Well done to UK senior officers!
Thread Starter
Well done to UK senior officers!
Many acquaintances have been shocked by the gung-ho knuckle draggers paraded on the media as representatives of the US 'brass'. (You know, the shaven headed jug-eared inarticulate chap and he of the 'It's Hammer Time' exhortation).
What a contrast our senior blokes provide. Calm, measured, dignified, professional and 'sensitive'. Blokes like Major General Brimms, Air Marshal Burridge and Group Captain Al Lockwood reassure the civilian population hugely - especially the semi-peacenik ones who are uncomfortable if they sense that war is being 'glorified'. And I suspect that they make the rest of us damned proud to be British, too!
But could someone tell Al Lockwood that it's Iraq (with the I like the i in if, and preferably with a nice long a) and not Eye-raq?
What a contrast our senior blokes provide. Calm, measured, dignified, professional and 'sensitive'. Blokes like Major General Brimms, Air Marshal Burridge and Group Captain Al Lockwood reassure the civilian population hugely - especially the semi-peacenik ones who are uncomfortable if they sense that war is being 'glorified'. And I suspect that they make the rest of us damned proud to be British, too!
But could someone tell Al Lockwood that it's Iraq (with the I like the i in if, and preferably with a nice long a) and not Eye-raq?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's this, Pick on the Yanks Day? Yes, thus far, our brass have been very good presentationally, but we Brits are naturally more reserved than our US cousins and, if I may say so, occasionally a little duller. The US brass have generally performed well during press conferences too.
The Admiral ('hammer time' etc) was motivating his guys and girls, not giving a press conference. Besides, I noticed his speech was cut differently by different TV networks, some making the whole thing look more frenzied than others.
The Admiral ('hammer time' etc) was motivating his guys and girls, not giving a press conference. Besides, I noticed his speech was cut differently by different TV networks, some making the whole thing look more frenzied than others.
Thread Starter
No it's not 'pick on the yanks day', it's 'credit where credit's due day'.
The yanks used to be absolute masters of this presentational stuff - we all remember Colin Powell from last time. Even Stormin' Norman and the Air Commander (name forgotten) came across better on TV than in real life, and had clearly been carefully briefed on how not to appear like gung-ho cowboys. But this time, we've seen very little of the more thoughtful and articulate US officers who must be there somewhere.
It may be an inevitable consequence of the generally higher levels of intellectual and educational achievement in the British forces, it may be about training, it may be a combination. But these chaps deserve a round of applause, and deserve some differentiation from their US colleagues.
The yanks used to be absolute masters of this presentational stuff - we all remember Colin Powell from last time. Even Stormin' Norman and the Air Commander (name forgotten) came across better on TV than in real life, and had clearly been carefully briefed on how not to appear like gung-ho cowboys. But this time, we've seen very little of the more thoughtful and articulate US officers who must be there somewhere.
It may be an inevitable consequence of the generally higher levels of intellectual and educational achievement in the British forces, it may be about training, it may be a combination. But these chaps deserve a round of applause, and deserve some differentiation from their US colleagues.
".....I was concerned by the idea of our forces going into battle with the US Marines, for not only had they been placed in the sector opposite the most heavily fortified Iraqi positions, they had also had the reputation of being exceptionally gung-ho....."
General Sir Peter de la Billiere - from 'Storm Command - a personal account of the Gulf War'.
General Sir Peter de la Billiere - from 'Storm Command - a personal account of the Gulf War'.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a bit concerned about the amount of US bashing that is now going on in these threads.
My father served in the British Army from 1941 to 1945 and although he tells the old joke about
When the RAF come over the Germans take cover,
When the Luftwaffe come over the Allies take cover,
When the USAF come over Everyone takes cover.
He also tells of when he was involved in the Arnhem operation. The painfully slow progress made by the Guards Armoured Div towards Arnhem was influenced by a great desire to avoid heavy casualties. My father, and many of his contempories, believe that if the US Army, with their 'Gung-Ho' attitude were used instead then there would have been a much better chance of relieving the Para's holding the Bridge.
