The Things that piss me off about the US - etc.

[canikickit]

They forever claim their superiority. Always.
I don't care if you are the best, boasting is not a virtue.
Like in the NBA, the Lakers call themselves the World Champions. Now I have no doubt, none, that the Lakers are the best team in the world (Kobe and Shaq would probably win on their own) over the last three years, but until they play Killester and Big al's and all the other teams from around the globe, calling themselves "World Champions" is nothing short of derogatory.
The same can be said for the so called "World Series" in baseball. It is not the world series, so why claim it is.

Also: I read a quote from one of the pilots of the planes which bombed Afghanistan. He compared bombing the country to playing in the superbowl. I think this is fucking disgraceful. This moron should have been stricken of his rank and given a dishonerable discharge, he lowered my opinion of 272,000,000+ people in one sentence. Did he not realise that a large proportion of the eople being killed were completely innocent?
If my country was being bombed I would be terrorised, I would feel terror, yes terror!

I'm not saying that he was wrong to fly the plane, I think he was wrong to say that (maybe he was disiplined I don't actually know).

I don't hate the USA, I just feel that the people there.....I don't know what I feel. Its definitly not hate though. Although sometimes it is.

fuck it.

[Pinko]

I just read something that made me laugh good and hard for quite some time. I think this is the thread it belongs in.
It is a private message sent to me by Capitalist Imperial. I didn't know there was such a system until I noticed this little thing telling me I had a private message. Just call me Mr Oblivious. Anyway here it is.

"I've read your posts here, and I just want to let you know tat[sic] they are all dogmatic pieces of shit. I think in one post that you actually had the nerve to claim that US military is only powerful because other nations' special forces do the hard work! You are full of shit! You are just anothr[sic] angry brit[sic] that is mad because we kicked the living shit out of you 200 years ago with a volunteer army! And did it a 2nd time in the war of 1812! The SAS is nothing compared to Navy SEALS! Our airforce is better, our navy is better, our army is better, our marines are better, and our special forces are better. Brits are fucking pussies, and they kiss american ass and bow down to us every day of their lives! You are an ignorant jerk."

As I said, this made me laugh.
I would like to make a few points though.

1) I am glad that the US won independance from our colonial imperialism. Power to them. I am just dissapointed that they have made nothing good of their hardwon freedom. But something that the patriotic trumpet blowers often neglect to remember is that during the war of 1812, England was busy bankrupting itself in Europe fighing Napoleon. As for the War of independence, such is the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, the dissident Americans were losing badly until they learned guerilla tactics. Beware the revolution.

2) If the Navy Seals are so good, why does the US government call upon the UK special forces every time a tricky job needs doing. Hell, they even requested our marines in Afghanistan after the US marines failed to take a hill.

3) Yes, my country bows to yours. I makes me ashamed to be British, but is not the biggest cause of shame on that front, not for a long stretch.

4) Whats up? Can't have this sort of confrontation in public? Have to resort to private abuse? It is this sort of uninformed ranting from the capitalist right wing types that generally mark them out as raving loons. It does nothing but detract from the legitimacy and credibility of your arguments. I pity you.

5) I am ignorant? I will take your well educated and open minded word on that. ;)

[American Kid]

Canckikit (sic, sorry) I want you to know------ I have NOTHING BUT reverence for Ireland. I can't say this enough. I'm serious. Some of my dearest, dearest friends in the whole world are from there. It's hard to put in words, and may sound kind of cheesy, but I love it. For a place I've never been at least (ALTHOUGH, I will be going to Sligo sometime in the next few months and then swinging down to visit my beloved friends from Longford, so.....)

Anyway, you've made some valid points. But don't hate all of us (especially until you come and we give you good reasons at least) :) No, but seriously, last summer was when I met these people (kids, my age, over for the summer). They mixed with my friends (guess where we're from) and NONE OF US, none of us could believe how well we all got along. Combined, we were a crew of about ten or fifteen deep (sometimes more, trust me, it was MY house we partied at/destroyed). It was MAGICAL. It was the best summer of my life and I get sad just looking at the pictures from it. It truly was lightning in a bottle.

Granted, the Longford accent is a little tough to understand at first:

"What's the craic? I'm gon' ring ye man about the session tonight. He'll be there, ah, perfect sound, he is..."

The point is, to paraphrase a great man, "hate leads to the dark side." Yes, our culture is laughable and pathetic, but humor us. Don't hate us because of what happened in Afganistan. Trust me, TRUST ME, if given a chance you'd find that some of us are truly sound. Don't let your resentment get in the way of that.

It would've been tragic if it had in the case of any of the wonderful people I met last summer.

