[Bobboau]

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)

[Gloriano]

Body armor is just minor thing that can save peoples but fighting skill's are the main thing that can save soldiers

[vyper]

" '**** 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.

[an0n]

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.

[Flipside]

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?

[diamondgeezer]

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

[an0n]

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?

[Flipside]

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

[diamondgeezer]

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

[aldo_14]

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?

[an0n]

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.

[diamondgeezer]

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

[an0n]

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.

[diamondgeezer]

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

[aldo_14]

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?

[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.

And again, soldiers take too much **** for granted.

[an0n]

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.

[Bobboau]

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?

[an0n]

It'd be lower if they'd ignore the Geneva Convention and just Dresden anyone who ****ed with them.

[diamondgeezer]

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?