
but Tony Blair = brownnoser for the US.
therefore, UK tags along with the US.
I doubt if it'd make any commitments.
very true Mr. Smoking Frog, but we all know he gets sexual favours from Bush's daughters in return
Unfortunately very true.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Bash me on the head if you'd like,
but Tony Blair = brownnoser for the US.
therefore, UK tags along with the US.
I doubt if it'd make any commitments.
But it hasn't always been that way.
A Cross!Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Well ...
they've proven to be unable to distinguish between a roof with a giant red cross painted atop of it and one with the cross NOT painted atop of it :rolleyes:
Doh!
I thought it was a Giant Red X!
:D
I don't see why people are slagging the French. After all the Foreign Legion is one of the toughest in the world. Oh, hang on, that's made up of everyone except the french isn't it.
Well, none of those Pacific Islands are going to screw with them, apparently they've done extensive tests on how to nuke paradise.
Oh yeah, and they're special forces are pretty adept at sinking unarmed protest vessels while in foreign ports.......
Oh okay, you can slag the French then.....
Say what you like about the French, their fine food and wine makes up for any negatives they might have (you could say that it blinds me to them).Quote:
Oh okay, you can slag the French then....
I don't think it's fair to say that the US military screws up on all occasions. Generalizations and blanket statements can very rarely be supported by facts.
In you opinion Simon it makes up for it. Only in your opinion :)
And no, they don't screw up all the time. c'mon guys, let's play nicely with the Americans for a change... Looking at you Mr Lohan...
Uh uh, what did I just say?
I don't mind if you say that we screw up........we do!!!! I'm the last person to deny that. It's just when you categorically state that in every instance we screw up that it really shows an arrogance beyond what I can tolerate. It's like saying that every single Englishman has bad teeth and don't bathe.
You mean that's not true? After all, my father saw a sign in
Iceland during WWII that said:
Must be true. He was a member of the fighting forces. EveryoneQuote:
Non-Commissioned Officers WILL provide an example to the
enlisted ranks by bathing AT LEAST once a week.
knows that they never exaggerate. Everyone knows that when
they say anything about some other country's service it must be
true.
We know Katie. When you say you are you refering to all Englishmen? Becuase I certainly didn't say that :)
Not on all occasions but it seems that their cock-ups as well as their achievements get too much press.
And yes, they are the biggest, the most advanced yadda yadda yadda ... but not necessarily the best soldiers. There's more to being a soldier then being able to point your gun in the right direction.
And that's the point we're making. They're fallible and mostly unable or unwilling to admit it. Doesn't seem to fit in with their credo and bravado ;)
As for slagging off the Americans : how many times have we Europeans not heard the comments "We've bailed you out in WWII", "Without us you're nothing", "We're the biggest, baddest and all the rest should take us on if they think they can handle us" ... I mean, it works in both ways.
Maybe if you're soldiers cut down on the noise making and focus more on the targetting, they'd get more appreciated by their allies (again, not a generalisation. I'm speaking for the topic at hand).
All in all, I'd rather see a world with no soldiers at all to be honest.