And as for De La Billiere - he has made it almost impossible to stop ex-memebers of the special forces from writing their memoirs as, if its good enough for the boss, why not everyone?
My father served in the British Army from 1941 to 1945 and although he tells the old joke about
When the RAF come over the Germans take cover,
When the Luftwaffe come over the Allies take cover,
When the USAF come over Everyone takes cover.
He also tells of when he was involved in the Arnhem operation. The painfully slow progress made by the Guards Armoured Div towards Arnhem was influenced by a great desire to avoid heavy casualties. My father, and many of his contempories, believe that if the US Army, with their 'Gung-Ho' attitude were used instead then there would have been a much better chance of relieving the Para's holding the Bridge.
And as for De La Billiere - he has made it almost impossible to stop ex-memebers of the special forces from writing their memoirs as, if its good enough for the boss, why not everyone?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the USAF come over Everyone takes cover.
I have just been watching the most apalling images of our "allies" whooping and screaming like deranged sports fans when a building was taken out in Um Qasr. It seemed to me entirely inappropriate behaviour. Regardless of whose side they were on, the Iraqi soldiers were still human beings and deserved to be treated with some degree of respect in death.
To quote Lt Col Tim Collins of RIrish:
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory...... "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
Last edited by kbf1; 23rd Mar 2003 at 19:00.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kbf1
Aren't you being a little pompous? I saw the same video sequence and got the impression that the US Marines were showing natural exhilaration at what appeared to be a very accurate shot with some sort of shoulder-launched missile. Right through the front door, the commentator said. When I was young and silly I made similar noises when I shredded a towed glider target with a burst of 20mm. Lighten up on the Yanks for Gawd's sake!
Aren't you being a little pompous? I saw the same video sequence and got the impression that the US Marines were showing natural exhilaration at what appeared to be a very accurate shot with some sort of shoulder-launched missile. Right through the front door, the commentator said. When I was young and silly I made similar noises when I shredded a towed glider target with a burst of 20mm. Lighten up on the Yanks for Gawd's sake!
Thread Starter
I'm sure anyone would feel the urge to whoop with exhileration, FV. But in this PC day and age, as KBF suggests, it looks very tasteless and insensitive to be whooping like 'deranged sports fans' (good description, KBF1) at what was the death of fellow human beings who did indeed deserve to be treated with some degree of respect and dignity even in death. They were not paper targets, after all.
As well as being wrong to glory in death, it's unhelpful, in that it helps drive a further wedge between the military and the civilian society it serves. This is dangerous and unnecessary.
And to point out this one failing is not necessarily Yank-bashing, any more than it is to draw a comparison between the often bright and articulate UK troops being interviewed and their US counterparts. It's just observation and opinion.
I happen to believe that we are lucky enough to have the very best armed forces in the world. It's not very British to say so, I know, but still....
They are not the best equipped, but do seem to have the best raw material and seem to be the best trained, so any comparison will always make the subject of a comparison with the Brits look second best.
Our US allies have many strengths, and I'm sure few British servicemen would not far sooner have them on our side. I'm sure they have criticisms of us, too. Elucidating these may be unhelpful, but it's not so very serious, surely.
Perhaps KBF 1 is right, perhaps our two nations do operate according to a different set of values. Certainly many Brits find the American's full on "God Bless America" hand-on-breast patriotism unfamiliar and disconcerting - even embarrassing. And they do tend to get rather excited and they do holler and whoop more than we do. But at the end of the day who's to say who's right and wrong?
As well as being wrong to glory in death, it's unhelpful, in that it helps drive a further wedge between the military and the civilian society it serves. This is dangerous and unnecessary.
And to point out this one failing is not necessarily Yank-bashing, any more than it is to draw a comparison between the often bright and articulate UK troops being interviewed and their US counterparts. It's just observation and opinion.
I happen to believe that we are lucky enough to have the very best armed forces in the world. It's not very British to say so, I know, but still....
