Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on January 17, 2004, 11:03:42 am
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/15/nsold15.xml
This is quite big News in England, but I thought I would share it with the rest of you.
On a personal note, I would like to add that, if they can't afford the Army, can't afford Education, can't afford the Trains, can't afford the Law, can't afford the Highway maintenance, can't afford Facilities for homeless people, can't afford to create new jobs and can't afford to build more prisons, where the **** is our money going??
Sorry, had to get that off my chest on top of my disgust at the story in the link. :)
-
Big news in Britain as well mate. :rolleyes:
-
Oh nohs!!1111
Someone died in a war!
-
Am I in Scotland? No
Am I in Wales? No
Am I in anywhere else that is part of England but not Britain? No
So how would I know? I post what I know, not what I guess.
It's not that he died Anon, if you sign up to be a soldier that is a risk you accept. It is the fact that he was told to hand over his body armour and then got shot in the chest, it was a life that could have been saved had he had the proper equipment.
-
Yeh but its on British news - bbc, and so forth. Jeez.
4get it...
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Am I in Scotland? No
Am I in Wales? No
Am I in anywhere else that is part of England but not Britain? No
So how would I know? I post what I know, not what I guess.
It's not exactly a hard guess when it's on the national news and national newspapers, is it?
i mean, we do actually provide people for this army you speak of.
-
I'm married to a Glasweigan, to please don't get territorial on me. I am here, in England, which is exactly what I said :)
Flipside
And at which point did I say you didn't?
-
He died. In a war.
And 1 out of about 20,000 (**** knows what the right number is) ain't that bad.
He could have just as easily been shot in the face. Or even shot in the chest and still died.
-
But he wasn't and he still did.
-
Yes. And?
It's exactly the same as if his gun had jammed and he'd been gunned down.
**** happens. Equipment fails. People lose stuff. People die.
Maybe he shoulda been a little more careful, knowing that he had practically no armour and all.
-
Well, I know any death in this War is pointless, but I hate to see the loss of any life, of any nation, that could have been saved, I know you won't ever see it that way, and fair enough, but personally, I find it bad.
-
Actually, IIRC part of the enquiry is focusing on whether his gun did jam.
And this is just one incident symptomatic of a serious problem... getting sent to war is dangerous enough, but you've got a right to expect such basic aspects as proper kit (i.e. desert camos as well as armour), guns which don;t have notorious jamming problems, boots that melt in heat, proper IFF systems that help prevent dumb arse A-10 pilots from bombing you, surgical equipment to help close bullet wounds (a soldier allegedly needed a leg amputation because there was no surgical equipment to seal the artery available), proper radio systems, etc.
It's one thing having a soldier dead. It's another when he dies because some arsehole in the MoD ****s up on the paperwork.
http://uknews.newsquest.co.uk/index.phtml?id=249065&area=caledonia
-
Let's put it this way: What if he'd been hit by a tank shell?
Would people be *****ing about how he should've been issued with anti-tank defences?
Hell no.
A wall could've fallen on him. Would they be demanding masonry skills be taught to all troops?
Hell no.
In war sometimes people come up against things that just happen to be able to exploit a weakness in whatever protection they have or have not been given.
It just so happens that this time, it was a bullet being fired at some guys chest. It sucks, but that's life.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Let's put it this way: What if he'd been hit by a tank shell?
Would people be *****ing about how he should've been issued with anti-tank defences?
Hell no.
A wall could've fallen on him. Would they be demanding masonry skills be taught to all troops?
Hell no.
In war sometimes people come up against things that just happen to be able to exploit a weakness in whatever protection they have or have not been given.
It just so happens that this time, it was a bullet being fired at some guys chest. It sucks, but that's life.
So, by the same logic, if a soldier dies because he's not been given a weapon to return fire, it's fine because it's just an operational weakness? Or if his APC gets blown up because the armour wasn't installed and replaced with chipboard? Or he dies because cost cutting measures have replaced C10 transports with hot-air balloons?