-AK



(Edited by American Kid at 2:28 am on Sep. 1, 2002)

[Pinko]

American Kid, anyone who dissmisses the entire population of a country as useless or stupid, just on the actions of their government is a bigot.
Every population is made up of individuals, and in that mix will be some nice people. Hell, even I have met US citizens that I would deem friends.
The thing to remember is that people use broad sweeping generalisations and when they talk about the US they are generally refering to the government (and possibly the fraction of voters that voted them in).
Stereotypes are a convenient way to label a people and noone in their right mind would expect that to apply to every single member of that country. Anyone who does is a simpleton (see CI's remarks on me being an angry Brit).

[American Kid]

I agree (not about the CI stuff, as he's my friend) (let's not fight about this, please! It's complicated). It's just it pulled my heart strings to read this coming from an Irish kid.

-AK

[Pinko]

Don't worry. It is your choice, I am not going to start trying to dictate who you should befriend.

[Moskitto]

The US asked for British help in Vietnam, Mainly because the only guerilla army to be defeated was defeated by the SAS. American soldiers are not professional enough to fight guerilla armies.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Pinko on 2:09 am on Sep. 1, 2002
I just read something that made me laugh good and hard for quite some time. I think this is the thread it belongs in.
It is a private message sent to me by Capitalist Imperial. I didn't know there was such a system until I noticed this little thing telling me I had a private message. Just call me Mr Oblivious. Anyway here it is.

"I've read your posts here, and I just want to let you know tat[sic] they are all dogmatic pieces of shit. I think in one post that you actually had the nerve to claim that US military is only powerful because other nations' special forces do the hard work! You are full of shit! You are just anothr[sic] angry brit[sic] that is mad because we kicked the living shit out of you 200 years ago with a volunteer army! And did it a 2nd time in the war of 1812! The SAS is nothing compared to Navy SEALS! Our airforce is better, our navy is better, our army is better, our marines are better, and our special forces are better. Brits are fucking pussies, and they kiss american ass and bow down to us every day of their lives! You are an ignorant jerk."

As I said, this made me laugh.
I would like to make a few points though.

1) I am glad that the US won independance from our colonial imperialism. Power to them. I am just dissapointed that they have made nothing good of their hardwon freedom. But something that the patriotic trumpet blowers often neglect to remember is that during the war of 1812, England was busy bankrupting itself in Europe fighing Napoleon. As for the War of independence, such is the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, the dissident Americans were losing badly until they learned guerilla tactics. Beware the revolution.

2) If the Navy Seals are so good, why does the US government call upon the UK special forces every time a tricky job needs doing. Hell, they even requested our marines in Afghanistan after the US marines failed to take a hill.

3) Yes, my country bows to yours. I makes me ashamed to be British, but is not the biggest cause of shame on that front, not for a long stretch.

4) Whats up? Can't have this sort of confrontation in public? Have to resort to private abuse? It is this sort of uninformed ranting from the capitalist right wing types that generally mark them out as raving loons. It does nothing but detract from the legitimacy and credibility of your arguments. I pity you.

5) I am ignorant? I will take your well educated and open minded word on that. ;)


Actually, Pinko, you are right. Those comments were made in haste, and were in bad taste. They were short on specifics and long on hawkish rhetoric (as well as unedited). I apologize. I didn't mean what I said in those personal attacks. Sometimes I get carried away in my anger at some of the anti-americanism on this site, and I need to vent. That, of course, is not your problem. Again, I am sorry.

What you will find is that I am a sort of a jeckll/hyde character on this site. Sometimes you will find that I submit well formulated, logical, relevant posts in this forum, while at other times I will just hurl beligerent, vulgar, offensive insults at the left. While the former is ultimately more fulfilling, the latter is easier and lends itself toward more immediate, albiet hollow, satisfaction. Its kind of like an internet BB bipolar disorder (smiley face [I don't know how to do those fucking things]).

However, I would like to maintain my stance on US military prowess. I have not heard about the incident you are discussing about that "hill" in afghanistan. Are you confident that the brits were helping us take that hill because the US could not? Or was it just an assignment we asked them to help us with for manpower reasons? Could you elaborate on that please? I am interested in getting to know that story.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Moskitto on 2:00 pm on Sep. 1, 2002
The US asked for British help in Vietnam, Mainly because the only guerilla army to be defeated was defeated by the SAS. American soldiers are not professional enough to fight guerilla armies.


Come on, moskitto, you know that is not true. In vietnam, we actually did a good job fighting the NVA and Cong. Most of our battles were victories, and we heavily decimated their forces. It is just that our government mismanaged our victories there. Usually, the victories were over objectives and in territory that didn't matter.

