[diamondgeezer]

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

[an0n]

*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!

[Bobboau]

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

[an0n]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Killfrenzy]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[diamondgeezer]

The basic British soldier has the best training in the world. Even the Merkins will tell you that

[vyper]

The modern British army has always prided itsef in taking a "small but highly effective" approach to thier forces. Pity we're being Americanised.

[aldo_14]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[diamondgeezer]

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

[Bobboau]

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'

[an0n]

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?

[Bobboau]

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

[aldo_14]

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?

[diamondgeezer]

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

[Bobboau]

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

[aldo_14]

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.