This was not a military weakness, it was a bureaucratic ****up. It was a completely avoidable death, and you can't afford to piss the lives of soldiers up against the wall to save money.
Although I know you're just using your usual 'shock' tactics to try and cause some sort of flame war, so i'm not going to take this aguement any further.
-
Yes, I suppose 'not having any because they can't afford it' would be considered a weakness in a soldiers armour. :(
That's the whole thing Anon, he wasn't hit by a tank shell, he didn't have a wall fall on him, if he had, you could at least have still said that all reasonable protection was provided, considering he was a soldier in a battlezone. But it wasn't, there was no protection provided Whatsoever. And because of this he dies.
As for the gun jamming thing, I haven't heard much about that, so I'll have to see what I can find about it.
-
That's the ****ing problem with society nowadays. 'Tards like you guys.
HE WAS A SOLDIER IN A WAR-ZONE!!!!
So what, you expect every ****ing solider to be given perfect protection? They're not there to just ****ing waltz in with superior weapons and tactics and **** and take down the enemy with no risk to themselves. And if they signed up thinking that then they ****ing deserve to be shot.
People join the army now so "I can see the world" and "Drive cool tanks". That's totally not the ****ing point of the army.
The point is to fight for the greater good. To do what you're told. To defend those who cannot defend themselves, NO MATTER THE COST!
It's not to get a free ****ing ticket to some mediterranian base and lounge about on the beach all ****ing day.
They sign up, they're going to get shot at and they're probably going to die. No amount of armour or AWACS systems or IFF transponders are going to ****ing change that.
He just happened to be one of the ones that wasn't so lucky and now he's dead for thinking he could beat the odds.
-
Perfect protection is nothing to do with it. Neither does luck. Fact is, he would have lived if he had been given the equipment he needed. I suppose you think it doesn't really matter if they are wearing green in a desert? That its ok to be killed by your allies? That becuase they are soldiers and knew they might (there is no way a soldier of today is "probably" going to be killen in action, are you stuck in WW1?) die that we shouldnt do everything we can to stop them being killed?
-
sending people in without bodyarmor is idiotic....
-
sounds like battle of Stalingrad where there were not enough weapons for anyone soldiers taked weapons from fellow soldiers after they are dead
but soldiers know that they gonna die someday but it's terriple that armor and weapons shortages is still common in war
but it's war lot soldiers died etc
-
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm kind of with an0n on this one. It is a terrible tragedy that this man was killed, and yes it was wholy preventable. The trick is that instead of getting hung up on the problem, you need to fix it.
The largest problem with governing republics is the enormous beauracracy that develops, the "Red Tape" as it were.
Do we really need 15 requisition forms to get a box of pencils? No, at the very most a single, signed form should be all that it needed. 14 people are not required in the chain.
Instead we have:
the requisitioner
supply cheif #1
supply cheif #1's manager
generic low-level functionary #1
generic low-level functionary #1's manager
accountant #1
accountant #1's manager
and so forth and so on. The problem is not that there isn't enough money, it's just being spent on administrating the problem instead of fixing it. It's the same with any government service, especially education.
-
An0n, with this and that other thread you're fast proving you have no clue what military service is about. No soldier should be asked to go in to battle without the right gear and support. I expect Mikhael will come and shout at you in a bit if you still don't get it.
I've got an interview with the Navy next week. While this stuff isn't going to put me off my ambition of flying jets... it certainly doesn't make me feel to optimistic about my chances of a) getting in b) surviving
Taxpayer money, by the way, is for buying homes for Labour ministers. They get given £28'000 for a London home, and if they already have one they can use the money for a country house
-
*sits and cries*
Idiots.
Fine, we'll do this the hard way.
Imagine you're an Iraqi.
Look down at what you're wearing.
See any armour?
No?! Really? Are you sure?
But you're still going to fight?
Good for you.
The British army has gone ****ing soft. They expect a guaranteed and total victory in every ****ing battle.