As far as the simple concept of fightng the guerilla forces of vietnam, the US was very capable and successful.

The USA also saw a lot of guerilla-style resistance in panama, guatemalla, and nicuragua, and even now in colombia. In all of these instances the US has been very successsful and has acheived its objectives (sans colombia, where our action is very limited and not expected to yield a conventional victory at this time).

So, I submit that not only has the US had the most experience fighting modern guerilla armies, we are in fact the most professional and successful at it.

[Moskitto]

Everyone knows that US soldiers are not as professional as others. And US field rations suck.

[canikickit]

hey, this wasn't meant to be anti-individual Americans, I've been to America (I was only 12, though).

Just the points I've made stir up more anger in me than anti-Bush crap.
This arrogance.


Our airforce is better, our navy is better, our army is better, our marines are better, and our special forces are better.

This type of shit as well. I mean I don't give a crap about a countries military prowress, I don't think this has any baring hatsoever on how good a country is (maybe a slight but, but it's negative impact).

Amerrican Kid you are cool, and I'm sorry for causing offence.
I'd like to hear Americans opinions on that schmuck that compared bombing Afghanistan to the Superbowl.
(actually not just American's opinions, but I'd find that interesting).

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Moskitto on 7:04 pm on Sep. 1, 2002
Everyone knows that US soldiers are not as professional as others. And US field rations suck.


No, moskitto, wrong again. Maybe most people on this site will claim what you are claiming, as they will never give the US one sliver of credit, even in areas where they are proven to be the best.

However, most logical people in the world concede that the US has the best equipped, best trained, highly motivated, most professional military on earth.

I don't know about our field rations. I've tasted them a few times, but I haven't tried those of other nations' yet, so you may have me there. However, I would venture to guess that we concentrate more on operational effectiveness than on perfecting tea and toast in a bag like the British army may.

[Guest]

"I would venture to guess that we concentrate more on operational effectiveness than on perfecting tea and toast in a bag like the British army may."

LMAO! Nice one. Very true.

Hey CI,

Hope you are not disappointed to see me back so soon. I have a three day weekend from school and work, so I just came back for another fix.

[Stormin Norman]

Oops! That last one was me.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Is that you, SN? Man, I'm gonna cry. Good to see you here. I must say we've been overloaded and overworked since you've bee gone. However, America needs you more in your real-world role as a great future physicist (Or is it chemst? Oh well, scientist period).

Actually, I'vee been here less, too, trying to concentrate on my carreer a little more as well. Going to go back for either an an MBA or pilots licence, just don't know which I want 1st.

[Stormin Norman]

Damn, its good to see you too. If I had moved to Kentucky a few years back, I could have got my pilots license cheap. Sometimes I wish I had, because I have an unnatural desire to fall, fly, or climb. I love heights. Ever been to the Rocky Mountains or the Cascades?

Oh! It's chemical engineering.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 12:04 pm on Sep. 2, 2002)

[Pinko]

[Capitalist Imperial]
"However, I would like to maintain my stance on US military prowess. I have not heard about the incident you are discussing about that "hill" in afghanistan. Are you confident that the brits were helping us take that hill because the US could not? Or was it just an assignment we asked them to help us with for manpower reasons? Could you elaborate on that please? I am interested in getting to know that story. ".

Will do, when I have time. Probably later tonight.

[CI]
"However, most logical people in the world concede that the US has the best equipped, best trained, highly motivated, most professional military on earth.

I don't know about our field rations. I've tasted them a few times, but I haven't tried those of other nations' yet, so you may have me there. However, I would venture to guess that we concentrate more on operational effectiveness than on perfecting tea and toast in a bag like the British army may. "

Heheh.
Best equipped - Yes
Best trained - No
Highly motivated - Depends on the task assigned them.
Most professional - Depends on your definition of professional. If you mean the biggest paid army in the world then yes. If you mean they most professional at conducting disciplined military operations, then no.

Again I will attempt to back this up with something more substantial when I am not working and have more time (possibly later tonight).
As for the field rations, the US standard ration pack is considered over luxurious by the UK armed forces, which by comparason is rather severe. I heard from a friend of mine who was serving in Kosovo, that there was major upset in the US camp when their icecream ran out. One officer was quoted as saying "How the hell are my men supposed to operate without the essentials?". Iceream? Essential?



(Edited by Pinko at 12:04 am on Sep. 2, 2002)

[Pinko]

OK, work done for the week. Time for the justification of earlier comments.