They are not the best equipped, but do seem to have the best raw material and seem to be the best trained, so any comparison will always make the subject of a comparison with the Brits look second best.
Our US allies have many strengths, and I'm sure few British servicemen would not far sooner have them on our side. I'm sure they have criticisms of us, too. Elucidating these may be unhelpful, but it's not so very serious, surely.
Perhaps KBF 1 is right, perhaps our two nations do operate according to a different set of values. Certainly many Brits find the American's full on "God Bless America" hand-on-breast patriotism unfamiliar and disconcerting - even embarrassing. And they do tend to get rather excited and they do holler and whoop more than we do. But at the end of the day who's to say who's right and wrong?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rubbish!!!
kbf1In the Army for only nine years, never seen any action I would guess, about 27-30 years of age. Of course the troops whooped and yelled when the missile found it's target, the same target that was quite possibly responsible for the deaths/wounding of their colleagues that these same troops had recently suffered, it is a natural human response and not confined to the Americans.
My family come from a very famous Scottish regiment who were taught to scream as they went into battle to un-nerve the enemy and boost their own moral, exactly what these lads were doing having fought a hard battle against a determined foe and lost some of their comrades, for heavens sake kbf1 get real!!! You have made a complete fool of yourself on another thread concerning 'blue-on-blue' and now you appear determined to do the same here.
As you are a professional soldier I am disturbed by you attitudes.
Yes I have been in the front line, under fire so do know what it is like, especially the relief when you know you have just effectively stopped the source of your own concern and deaths of your colleagues, and yes, we whooped and yelled too!
Jacko Great disappointment that you don't understand what really happens in times of conflict, it is your job to, you should not be supporting kbf1 in this issue if you want to be taken seriously.
My family come from a very famous Scottish regiment who were taught to scream as they went into battle to un-nerve the enemy and boost their own moral, exactly what these lads were doing having fought a hard battle against a determined foe and lost some of their comrades, for heavens sake kbf1 get real!!! You have made a complete fool of yourself on another thread concerning 'blue-on-blue' and now you appear determined to do the same here.
As you are a professional soldier I am disturbed by you attitudes.
Yes I have been in the front line, under fire so do know what it is like, especially the relief when you know you have just effectively stopped the source of your own concern and deaths of your colleagues, and yes, we whooped and yelled too!
Jacko Great disappointment that you don't understand what really happens in times of conflict, it is your job to, you should not be supporting kbf1 in this issue if you want to be taken seriously.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with KBF1 on this.
I was a little disturbed to see US troops screaming with delight as some poor sods who were only obeying orders too got taken out by airstrikes in Umm Quasar (I put the "U" because the Iraqi roadsigns show it).
I recall GW1 - when after the first night of strikes US aircrew being interviewd were all "we whupped those ayrabs real good" and"yeeehaaaah" and in contrast an RAF pilot said "I was scared sh1tless for the whole trip!" (his exact words).
Delighting in the deaths of other soldiers/sailor/airmen is always in bad taste as they were just doing their job. Now, when a terrorist cops it.............(I did smile when the SAS did the job on the IRA ASU in Gib!).
As for PR - I do hope the American senior officers on show are smarter than they sound . Most sound like they would need help to get their underpants on the right way around in the morning and have been reading the "US DoD Guide to Sounding Tough" as a means of getting to sleep.
I was a little disturbed to see US troops screaming with delight as some poor sods who were only obeying orders too got taken out by airstrikes in Umm Quasar (I put the "U" because the Iraqi roadsigns show it).
I recall GW1 - when after the first night of strikes US aircrew being interviewd were all "we whupped those ayrabs real good" and"yeeehaaaah" and in contrast an RAF pilot said "I was scared sh1tless for the whole trip!" (his exact words).
Delighting in the deaths of other soldiers/sailor/airmen is always in bad taste as they were just doing their job. Now, when a terrorist cops it.............(I did smile when the SAS did the job on the IRA ASU in Gib!).