You don't see any other armies whining about "It's no fair, the Americans are shooting at us. I'm not going out there unless I've got a gravitational energy-bubble protecting me. I might break a nail."
Every other country in the world just takes what they're given and goes out and fights. But not Britain and America. Oh no. Unless every solider has a ****ing paramedic running into battle with him to make sure he doesn't get too badly hurt, he'll sit on his ass and cry his ****ing eyes out till he gets one.
And I feel I should also point out that the people he was shooting at probably didn't have reliable rifles, they probably didn't have high-grade armour, they probably didn't have every ****ing satellite ever put into orbit watching the land around them for signs of the enemy, they certainly didn't have years and years of training with one of the supposedly best armies in the world.
Even without the armour he still had some major ****ing advantages over whoever he was shooting at and he still managed to get shot. Go feel sorry for the poor Iraqi's. Go get some government ministers fired over their deaths. C'z they were sent into battle under some seriously ****ed conditions compared to those which that dead retard was.
Hell, they never even had legions of tanks and helicopters and spy-planes and heavy-ordainance backing them up. What a travesty!
-
An0n, while you are right, the point doesn't have anything to do with the guy dieing, or weather it was a fair fight,
but more how/why he died, and that fact that it's more likely than not had one thing been diferent, one thing wich should have been diferent, he would have lived. the point is directed more around a structural flaw in the UK military, ie the lack of equipment, and that something can be learned from this so the next war you win, rather than 20,000 to 1 it'll be 40,000 to 1, or what happens when you have to go up against someone who does have all the advantages you have,
there is nothing wrong in learning from your mistakes every now and then
-
Fine. Yes. It'd've been nice for him to have had the high-grade armour. But to say that the MOD were obliged to provide it is just plain stupid.
-
Woo....look at all the asterisks.
It's one thing not having the equipment. It's another thing to have the equipment, to tell the troops they will have the equipment, to train them in the equipment - and then withold or withdraw it.
Also, the army didn't refuse to fight. they didn't sit on their hands - they went out there and did the job, and some died. some of those deaths would have been prevented if the MoD had done it's job properly.
f you'd rather our army was dependent on a group of underequipped, untrained conscripts who surrendered at the first opportunity - like Iraq - then that's you're problem.
NB: Liberator - the first part of solving the problem is aclnowledging that it exists. so far that hasn't happened.
-
It's called 'standard issue.' Like the desert camo that he never got, or the rifle that's notorious for jamming but the MoD won't fork out one penny to have it sorted out. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If you'd rather our army was dependent on a group of underequipped, untrained conscripts who surrendered at the first opportunity - like Iraq - then that's you're problem.
I'd rather have an army that could enter a battle without stupidly overwhelming numbers, horrifically superior weapons and satellite navigation and still put up a good fight.
They should have enough training that they can win a fight using only a knife and a ninja-suit and not have to rely on a £30k gun to aim and shoot for them.
-
The basic British soldier has the best training in the world. Even the Merkins will tell you that
-
The modern British army has always prided itsef in taking a "small but highly effective" approach to thier forces. Pity we're being Americanised.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'd rather have an army that could enter a battle without stupidly overwhelming numbers, horrifically superior weapons and satellite navigation and still put up a good fight.
They should have enough training that they can win a fight using only a knife and a ninja-suit and not have to rely on a £30k gun to aim and shoot for them.
what makes you think they can't?
Are you saying that the next time the British army is involved in a battle, they should pick the ones where they are horribly outnumbered and ensure that each soldier has a pistol, 2 rounds and dog-doo on a stick to attack with?
Don't be such an arse. The key aim in a war is to pick the fights you are best equipped to win... if you have superior equipment, you use it first. If you have numerical superiority, you tkae advantage. If you have the better gun, use it*. Tell me an even-sided battle where the army lost?
Hell, the closest thing in recent history is probably the Falklands, and we won that one too.