The hill I was talking about wasn't a hill at all, it was a valley (I couldn't be more wrong on that front). It was the battle of Shah-i-Kot (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D851.htm) (aka: operation Anaconda). Despite US General Tommy Franks calling it "an unqualified and absolute success" on the 18th March 2002 as the battle came to an end, some UK newspapers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4376824,00.html) reported that 1700 British marines were flying out to east Afghanistan at "America's request", because, "despite months of intensive bombing from the air, and weeks of fighting on the ground, the war [there] is far from over".
Unsubstantiated unofficial reports said that when the Joint Chiefs of Staff were consulted on how to tackle the faltering operation Anaconda, they replied "Get the Brits in there".
A spokesman for the British marines, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Haradine, said "The Americans specifically asked, in their request for forces, for Royal Marine commandos. They are absolutely suited to this mission because, firstly, they are commandos -- they do the longest infantry training in the world, 30 weeks. Thereafter in their commando units, such as 45, they will specialize in mountain and extreme cold-weather warfare. This year, for example, [unit] 45 spent almost a month doing mountain training in the cold, wet mountains of Scotland. Historically, they have spent many winters in Norway in the January-February-March period in the Arctic Circle. So they're well accustomed to extreme cold weather and they have the right equipment to deal with it. And we are the right troops for the terrain".

-This would sugest a deficiency in certain aspects of US military training.

Similarly: The American soldiers at Bagram said they were happy the British had finally arrived and were looking forward to going into combat with them. U.S. Captain Tony Rivers said "American soldiers knew of the British marines' reputation for tough fighting in rugged conditions".

The source for these two quotes can be found here. (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/04/03042002084651.asp)

This does not sound like the attitude of an infinitely superior fighting force.



Nobody can really argue that the US forces are not the best equipped in the world. No other nation spends as much on its military. Simple economics prove that.

as for training, motivation and professionality, I sugest you read this rather extensive report from an ex-US Marine. (http://www.geocities.com/itsg.geo/whymarinesareinept.htm)

As for professionalism and discipline this doesn't sound like obeyance to me. (http://cobrand.salon.com/news/feature/2000/05/15/hersh/)
Then there is this from the mouth of a US citizen. (http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html)
There is this too. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/pows-d13.shtml)
This is a doozie. (http://www.geocities.com/IslamAwareness/American/georgia.html)
This is curcumstantial yet compelling. (http://www.geocities.com/IslamAwareness/American/buys.html)
Korea too, my they have been busy. (http://www.brianwillson.com/awolrevkor.html)
These are said to be irrefutable facts. (http://www.iraqi-mission.org/us_war_crimes.htm)
A documentary about war crimes in Afghanistan (http://www.rense.com/general26/warcrimes.htm)
From the horses mouth in Vietnam (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Ensign_War_Crimes.html)
Meh, more on Korea (http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/l0106.htm)
U.S. Found Guilty: International War Crimes Tribunal (http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/163_issue/2001062803.htm)
More in Vietnam. (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/mylai.htm)
I am getting bored of that now.
The basic thrust of that was that a professional, well trained, disciplined armed force, will not commit attrocities such as those.

As for motivation, they are highly motivated as long as they are up against ill-equiped, poorly trained militia. If the US were go eager to get to grips with the enamy, why do they insist on persecuting their war from 30,000ft?
Whenever the US does high alititiude bombing runs with laser guided munitions, it is highly likely that there is a SAS member on the ground tagging the target with the laser painter. We did it all in Iraq, we did it in Kosovo and we are doing it in Afhganistan. If the US special forces are so good, why don't they do it?


(Edited by Pinko at 2:41 am on Sep. 2, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Pinko on 12:00 am on Sep. 2, 2002
[Capitalist Imperial]
"However, I would like to maintain my stance on US military prowess. I have not heard about the incident you are discussing about that "hill" in afghanistan. Are you confident that the brits were helping us take that hill because the US could not? Or was it just an assignment we asked them to help us with for manpower reasons? Could you elaborate on that please? I am interested in getting to know that story. ".

Will do, when I have time. Probably later tonight.

[CI]
"However, most logical people in the world concede that the US has the best equipped, best trained, highly motivated, most professional military on earth.

I don't know about our field rations. I've tasted them a few times, but I haven't tried those of other nations' yet, so you may have me there. However, I would venture to guess that we concentrate more on operational effectiveness than on perfecting tea and toast in a bag like the British army may. "

Heheh.
Best equipped - Yes
Best trained - No
Highly motivated - Depends on the task assigned them.
Most professional - Depends on your definition of professional. If you mean the biggest paid army in the world then yes. If you mean they most professional at conducting disciplined military operations, then no.

Again I will attempt to back this up with something more substantial when I am not working and have more time (possibly later tonight).
As for the field rations, the US standard ration pack is considered over luxurious by the UK armed forces, which by comparason is rather severe. I heard from a friend of mine who was serving in Kosovo, that there was major upset in the US camp when their icecream ran out. One officer was quoted as saying "How the hell are my men supposed to operate without the essentials?". Iceream? Essential?



