What do you think of US soldiers?

[roflchopter]

soldiers=heroes=badass

 

[Tiny116]

Ah, but for every dialect and accent in the UK, India has 10 more. No, really, there are some 800 languages in that country.

Damn...that is pretty impressive.
But put it into perspective, how many times can you fit the UK into India???

 

[Flames66]

My opinion is that they are in Iraq stealing all the oil. I have no problem with the soldiers as such, although I am slightly prejudiced against the US in general.

No matter the motivations behind the war, the Coalition has had a positive effect on the people of Iraq

I see your point, in some ways things have improved. I also agree that it is the Coalition rather than just the US and there are soldiers from my country as well. However, this is no longer removing a dictatorship, this is now occupation.

 

[open trap]

Heroes. They are real heroes and i respect them and look up to them,

 

[SextusMaximus]

Right now I'm reading Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo.

I believe my post is finished now.

Oh Goddamit, war changed since WW1 !!!!

...War never changes...

(cookie for INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS reference)

 

[open trap]

As a former British soldier I always thought of you guys as the opposite of us. We were over trained and under equipped, while you were under-trained and over equipped.
What I mean by that was that we worked in small squads prefering precision and shock tactics to get the job done. Most of us were better trained than your marines.
The Americans I worked with in contrast tended to use massed firepower and overwhelming force.

The worst example was the day we were carrying out joint training in an urban assault/rescue scenario. Five of our lads ran the drill follwed by the American. The instructor counted sixteen times the number of rounds fired by the American than the British.

Hell of a lot of fun on a night out though.

Thats how it goes in the US Military. The US uses superrior firepower to supress and drive off the enemy. Its the docterine that is fallowed in most situations. As far as i know it works. the more bullets in the air pointed at the other guy the more likly they are going to die or hide and not shoot back. Plus the 5.56 is light weight so the Soldiers can can more and really dont need to worry as much about their ammo count than other countries soldiers.

 

[SageRuffin]

I'm a fellow member of the armed forces, so what exactly does that qualify as? ^.^

What are you referring to?

Me being a fellow soldier (although, by technical terms, I'm an "airman"). I can't really say what I think of them since I am one myself.

 

[mrhappyface]

Even though I think the guy is a jack ass, Micheal Moore did one thing right in Fahrenheit 9/11. He went to members of Congress and asked them to sign THEIR children up for a war they all so deeply believed in. Not a single man or woman said yes, they would make a sacrifice. When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. Soldiers fight wars, but it's the politicians who are to blame. Which is why I respect the soldiers fighting around the world, but give not a shred of respect to politicians in America. Except Obama. Maybe.

Hey! I'm not poor! I'm upper middle class and my family consists of mostly engineers!

 

[tricky_tree]

My opinion is that they are in Iraq stealing all the oil. I have no problem with the soldiers as such, although I am slightly prejudiced against the US in general.

No matter the motivations behind the war, the Coalition has had a positive effect on the people of Iraq

I see your point, in some ways things have improved. I also agree that it is the Coalition rather than just the US and there are soldiers from my country as well. However, this is no longer removing a dictatorship, this is now occupation.

What forces are still there? The UK pulled out last year

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

pawns in an un-winnable war. There are plenty of good soldiers but you also get your bad apples.

It's that kinda attitude that made us quit in vietnam. Seriously, if we would have stayed to the finish, vietnam could be looking like south korea right now, instead of one of the poorest, least desirable places to live in the world.

Myself, I was never a soldier, I was a sailor. All I did was operate a nuclear reactor. Never forced to go over to some sandy country. No bullets came close to my submarine. Zero casualties while I was onboard. Hell, I can claim that I was defending americas borders the whole time I was in the Navy. I have no problem with sending soldiers over to pacify a volatile area. As the policemen of the world, it's our duty to ensure that atrocities don't occur while we are on duty. Clinton dropped the ball when he failed to respond in Rwanda. Gotta make sure things like that don't happen ever again.

No. Vietnam shouldn't have happened period. The Gulf Of Tonkin never happened. Didn't exist. We went to war over a lie. Sorta like Iraq in that sense.

Ho Chi Minh asked for help against the French colonists back when he was a 'good guy'. We said "No fuck you". Then we turn around and say "They went to the only other guys who would help them? COMMUNISM AHH OOGA BOOGA BOOGA WE MUST INTERVENE AND FORCE VIETNAM TO OBEY US!!" So we plant military advisors and shit that shouldn't have been there. And to top if off, we don't even bait the North into attacking us, we make it up.

 

[tricky_tree]

I'm a fellow member of the armed forces, so what exactly does that qualify as? ^.^

What are you referring to?

Me being a fellow soldier (although, by technical terms, I'm an "airman"). I can't really say what I think of them since I am one myself.

Ah, well give your opinion, they're not going to find and courtmartial you (I imagine)

Also, open trap, that 'tactic' causes a lot of trouble when it also kills civilians and allied soldiers. Yes they're accidental and those happen in war, but the US seem to have a higher rate of these accidents, so you cant really say it works

 

[McNinja]

I have a friend in Afghanistan, two in Marine Basic Training, and two more guys I know in Afghanistan. One of which I know has seen combat, because my family heard news that his squad was under attack, and his squad lost two men.