*and besides which, the SA-80 is pish. not to mention in terms of equipment, that the British soldiers had to resort to nicking the boots of dead Iraqis because their won ones were melting.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
The basic British soldier has the best training in the world. Even the Merkins will tell you that
Training doesn't mean you cease to become a moron.
I could teach you every note of Beethoven's 7th, but if you couldn't sing or play an instrument then it'd all be useless.
-
For the rest of my post, you entirely missed the point, so I'm gonna ignore that bit and focus instead on this:
Originally posted by aldo_14
what makes you think they can't?
The corspe of Sgt Steven Roberts.
-
Eh? Our soldiers are morons? For joining up, you mean? For risking their lives?
Dude, I know you hate the governent or some **** like that but these people are prepared ot risk their lives in the defense of people like you
-
but what would cost more, training your army to be super death ninjas, or just giveing them weapons (ect) so stupidly powerful they couldn't posably lose so long as you train them to 'point it at the red dots, not the green ones'
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Eh? Our soldiers are morons? For joining up, you mean? For risking their lives?
No. They'd be morons even if they weren't in the army.
Bob:
but what would cost more, training your army to be super death ninjas, or just giveing them weapons (ect) so stupidly powerful they couldn't posably lose so long as you train them to 'point it at the red dots, not the green ones'
Uh.......giving them expensive weapons?
-
well, are the expensive weapons more or less expensive than training them to be supernaturall killing machines, remember if someone dies useing ubber weapons that ubber weapon can be givven to someone else, super ninja training takes years and you can't just take it from one guy and give it to another
I'm realy not sure, it cost something like $20,000 for just the stupid point and shoot training, specal opps is a lot more
-
Originally posted by an0n
For the rest of my post, you entirely missed the point, so I'm gonna ignore that bit and focus instead on this:
The corspe of Sgt Steven Roberts.
Right. One death means an army can't fight?
Or the fact that his widow is angry because he shouldn't have diead, had he been given the promised supplies?
-
Originally posted by an0n
No. They'd be morons even if they weren't in the army.
Ahh... so you're working on the supposition that everyone's a moron but you, yes? Actually that explains a lot
-
actualy he's probly working on the assumtion that there are morons out there, and some of them do join the millitary.
but you never should underestemate the stupidity of other people
-
I'd like to see how an0n gets along if put in a warzone with body armour - which is later removed. I'm sure he'd be happy to hand it over.
-
actualy I always pegged him for the '**** you I'm going to Canada' type (yes I know he lives in the UK, or not in the US at least, ah Klendathu)
-
Body armor is just minor thing that can save peoples but fighting skill's are the main thing that can save soldiers
-
" '**** you I'm going to Canada' type "
Wouldn't protect him for long, Canada still swears allegiance to the Queen - if we came under serious attack Canada would become involved.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
actualy he's probly working on the assumtion that there are morons out there, and some of them do join the millitary.
Yep.
I'd like to see how an0n gets along if put in a warzone with body armour - which is later removed. I'm sure he'd be happy to hand it over.
But I've not signed up for the army now, have I?
Body armor is just minor thing that can save peoples but fighting skill's are the main thing that can save soldiers
It sickens me to say it, but HIG is right. And that's what I've been trying to get at.
What good is body armour if you're stuck 60km from your team/division/bas/whatever, you're gun's been crushed, you've got no food or water and you're bleeding from numerous wounds?
Training = Best defence.
-
You are quite correct HIG, but given a choice, when a bullet is headed for your chest, which would you rather have, good training or a Kevlar vest? ;)
-
But in this case the body armour could have saved his life. If he'd have been given the equioment he should have had he'd be alive now. You're right that armour isn't the be-all and end-all of a soldier but this man's life could have been saved if he'd have been given what he'd been promised. No ammount of training is going to stop a bullet
-
If you had good training, there wouldn't be a bullet headed for your chest.
And what wuold you rather have if the bullet missed the armour and shot into you anyway?
-
This conversation is going round in circles now, one minute soldiers should expect to be shot at, the next minute they shouldn't.