(Edited by Pinko at 12:04 am on Sep. 2, 2002)


"Heheh.
Best equipped - Yes"

OK, we agree there, that is empiracally observable

"Best trained - No"

obviously we differ on our opinin here. I believe our effectiveness in all theatres of operations historically prove our training achieves its objectives.

"Highly motivated - Depends on the task assigned them."

true, that applies to all military

"Most professional - Depends on your definition of professional. If you mean the biggest paid army in the world then yes. If you mean they most professional at conducting disciplined military operations, then no."

Yes, I do mean most disciplined in military ops, as evidenced in the NAavy SEALS, delta force, rangers, green berets, and marine expeditrionary units being the worlds most effective special forces

"As for the field rations, the US standard ration pack is considered over luxurious by the UK armed forces, which by comparason is rather severe. I heard from a friend of mine who was serving in Kosovo, that there was major upset in the US camp when their icecream ran out. One officer was quoted as saying "How the hell are my men supposed to operate without the essentials?". Iceream? Essential?"

I think we both understand that that was a joke. (however, I must ask, do you understand the true power of ice cream?)

[canikickit]

(Edited by canikickit at 12:52 am on Sep. 3, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Pinko on 2:38 am on Sep. 2, 2002
OK, work done for the week. Time for the justification of earlier comments.

The hill I was talking about wasn't a hill at all, it was a valley (I couldn't be more wrong on that front). It was the battle of Shah-i-Kot (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D851.htm) (aka: operation Anaconda). Despite US General Tommy Franks calling it "an unqualified and absolute success" on the 18th March 2002 as the battle came to an end, some UK newspapers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4376824,00.html) reported that 1700 British marines were flying out to east Afghanistan at "America's request", because, "despite months of intensive bombing from the air, and weeks of fighting on the ground, the war [there] is far from over".
Unsubstantiated unofficial reports said that when the Joint Chiefs of Staff were consulted on how to tackle the faltering operation Anaconda, they replied "Get the Brits in there".
A spokesman for the British marines, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Haradine, said "The Americans specifically asked, in their request for forces, for Royal Marine commandos. They are absolutely suited to this mission because, firstly, they are commandos -- they do the longest infantry training in the world, 30 weeks. Thereafter in their commando units, such as 45, they will specialize in mountain and extreme cold-weather warfare. This year, for example, [unit] 45 spent almost a month doing mountain training in the cold, wet mountains of Scotland. Historically, they have spent many winters in Norway in the January-February-March period in the Arctic Circle. So they're well accustomed to extreme cold weather and they have the right equipment to deal with it. And we are the right troops for the terrain".

-This would sugest a deficiency in certain aspects of US military training.

Similarly: The American soldiers at Bagram said they were happy the British had finally arrived and were looking forward to going into combat with them. U.S. Captain Tony Rivers said "American soldiers knew of the British marines' reputation for tough fighting in rugged conditions".

The source for these two quotes can be found here. (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/04/03042002084651.asp)

This does not sound like the attitude of an infinitely superior fighting force.



Nobody can really argue that the US forces are not the best equipped in the world. No other nation spends as much on its military. Simple economics prove that.

as for training, motivation and professionality, I sugest you read this rather extensive report from an ex-US Marine. (http://www.geocities.com/itsg.geo/whymarinesareinept.htm)

As for professionalism and discipline this doesn't sound like obeyance to me. (http://cobrand.salon.com/news/feature/2000/05/15/hersh/)
Then there is this from the mouth of a US citizen. (http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html)
There is this too. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/pows-d13.shtml)
This is a doozie. (http://www.geocities.com/IslamAwareness/American/georgia.html)
This is curcumstantial yet compelling. (http://www.geocities.com/IslamAwareness/American/buys.html)
Korea too, my they have been busy. (http://www.brianwillson.com/awolrevkor.html)
These are said to be irrefutable facts. (http://www.iraqi-mission.org/us_war_crimes.htm)
A documentary about war crimes in Afghanistan (http://www.rense.com/general26/warcrimes.htm)
From the horses mouth in Vietnam (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Ensign_War_Crimes.html)
Meh, more on Korea (http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/l0106.htm)
U.S. Found Guilty: International War Crimes Tribunal (http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/163_issue/2001062803.htm)
More in Vietnam. (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/mylai.htm)
I am getting bored of that now.
The basic thrust of that was that a professional, well trained, disciplined armed force, will not commit attrocities such as those.