As for PR - I do hope the American senior officers on show are smarter than they sound . Most sound like they would need help to get their underpants on the right way around in the morning and have been reading the "US DoD Guide to Sounding Tough" as a means of getting to sleep.
Thread Starter
G Khan,
I quite understand what goes on. You seem not to. Blood curdling screams like those of the Highlanders and Gurkhas (with the specific purpose of undermining enemy morale) as you charge are one thing while whoops of triumph (especially when you know there's a news camera rolling) as you destroy an enemy target some distance away are quite another. Yes they are entirely natural, and yes they are entirely understandable, but so is shooting prisoners in revenge after a battle. Our natural and understandable instincts are perhaps sometimes best repressed.
There is a particular imperative for the military to act appropriately in the media-covered total wars which we now undertake, in which civilian support is so vital. Coalition warfare makes things even more complex, since I suspect that public reaction to the footage in question would be very different in the US and in the UK.
And it's interesting that US troops and personnel seem so prone to such displays of exhuberance and hyped up emotion when UK forces seem to react more calmly. Listening to the difference between US and RAF RT in action over the Balkans showed some very stark differences, and made me wonder if these differences contributed to what made the recent F-16/Canadian blue on blue more likely.
I quite understand what goes on. You seem not to. Blood curdling screams like those of the Highlanders and Gurkhas (with the specific purpose of undermining enemy morale) as you charge are one thing while whoops of triumph (especially when you know there's a news camera rolling) as you destroy an enemy target some distance away are quite another. Yes they are entirely natural, and yes they are entirely understandable, but so is shooting prisoners in revenge after a battle. Our natural and understandable instincts are perhaps sometimes best repressed.
There is a particular imperative for the military to act appropriately in the media-covered total wars which we now undertake, in which civilian support is so vital. Coalition warfare makes things even more complex, since I suspect that public reaction to the footage in question would be very different in the US and in the UK.
And it's interesting that US troops and personnel seem so prone to such displays of exhuberance and hyped up emotion when UK forces seem to react more calmly. Listening to the difference between US and RAF RT in action over the Balkans showed some very stark differences, and made me wonder if these differences contributed to what made the recent F-16/Canadian blue on blue more likely.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Brits are a bunch of pompous sideline commentators.
In WW2, Montgomery was so plodding and gun shy that the war would still be going on if he'd been in charge instead of Eisenhower. One of the best things Patton did was to constantly poke him with a stick (figuratively) to get him moving. The best warfighters are aggresive. The US forces are aggressive. It may cause a few extra casualties or blue-on-blue in the short term, but history shows agressivenes reduces both overall casualties and the length of a conflict in the long term.
Keep Yank bashing. We could have done both Desert Storm and this war without you. You could not even begin about thinking of doing this without us. While you pump up your egos by busting on us, just remeber all the sacrafices US servicemen and women have made for YOUR country.
BTW, I am not bashing either the commitment or ability of your armed forces. They are well trained and outstanding warfighters. I participated in many operations with British forces and was always impressed. What I am commenting on is the pompous holier-than-thou attitudes of those posting here.
Oh, excuse me...I'm not "calm, measured, dignified, professional and sensitive". We have a saying in the US about someone being so uptight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, you'd get a diamond back out. I think that applies here perfectly.
In WW2, Montgomery was so plodding and gun shy that the war would still be going on if he'd been in charge instead of Eisenhower. One of the best things Patton did was to constantly poke him with a stick (figuratively) to get him moving. The best warfighters are aggresive. The US forces are aggressive. It may cause a few extra casualties or blue-on-blue in the short term, but history shows agressivenes reduces both overall casualties and the length of a conflict in the long term.
Keep Yank bashing. We could have done both Desert Storm and this war without you. You could not even begin about thinking of doing this without us. While you pump up your egos by busting on us, just remeber all the sacrafices US servicemen and women have made for YOUR country.
BTW, I am not bashing either the commitment or ability of your armed forces. They are well trained and outstanding warfighters. I participated in many operations with British forces and was always impressed. What I am commenting on is the pompous holier-than-thou attitudes of those posting here.