Ah well, you all know what my opinion of this body armour thing is :)
-
Knew you'd say that. No ammount of training will stop you getting shot at, an0n. And in this case, this soldier would probably have been saved having been hit in the chest. If he'd have been hit in the head he'd be dead, oh dear, he was a good soldier, someone play Amazing Grace. But he would be alive right now IF he'd been supplied with the armour he was meant to have
-
Originally posted by an0n
But I've not signed up for the army now, have I?
It sickens me to say it, but HIG is right. And that's what I've been trying to get at.
Well, you are passing judgement on soldiers, by saying they shouldn't complain about vital, life saving equipment being withheld. Surely you can apply the same judgement to yourself?
-
Not really. Seen as I've not signed a declarations recinding all my basic rights and freedoms.
But he would be alive right now IF he'd been supplied with the armour he was meant to have
I'm only vaguely disputing that fact.
But if he'd had more training (or perhaps just taken heed of his existing training) his 'squad' woulda covered all the angles and taken out the Iraqi's before they'd even seen Roberts' peeps coming.
I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and guess they followed standard military procedure, not taking into account the lack of armour when making their plan of attack.
-
This may well be true, as he'd have been trained to use kit like body armour. But as I mentioned before, British soldiers have the best training for a basic squaddie in the world. The point is that the goverment took away life-saving kit after training him to use it, then sneding him in to battle anyway. And a soldier doesn't get to say 'sorry boss, I'm not going in without me kevlar'. It was the government's responsibility to protect that man as best they could by providing him with the proper kit
-
Yes, but they take their equipment for granted instead of viewing it as a valued luxury.
C'z sooner or later, at some point they're gonna be in a situation where they have to do without it and you don't want their training to have them relying entirely on it and it's abilities.
-
Dude, you're taking this thing in ****ing cirlces here. We've already said no ammount of training can stop a bullet. The world's greatest soldier might get shot, but if he's wearing armour he may well survive. The government broke the trust of thir soldiers by not supplying that armour
-
Originally posted by an0n
Not really. Seen as I've not signed a declarations recinding all my basic rights and freedoms.
I'm only vaguely disputing that fact.
But if he'd had more training (or perhaps just taken heed of his existing training) his 'squad' woulda covered all the angles and taken out the Iraqi's before they'd even seen Roberts' peeps coming.
I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and guess they followed standard military procedure, not taking into account the lack of armour when making their plan of attack.
So basically, you're happy to pass judgement on the actions of others, but not apply the same criteria to yourself? That's stunningly hypocritical.
and you';ve basically said there, anyways, that you have no idea what happened, and you're just 'stabbing in the dark' with your explanation. Do you even know what basic military procedure is? Seeing as you're not in the army.
In fact, maybe you're forgotten that Sgt. Steve Roberts was shot trying to quell a riot?
Tell me, what's standard military procedure for dealing with a mob?
-
And I keep saying, if you've got the right training you won't need to stop a bullet because you'll either have killed the enemy before they see you or because you'll be using buildings and **** for cover.
And again, soldiers take too much **** for granted.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So basically, you're happy to pass judgement on the actions of others, but not apply the same criteria to yourself? That's stunningly hypocritical.
Are you stoned?
Under the Geneva Convention (methinks), civillians are not considered 'fair game'. So to 'apply the same criteria' to myself as I am to the soldiers would therefore mean that we're ignoring the Geneva Conventions for the purposes of this argument in which case genociding the rioters becomes a valid option.
Seeing as you're not in the army.
Obviously.
In fact, maybe you're forgotten that Sgt. Steve Roberts was shot trying to quell a riot?
Tell me, what's standard military procedure for dealing with a mob?
Send in the guys with big ****ing shields and split the 'mob' into smaller pockets of rioters which can be more easily dispersed/arrested while snipers and marksmen and such position themselves on roof-tops and other vantage points to take out gun-totting nutters.
-
yeah, an0n's not takeing this in circles, you are, his point is that the right training CAN stop a bullet, or more precisely lead to a that bullet never being fired,
that said I'd prefer to have the training and the armmor myself
so the question you must ask is:
would the rate of mortality be lower if the military was given better training, or better equipment?