As for motivation, they are highly motivated as long as they are up against ill-equiped, poorly trained militia. If the US were go eager to get to grips with the enamy, why do they insist on persecuting their war from 30,000ft?
Whenever the US does high alititiude bombing runs with laser guided munitions, it is highly likely that there is a SAS member on the ground tagging the target with the laser painter. We did it all in Iraq, we did it in Kosovo and we are doing it in Afhganistan. If the US special forces are so good, why don't they do it?


(Edited by Pinko at 2:41 am on Sep. 2, 2002)


"The hill I was talking about wasn't a hill at all, it was a valley (I couldn't be more wrong on that front). It was the battle of Shah-i-Kot (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D851.htm) (aka: operation Anaconda). Despite US General Tommy Franks calling it "an unqualified and absolute success" on the 18th March 2002 as the battle came to an end, some UK newspapers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4376824,00.html) reported that 1700 British marines were flying out to east Afghanistan at "America's request", because, "despite months of intensive bombing from the air, and weeks of fighting on the ground, the war [there] is far from over".
Unsubstantiated unofficial reports said that when the Joint Chiefs of Staff were consulted on how to tackle the faltering operation Anaconda, they replied "Get the Brits in there".
A spokesman for the British marines, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Haradine, said "The Americans specifically asked, in their request for forces, for Royal Marine commandos. They are absolutely suited to this mission because, firstly, they are commandos -- they do the longest infantry training in the world, 30 weeks. Thereafter in their commando units, such as 45, they will specialize in mountain and extreme cold-weather warfare. This year, for example, [unit] 45 spent almost a month doing mountain training in the cold, wet mountains of Scotland. Historically, they have spent many winters in Norway in the January-February-March period in the Arctic Circle. So they're well accustomed to extreme cold weather and they have the right equipment to deal with it. And we are the right troops for the terrain".

-This would sugest a deficiency in certain aspects of US military training."

Hardly, 1st and foremost, the US army 10th mountain division, who would be quite effective in this role, was rotated out by the time operation anaconda started. The Brit commandos probably were the best option at that time as they were the only mountain-specialists available at the time, as the 10th mountain division was gone and US special forces were doing search and destroy/recon missions elsewhere in afghanistan. Besides they (brits) were still supplementing US regulars who were dug in and had been fighting for weeks. Also, you yourself admit that these quotes and claims are unofficial and not substanitiated. I'm sure I can find stories no the net that counter your side of this story. In the end, anaconda was highly successful, and I'm sure the brits contributed, but that dsoes not mean that they saved the operation for the americans. Such a claim is ludicrous.

"Similarly: The American soldiers at Bagram said they were happy the British had finally arrived and were looking forward to going into combat with them. U.S. Captain Tony Rivers said "American soldiers knew of the British marines' reputation for tough fighting in rugged conditions"."

I never said that british forces are effective and formidable. I would look forward th their help too. I am defending american forces whose professionalism you questioned.


"This does not sound like the attitude of an infinitely superior fighting force."

What attitude? That we were happy to get help from british marines? Superiority does not mean we think we are the only game in town. What attitude do you suggest is indicative of US forces lacking assertiveness or ability?

"Nobody can really argue that the US forces are not the best equipped in the world. No other nation spends as much on its military. Simple economics prove that."

OK

"as for training, motivation and professionality, I sugest you read this rather extensive report from an ex-US Marine. (http://www.geocities.com/itsg.geo/whymarinesareinept.htm)"

hardly an objective analysis, more like sour grapes from a disgruntled marine

"As for professionalism and discipline this doesn't sound like obeyance to me. (http://cobrand.salon.com/news/feature/2000/05/15/hersh/)
Then there is this from the mouth of a US citizen. (http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html)
There is this too. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/pows-d13.shtml)
This is a doozie. (http://www.geocities.com/IslamAwareness/American/georgia.html)
This is curcumstantial yet compelling. (http://www.geocities.com/IslamAwareness/American/buys.html)
Korea too, my they have been busy. (http://www.brianwillson.com/awolrevkor.html)
These are said to be irrefutable facts. (http://www.iraqi-mission.org/us_war_crimes.htm)
A documentary about war crimes in Afghanistan (http://www.rense.com/general26/warcrimes.htm)
From the horses mouth in Vietnam (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Ensign_War_Crimes.html)
Meh, more on Korea (http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/l0106.htm)
U.S. Found Guilty: International War Crimes Tribunal (http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/163_issue/2001062803.htm)
More in Vietnam. (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/mylai.htm)
I am getting bored of that now.
The basic thrust of that was that a professional, well trained, disciplined armed force, will not commit attrocities such as those."

you are confusing war crime allegations with professionalism. The UK is also faces allegations of war crimes in WWI, WWII, and the Faulklands. Any nation that has ever conducted warfare can be chargesd with "war crimes at one point or another.

