Stupid stupid American forces

Can the US never get it right? I hear they have bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan now, they must be the most rag tag trained army in the world. During the Iraq war look at the facts

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

Fucking amateures

speaking of the Gulf War...

0 Canadians lost

Yes, hold the United States to blame for a war in which Allied casualties number, what, less than a hundred? after eight months of action. Accidents happen anyway. Bad shit happens to good people. If this were a real war, you'd be too busy weeping over the hundreds killed by enemy fire to raise hell over the dozens killed in training accidents.

During the Vietnam War, the unit that my father was in (Australian) was shelled by a grope of stoned American, because there were beleaved to be VC in the area. Now the Americans KNEW that there were frendlys, but they didn't give a rat’s arse, and shelled it anyway. Shit like that happens all the time, but you rarely here about it through the media.

/me sits back and wates for the flame war.

The US troops in Vietnam were never prepared properly for a war - they just got like three months of basic training before they were sent to Hell - it's no wonder that the US lost that war.

You'd be surprised at how unprepared for real combat a recruit who has spent only three months in boot camp is. And three months is not enough to prepare them for the mental stress of real combat, which is why so many of them took drugs (which naturally led to more friendly fire casualties).
About modern US friendly fire problems: I don't know about that, all I know is that they often give examples of how useless US troops are when they educate soldiers in countries outside the US (They did in my army unit and I've heard that they dis the Americans in other countries as well), and in that connection, I know that they often exaggerate the bad skills of other units (both in your own country's army as well as armies in other countries) to indoctrine you to think that your unit is the best fuckin' unit in the world (I think they do it to heighten the morale or something).

I'm sure that the Americans are not the only ones who make themselves guilty in friendly fire casualties, their mistakes are just shouted out from the rooftops (to use one of Fodder's expressions) everywhere, because they're the big-mean-superstate-which-always-points-out-everyone-else's-mistakes-so-we-need-to-really-dig-into-their-mistakes-too.

I could be wrong though, and it might be true that the Americans get a shitty education after all, but I'm just pointing out what I conclude from my observations.

On topic: One more reason not to join the military...

Off topic (but still a flamewar ;)

Ling with no ding said:

Because you're a moron.

This is to Darkstalker: I had my settings configured to where my searches resulted in only Cable and above speeds, so that couldn't have been a factor.

Ling with no ding: Yeah.....you're right, I am a moron....which is why I'm still pulling a 4.0 despite some recent math grades...damn, I guess I have future ahead of me.....[sarcasm]I'll just go over in my corner and cry now, waiting for mommy to come tell you off[/sarcasm]

Sorry for this, but as you know, PH can't be replyed in...just thought I'd offer my 0.5 cents worth....

DSM:yeah... The US training program is not what you'd call "Thorough".

Australia and the britts got 12 months training in... (10 weeks basic training, the rest jungle combat traing) befor they got even close to real combat. (i'm not certen about the britts...Fod?) even the conscrips (whom one of wich was my father) were "fighting fit".

I don't know what the current training program is for the us troops nowdays... anyone help me out?

dsm said:

The US troops in Vietnam were never prepared properly for a war - they just got like three months of basic training

Uh, that basically covers everything they'll need to know and then some.

What do you recommend, a year or two? The war would have been over before people graduated training.

fodders said:

Can the US never get it right? I hear they have bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan now, they must be the most rag tag trained army in the world. During the Iraq war look at the facts Fucking amateures

You think the US army sucks? check out the dutch army. Our entire government resigned on monday because our army fucked something up 7 years ago in Srebrenica.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/020416/w0416124.html

Ct_red_pants said:

DSM:yeah... The US training program is not what you'd call "Thorough".

Australia and the britts got 12 months training in... (10 weeks basic training, the rest jungle combat traing) befor they got even close to real combat. (i'm not certen about the britts...Fod?) even the conscrips (whom one of wich was my father) were "fighting fit".

I don't know what the current training program is for the us troops nowdays... anyone help me out?

Was basic training 4 months, but when a ship was on it's way to take up station, say in the Far East, it was training duties morning and night until the ship was considered at full "sea readiness"

Lüt said:

Uh, that basically covers everything they'll need to know and then some.

What do you recommend, a year or two? The war would have been over before people graduated training.

It does NOT - I can tell because after completing my first three months I was told that if I had been an American recruit while the Vietnam war was raging, then I'd be sent to Vietnam, and I was asked if I felt ready to go to combat - I did NOT feel ready, I still made lots of screw-ups, and I wasn't fully educated on all survival technigues I was later educated on.