-
It'd be lower if they'd ignore the Geneva Convention and just Dresden anyone who ****ed with them.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And I keep saying, if you've got the right training you won't need to stop a bullet because you'll either have killed the enemy before they see you or because you'll be using buildings and **** for cover.
Now you're just spouting bollocks. You think they're not doing that kind of stuff already? Come back and talk about this stuff when you're served in the army
Originally posted by Bobboau
would the rate of mortality be lower if the military was given better training, or better equipment?
Well he was meant to have both, wasn't he?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Now you're just spouting bollocks. Come back and talk about this stuff when you're served in the army
You come back when you've been shot and killed, then maybe we'l have a deal.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Well he was meant to have both, wasn't he?
No. He was expecting to have both. But he should've been prepared to go in using only his training.
Even a ****ing boy-scout knows that.
-
Navy interview's next week mate. I'll try and get shot ASAP, tho :)
And hey, when I'm up there trying to shoot down the bomber about to drop the bomb on a British city, I'll think of you and how good I'll feel about saving your arse[/color]
Originally posted by an0n
No. He was expecting to have both. But he should've been prepared to go in using only his training.
He was told he'd have both. He was promised he'd have both. This is the point - the government broke that promies and betrayed its soldiers
-
You realise of course that all the Navy do is camp out in the Med and sun-bathe?
-
See what I mean about talking bollocks? an0n, people here only tolerate your attitude because usually make intelligent and witty arguments. Right now you're going down the ZB and Stryke path
-
............My 'chum' has been in the navy for the past......I think it's 3 years.
The most difficult thing she's done is have drunken sex with her CO.
-
There's that key word: She
-
She never been deployed to a warzone then? What does she actualy do in the Navy?
-
I think she said something about 'support capacity' for Iraq. And I forget her official rank.
Back in.......musta been about May, she said they'd just spent a few weeks "out in the middle of the gulf doing ****-all".
Obviously I don't talk to her much, but last I heard her day consisted of occasional weapons training, a drill every so often and many hours spent wandering around the ship pretending to be doing something so important she couldn't stop to tell anyone what exactly it was that she was doing.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No. He was expecting to have both. But he should've been prepared to go in using only his training.
He did go in using only his training. but frankly, you can't blame him from being pissed off at being ordered to give up the piece of equipment that, it turned out, would have saved his life.
And on the dealing with mob thing, how many riot shields do you think were in the gulf? I mean, now you're expecting them to have the right equipment to that sort of thing? Not only that, your 'solution' requires the sort of overwheming force that you say the army shouldn't need to operate.
Not to mention you still haven't answered whether you would have accepted having body armour taken off of you before entering a warzone. You don't have to be a soldier to answer this, it's not a hard question. In fact i'll rephrase it; to make it nice and clear an umambiguous.
"If you had to go into a warzone and were equipped with protective equipment, would you accept being forced to give it up?"
All i'm asking is for you to simply place yourself in a situation thousands of soldiers, as well as numerous civillians (TV crews, charity workers such as Red Cross, etc) found themselves in during the war. you don't need to have any degree of miltary training or experience to understand the question, it;s a simple matter of risk assessment.
And unless you state that, in that position you would have no qualms over surrendering protective equipment - even with the knowledge that it may save your life - your argument holds no weight.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
What does she actualy do in the Navy?
Originally posted by An0n
...have drunken sex with her CO
also my question to everyone was should they get BETTER equipment or training, no matter what piss poor army your in your going to get at least some of both, I was asking wich was more importans. wich IMHO on a per person, expence be damned, bassis, training is. the question I asked An0n, was is it more cost effective that way, the army doesn't have to reemberse famelies of dead solders, and they get there stuff back once he's dead. however, I don't know, that's sort of why I was asking, rather than telling
-
If they've got better training then they're more likely to return with whatever equipment you've given them.