"As for motivation, they are highly motivated as long as they are up against ill-equiped, poorly trained militia."

Perhaps you forgot about the american revolution, 1812, WW!, WWII, and Korea (we actually fought chinese forces there, and with much success) and Desert storm, when we faced the worlds 4th largest standing army, a force 4x the size of ours, seasoned from battle with Iran for 10 years, and the fact that we faced down the soviet union for 50 years.

"If the US were go eager to get to grips with the enamy, why do they insist on persecuting their war from 30,000ft?"

???? Are you suggesting we put our forces in danger for the fun of it? Why wouldn't we bombard an enemy from a safe distance if our technology permits it?

"Whenever the US does high alititiude bombing runs with laser guided munitions, it is highly likely that there is a SAS member on the ground tagging the target with the laser painter. We did it all in Iraq, we did it in Kosovo and we are doing it in Afhganistan. If the US special forces are so good, why don't they do it?"

You did all of the ground-based laser painting for US air forces in the last 10 years? Dude, give me a break, now you are just being silly. I'm sure some brits did help,but again, US special forces do the vast majority of our own up-close and personal dirty-work. We lase most of our own targets, with occasional supplemental help from allies.



(Edited by Pinko at 2:41 am on Sep. 2, 2002)


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 1:18 am on Sep. 3, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

It's not very professional to break domestic or international law in any job. If the US brands it's self as protector or freedoms and liberties, going round butchering civilians, destroying their water supplies, and treating them inhumanely as a soldier in the US army would not be considered good form in my book.

I would be unprofessional if I didn't follow health and safety guidelines at work, or if a doctor didn't wash his hands before surgery. Killing civillians is not a role of the military, so yes, although they are professional killers, it would still be unprofessional of them to kill civilians.

As far as military operations go, I don't know what's to be so proud about having such a huge military might, it just proves the lack of democratic influence that the US has if they need such a large fighting force. It's nothing to be proud of. The military is for killing people and destroying things. It is for conquering nations and inflicting will. It is entirely non-democratic and imperialistic and the anti-thesis of everything the US preaches. It's not democracy.

The sole designed purpose for Arms is to kill and destroy, do you not agree?
What is positive about that?

[Pinko]

"Also, you yourself admit that these quotes and claims are unofficial and not substanitiated."

I said the quote about the Joint Chiefs asking for the Brits was unofficial and insubstanciated. That is the only one that is. It appeared on 24 hour news over here, I can only assume it was a minor leak from the Whitehouse that went largely unreported.

"The Brit commandos probably were the best option at that time as they were the only mountain-specialists available at the time..."

Avaliable? They were in the UK.

"In the end, anaconda was highly successful, and I'm sure the brits contributed, but that dsoes not mean that they saved the operation for the americans. Such a claim is ludicrous."

Sucessful? Most of the fighters escaped. The Brits turned up and found practicly noone there. The commander of the British forces in Afghanistan lied to the press about significant engagements but later withdrew those comments in the face of contrary evidence.

"hardly an objective analysis, more like sour grapes from a disgruntled marine"

One that has been campaigning for ten years for drastic improvements in discipline and training, who's website is full of comments by other ex-marines (and current) agreeing with the analysis and supporting his campaign.

"you are confusing war crime allegations with professionalism. The UK is also faces allegations of war crimes in WWI, WWII, and the Faulklands. Any nation that has ever conducted warfare can be chargesd with "war crimes at one point or another. "

Most of those sites are a little more than alegations. Several of them contains testemonies from US ex-servicemen who witnessed or were involved in carrying out these warcrimes. The UK commited many warcrimes during world wars one and two, as did all sides, but only the Germans were ever prosecuted. However, the documented cases of US warcrimes goes right up to present day (and I am sure the UK has commited some since the world wars). But the US armed forces have a reputation with every force they fight alongside, of being ill-disciplined, disobedient and trigger happy. But it is the blinkered attitude of people like to that see to it that these things never change and that the US armed forces never become a force that is respected. I have talked to these people, one of my best friends is a Captain in the Royal Engineers, I have talked to members of the armed forces of Germany, South African, Canada, Italy (although the Italian painted his own military in worse colours) and Israel. They all say the same thing, that US troops are a nightmare to work with, that they are arrogant and unprofessional. With such a broad cross section of opinion, I am willing to believe them over a few flag waving patriots.