But maybe basic training is different in the US than it is here?
All I know is that I was in no way an efficient soldier after my initial first three months, and sending me to war at that time would've been like signing my death warrant.

dsm said:

I can tell because after completing my first three months

Yes but you weren't in Marine training, you were in whatever-else training.

Although the training nowadays is rather watered down, it was still thorough enough back then. Nowadays they tend to thrive on quantity rather than quality in any of the US armed forces.

Fodders, how do you know all that you know?

Oh, how could I forget! Did you know that the ratio of rounds fired to enemy killed was 100,000 : 1 !

In Vietnam.

Um, I know this looks like I'm trying to count up my posts, but I swear that's not true. I haven't slept in 18 hours (though I've been past 48 hours once) so I'm really tired.

You can blame the conscripts. Yes they may have not received the best training for Viet Nam. But if you want to talk a bout bad training, how about the training the dough boys received in WWI and the G.I.s in WWII?

You think they felt ready for war after their basic training?

The reason why the US lost Viet Nam is because the people running the war DID NOT WANT TO WIN.

Remember McNamara's Mea Culpa?

He and his ilk were the problem. Not the G.I.

Yeh it really isn't that big a deal to the "powers that be" how many casualties they take, unless that # has a direct affect on the nation's ability to exist, people are needed to do essential jobs , it's not a case of winning a war, more winning the peace, prime examples of countries that won the peace are Japan and Germany, both are now world powers, economy-wise, where Britain is still paying off massive debts incurred to the USA

Britain is still paying off Debt to the US from WWII?

If ANY debt should be forgiven, it's that one.

Waitaminut! The UK has WW2 debt to the US???
Why?
Weren't they, like, allies?

The US sent tons of supplies to Britain prior to our entry into WWII. Saw an intersting program on the Liberty ships used to transport supplies. At our peak, I think we were building a Liberty ship every 3-4 days. Quite impressive.

I believe only one European country (Romania?) repaid the USA their WWII debt. I thought these debts were forgiven a long time ago.

PSchmitz said:

The US sent tons of supplies to Britain prior to our entry into WWII. Saw an intersting program on the Liberty ships used to transport supplies. At our peak, I think we were building a Liberty ship every 3-4 days. Quite impressive.

And thats exactly why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.

Lesson to Be Learned: Do not call yourself neutral, while helping one side exclusively and excessively.

Japan attacked America because America was engaged in a stranglehold on Japan's oil supplies

fodders said:

Japan attacked America because America was engaged in a stranglehold on Japan's oil supplies

Oh yeah, that too...

>>And thats exactly why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.

No, it wasn't, but Fodders already pointed that out.

And you really believe the US was neutral at the start of WWII?

PSchmitz said:

And you really believe the US was neutral at the start of WWII?

That's what they try and teach us.

BTW download the Millennium beta?

Lüt,

Sorry for not answering your mail sooner. I am in the process of converting email addresses, but I lost my phone line this weekend and can't access anything (damn lightning storms).

The good news is that I have my new ISP service available. Please send the info to this address:

PSchmitz@cox.rr.com

Back to topic:

So they tried to teach you that the US was neutral at the start of WWII? Far from it. I went to a private school. My history teacher made the subject interesting - especially WWII.

History Channel had an excellent documentary on the US entry in to WWII. Very interesting stuff.

September 1939 the Nazis invaded Poland, Roosevelt, although outraged, proclaimed neutrality. But since he regarded Nazi Germany as a threat to national security, he aided the Allied cause in any way he could. In September 1940 Hitler countered with the Tripartite Treaty, an alliance with Italy and Japan aimed at the United States. All the while the American government was shipping vast amounts of war material to Britain and, after June 1941, to the Soviet Union then under assault by the Nazis. On December 11, four days after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler cast aside caution and declared war on the United States.

Hitler was a strategic idiot. Declaring war on the United States before they presented a threat (to Germany anyway), activelly fighting a war on two fronts, invading Russia (a move that totalled several of history's most powerful armies, especially those with poor resupply systems), and abandoning campaigns and strategems that might have won him the war. (Nazi Germany was the first to use paratroopers in combat, but Hitler ordered a stop to it because he thought casualties would be too high. Dumb.)

PSchmitz said:

And you really believe the US was neutral at the start of WWII?

Well, they DECLARED themselves neutral, but I think fodders already pointer that out.

They weren't really though.