[Flipside]

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.

[vyper]

Big news in Britain as well mate.

[an0n]

Oh nohs!!1111

Someone died in a war!

[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 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.

[vyper]

Yeh but its on British news - bbc, and so forth. Jeez.

4get it...

[aldo_14]

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.

[Flipside]

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?

[an0n]

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.

[Flipside]

But he wasn't and he still did.

[an0n]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[aldo_14]

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

[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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[AnnihilaterD]

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?

[Ashrak]

sending people in without bodyarmor is idiotic....

[Gloriano]

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

[Liberator]

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.