"Perhaps you forgot about the american revolution, 1812, WW!, WWII, and Korea (we actually fought chinese forces there, and with much success) and Desert storm, when we faced the worlds 4th largest standing army, a force 4x the size of ours, seasoned from battle with Iran for 10 years, and the fact that we faced down the soviet union for 50 years. "

American Revolution: Still technicly British at that point and mostly untrained.
1812: Meh, we were busy with Napoleon.
WW1: Only joined in for the last 2 years.
WW2: The pinacle of US military history, although the ground troops had more enthusiasm than skill. Big contribution on the bomber front though.
Korea: A UN action, US input was the biggest though. China was never really militarily powerful, it lacked discipline and good equipment. Still, a good effort by the US, still at its peak.
Iraq: You make them sound so competant. US responsible for more UK deaths that Iraq was.
Bay of Pigs: Failed
Vietnam War: Failed
Operation Eagle Claw (Iran hostage rescue, aka Desert One): Failed
Somalia: Failed

"Are you suggesting we put our forces in danger for the fun of it? Why wouldn't we bombard an enemy from a safe distance if our technology permits it?"

Your technology is far less accurate than the military portrays, it is a huge threat to local civilians. US serviceman (any country for that matter) sign up to risk their lives for the values of their country, it seems the US' values ammount to dropping bombs from rediculous heights onto any speck that moves. Of course, mistakes will happen, but the US takes no action to minimise those mistakes.

"You did all of the ground-based laser painting for US air forces in the last 10 years..."

OK, saying we did it all in Iraq was a bit of an overstatement, but the truth is, we do the majority of it.

"I believe our effectiveness in all theatres of operations historically prove our training achieves its objectives."

Achieving objectives and being the best trained are two very different things. Objectives will be chosen to siut the capabilties of the troops (generally). Crap troops will be given crap objectives and probably achieve them.

I don't know why I am trying to convince you. It is like arguing with the deeply religious. Anything I put before you will be dismissed as lies or subjective or biased views. Ultimately, what you believe doesn't change anything.

[Capitalist Imperial]

"I said the quote about the Joint Chiefs asking for the Brits was unofficial and insubstanciated (Sic). That is the only one
that is. It appeared on 24 hour news over here, I can only assume it was a minor leak from the Whitehouse that went largely unreported.

Fine, it is heresay, albiet probably true, but subject to debate. And, it is one opinion in thousands I'm sure.

"Avaliable? They were in the UK."

OK, you may have me there, but I think the circumstances surrounding their participation was not quite as simple as, "We (US Forces) can't do it, but the Brits can!".


"Sucessful? Most of the fighters escaped. The Brits turned up and found practicly noone there. The commander ofthe British forces in Afghanistan lied to the press about significant engagements but later withdrew those comments in the face of contrary evidence."

Yes, initial death toll estimates were overstated, but so,perhaps, is the number of escapees claimed. Besides, body-count is not the only measure of success. We kept the rebels on the run, and uncovered significant weapons caches from the mountain.

"One that has been campaigning for ten years for drastic improvements in discipline and training, who's website is full of comments by other ex-marines (and current) agreeing with the analysis and supporting his campaign."

We both Know I can cut and paste 10 sites supporting US marines and its current doctrine, sites which also provide comprehensive analysis supporting data.

"American Revolution: Still technicly British at that point and mostly untrained."

Yeah, and we still beat you.

"1812: Meh, we were busy with Napoleon."

LOL, OK, fair enough. That was the one time in history where the french were actually formidable.

"WW1: Only joined in for the last 2 years."

An important contribution nevertheless, and against a capable enemy.

"WW2: The pinacle of US military history,"

halleluja!

"although the ground troops had more enthusiasm than skill."

Oh, come on!!! D-Day and the battle of the bulge were US-led!!!!

"Big contribution on the bomber front though."

Yeah, only after the Mustangs started escorting the B-17's!


"Korea: A UN action, US input was the biggest though. China was never really militarily powerful, it lacked discipline and good equipment. Still, a good effort by the US, still at its peak."

Fair enough

"Iraq: You make them sound so competant. US responsible for more UK deaths that Iraq was."

Well, perhaps I am over-stating their ability, but you are dumbing them down too much. The friendly fire incidents were unfortunate.

"Bay of Pigs: Failed"

US forces were never in the bay of pigs

"Vietnam War: Failed"

Not from an actual military perspective. Our forces were very effective. The management of the victories by or government and the politics of the war is what failed us.

"Operation Eagle Claw (Iran hostage rescue, aka Desert One): Failed"

Hostage situations are tough


"Somalia: Failed"

That was not a combat-operation. We were trying to help a UN operation, and the locals stabbed us in the back.

Besides, 50+ troops trapped in the middle of a hostile city, against 1500+ armed rebels, and most fight their way out alive? That is not failure to me.