Oh, excuse me...I'm not "calm, measured, dignified, professional and sensitive". We have a saying in the US about someone being so uptight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, you'd get a diamond back out. I think that applies here perfectly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Jacko The answer is pretty simple then isn't it?, get rid of the TV camera crews at the front line.
Your idea that the troops should in any way curb their natural reactions so as to comply with some stupid PC protocol for TV is quite beyond reason. When under fire most of the troops won't even know there is a camera in attendance.
After four of five days crawling around the desert, living in foxholes and, when extremely lucky, the back of or shelter of a truck, wearing the same clothes, eating compo rations, going without a proper wash and being shot at whilst watching one's comrades die/get wounded tends to concentrate one's mind on the foe and where they are shooting from, the average soldier couldn't give a toss about the location of the TV camera and nor should he.
Your idea that the troops should in any way curb their natural reactions so as to comply with some stupid PC protocol for TV is quite beyond reason. When under fire most of the troops won't even know there is a camera in attendance.
After four of five days crawling around the desert, living in foxholes and, when extremely lucky, the back of or shelter of a truck, wearing the same clothes, eating compo rations, going without a proper wash and being shot at whilst watching one's comrades die/get wounded tends to concentrate one's mind on the foe and where they are shooting from, the average soldier couldn't give a toss about the location of the TV camera and nor should he.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The yank bashing here is beyond belief.
Moggie, Jacko, Kbf your comments are meaningless drivel which totally misses the point. Your sense of self importance shows how little you understand. I can tell you all as a fact, that there has been some whooping and hollering British style during the destruction of Iraqi targets. I am saddened by what I have done over the years, but not ashamed. Don't you dare judge those soldiers who are fighting on the frontline from the comfort of your PC.
I am British and would like to assure our American cousins that the Dickheads who are complaining here are not representative of us as a nation or our armed forces.
The smart-arse pompous, sanctimonious gits who are criticising have clearly never been in battle and experienced the fear that you can have from being shot at.
Jacko, you and your kind want it all ways, you want to be there with the troops so that you can earn your war correspondants pay and show everyone your great tv pictures back home, but you find their obvious excitement and relief at still being alive, distasteful. They are doing a job, and they are at war. I imagine that much of the whooping was out of a sense of relief that they are still alive. This isn't a war put on for the benefit of the media despite what you may think.
Killing people is not pleasant, but the politicians have sent us to do a job for them. The Iraqi's are the enemy at the moment, you forget that at your perrill, you have to treat them as an enemy and if that means that in the heat of battle that you are happy that they are dead and you are not, well thats tough for them.
I will say it again, we are at war.
The marines are fighting, and some of them are dying so get the f^^k of your high horse and get down into the trenches and see what it is really like.
You appear to have been brought up on a diet of clinical war where nobody actually really gets hurt. Nobody gets frightened, nobody gets excited at having done a good job and defeated or killed the enemy.
Sometimes the pontificating on this site from people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about makes me sick.
Moggie, Jacko, Kbf your comments are meaningless drivel which totally misses the point. Your sense of self importance shows how little you understand. I can tell you all as a fact, that there has been some whooping and hollering British style during the destruction of Iraqi targets. I am saddened by what I have done over the years, but not ashamed. Don't you dare judge those soldiers who are fighting on the frontline from the comfort of your PC.
I am British and would like to assure our American cousins that the Dickheads who are complaining here are not representative of us as a nation or our armed forces.
The smart-arse pompous, sanctimonious gits who are criticising have clearly never been in battle and experienced the fear that you can have from being shot at.
Jacko, you and your kind want it all ways, you want to be there with the troops so that you can earn your war correspondants pay and show everyone your great tv pictures back home, but you find their obvious excitement and relief at still being alive, distasteful. They are doing a job, and they are at war. I imagine that much of the whooping was out of a sense of relief that they are still alive. This isn't a war put on for the benefit of the media despite what you may think.