Nothing but respect.

 

[CLG]

Well, it's not like they all join up because they think war is cool(well, I know one guy who did). Most of them enlist because they need the money, or they don't have any better options.

Enlisting because you love your home is a good reason too. That's why I enlisted. I figured out in basic that the physical shape the Army gets you into, the Pay, the respect, the order and the weapons are pretty good too. Feels good to serve a purpose greater than yourself.

 

[open trap]

snip.

Thats how it goes in the US Military. The US uses superrior firepower to supress and drive off the enemy. Its the docterine that is fallowed in most situations. As far as i know it works. the more bullets in the air pointed at the other guy the more likly they are going to die or hide and not shoot back. Plus the 5.56 is light weight so the Soldiers can can more and really dont need to worry as much about their ammo count than other countries soldiers.

True enough but it causes a hell of a lot more collateral damage. I saw more than a few cases of bombs and missiles being sent to do a job that a small squad could have pulled of with minimal risk.

But no matter what there is still the risk of a soldier getting hurt. its best to play it safe if the risk is unnecisary. I do see your point and i understand that more bullets meens more colateral damage but untill we make smart bullets its the best we got

 

[tricky_tree]

snip.

Thats how it goes in the US Military. The US uses superrior firepower to supress and drive off the enemy. Its the docterine that is fallowed in most situations. As far as i know it works. the more bullets in the air pointed at the other guy the more likly they are going to die or hide and not shoot back. Plus the 5.56 is light weight so the Soldiers can can more and really dont need to worry as much about their ammo count than other countries soldiers.

True enough but it causes a hell of a lot more collateral damage. I saw more than a few cases of bombs and missiles being sent to do a job that a small squad could have pulled of with minimal risk.

But no matter what there is still the risk of a soldier getting hurt. its best to play it safe if the risk is unnecisary. I do see your point and i understand that more bullets meens more colateral damage but untill we make smart bullets its the best we got

Still too much blue on blue to justify it in my opinion

 

[Melon Hunter]

I think US soldiers are jealous that the British army are better trained. >:

Ironic isn't it? You guys have better training than us, but we have a bigger budget?

There are a lot more of you guys to train, though.

But america has beaten the british twice.

We burned down the White House, though. If you can't take down the country, take down its symbol.

 

[ModsDeleteThisAccountPlease]

Ah, but for every dialect and accent in the UK, India has 10 more. No, really, there are some 800 languages in that country.

Damn...that is pretty impressive.
But put it into perspective, how many times can you fit the UK into India???

Lets see. UK=60 mil people, 250,000 kl^2. or 240 people per kl^2
India=1200 mil people, 3,300,000 kl^2 or 3635 people per kl^2

Lets say every dialect had an equal chance of appearing in the given land. Based on the 10X as more thing, 80 dialects in UK, so each would appear 3 times. 800 in India, so each would come up 4.5 times.

You can fit 20X the people from UK into India, but the dialect spread is nearly even.

I think US soldiers are jealous that the British army are better trained. >:

Ironic isn't it? You guys have better training than us, but we have a bigger budget?

There are a lot more of you guys to train, though.

But america has beaten the british twice.

We burned down the White House, though. If you can't take down the country, take down its symbol.

Touche, my good man from across the pond. I give the British congrats for being the only faction to truly set ground inside the US in a war. Excluding the Mexicans in the Tex-Mex war because that was disputed territory.

But what we do have here in the US is..... a non-white leader? Yeah, thats right! What! We have a black leader in the House. I'm pretty sure the UK has not had a colored Prime Minister or Queen!

Even though I think the guy is a jack ass, Micheal Moore did one thing right in Fahrenheit 9/11. He went to members of Congress and asked them to sign THEIR children up for a war they all so deeply believed in. Not a single man or woman said yes, they would make a sacrifice. When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. Soldiers fight wars, but it's the politicians who are to blame. Which is why I respect the soldiers fighting around the world, but give not a shred of respect to politicians in America. Except Obama. Maybe.

Hey! I'm not poor! I'm upper middle class and my family consists of mostly engineers!

Well, compared to a Congressman you are. But the point remains. Politicians are willing to sacrifice the blood of young men and sacrifice other families to their own cause, but they refuse to make the same deep sacrifice them selves. It's selfish BS!

 

[Tiny116]

Ah, but for every dialect and accent in the UK, India has 10 more. No, really, there are some 800 languages in that country.

Damn...that is pretty impressive.
But put it into perspective, how many times can you fit the UK into India???

Lets see. UK=60 mil people, 250,000 kl^2. or 240 people per kl^2
India=1200 mil people, 3,300,000 kl^2 or 3635 people per kl^2

Lets say every dialect had an equal chance of appearing in the given land. Based on the 10X as more thing, 80 dialects in UK, so each would appear 3 times. 800 in India, so each would come up 4.5 times.

You can fit 20X the people from UK into India, but the dialect spread is nearly even.

...
...
...
Just
...
OK ;-)