Killing people is not pleasant, but the politicians have sent us to do a job for them. The Iraqi's are the enemy at the moment, you forget that at your perrill, you have to treat them as an enemy and if that means that in the heat of battle that you are happy that they are dead and you are not, well thats tough for them.
I will say it again, we are at war.
The marines are fighting, and some of them are dying so get the f^^k of your high horse and get down into the trenches and see what it is really like.
You appear to have been brought up on a diet of clinical war where nobody actually really gets hurt. Nobody gets frightened, nobody gets excited at having done a good job and defeated or killed the enemy.
Sometimes the pontificating on this site from people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about makes me sick.
Thread Starter
I'm immensely glad that these soldiers, Brit and American are prepared to go to war and to put their lives on the line on all of our behalf. But it is on our behalf and our armed forces will inevitably (and should quite rightly) reflect our societies. The differences between how Brit and US forces operate are thus interesting. The bottom line is that Brit senior officers, troops and pilots can do their jobs without all the overblown gung ho rhetoric, the whooping and hollering and when interviewed show bright, enthusiastic and intelligent competence. The thread began simply as a salute to Brimms and Burridge and their like, and though the gung ho attitudes of some of the US officers (who happen to be those pushed forward to appear on TV and who may be unrepresentative) may discomfort me, it wasn't intended as Yank bashing more generally.
At the end of the day the rhetoric, Arnie-style simplification and whooping is clearly not NECESSARY for military success. (Some would suspect quite the reverse).
Desparado
There's nothing at all wrong with excitement and 'relief at survival', and as I've said I can quite understand the desire to whoop if you kill enemy troops who've delayed your advance, killed your mates or scared you to death, or even to shoot the ba$tards if you capture them. If all troops acted the same on the battlefield, one would naturally assume that this was just an inevitable human reaction, but they do not all act the same, and this reaction does seem to be characteristically American. It sickened me when I saw it, whereas now I'm inclined to chalk it up to my inability to understand people from a very different culture.
HAL pilot
I like your grasp of history as much as I admire your spelling, and I'm sure that many will be amused by your implied characterisation of Monty (and Brit forces more generally) as a timid, gun-shy nervous fop by comparison with Patton (!) and by comparison with the man who wanted to nuke the Koreans.
At the end of the day the rhetoric, Arnie-style simplification and whooping is clearly not NECESSARY for military success. (Some would suspect quite the reverse).
Desparado
There's nothing at all wrong with excitement and 'relief at survival', and as I've said I can quite understand the desire to whoop if you kill enemy troops who've delayed your advance, killed your mates or scared you to death, or even to shoot the ba$tards if you capture them. If all troops acted the same on the battlefield, one would naturally assume that this was just an inevitable human reaction, but they do not all act the same, and this reaction does seem to be characteristically American. It sickened me when I saw it, whereas now I'm inclined to chalk it up to my inability to understand people from a very different culture.
HAL pilot
I like your grasp of history as much as I admire your spelling, and I'm sure that many will be amused by your implied characterisation of Monty (and Brit forces more generally) as a timid, gun-shy nervous fop by comparison with Patton (!) and by comparison with the man who wanted to nuke the Koreans.
The initial observation in this thread may have had some merit, but some of the subsequent contributions have been dire. I would guess that this forum for military aircrew has been hijacked by a bunch of arm-chair generals who delight in bashing our allies simply because the opportunity presents itself.
The incident where the marines yell when their missile hits a building was unfortunate. Unfortunate because a camera was there to capture the moment. Anybody who had been under gunfire for a while, who scored a hit and settled the skirmish would have celebrated a job well done. As the the admiral addressing his men, the remark about hammer time was taken out of context completely.
Have some respect for the US miltary and its leadership. Its not perfect, and sometimes the choice of words plays badly over here, but we are at war, in a combined and joint operation. Carping serves only to support the other side.
The incident where the marines yell when their missile hits a building was unfortunate. Unfortunate because a camera was there to capture the moment. Anybody who had been under gunfire for a while, who scored a hit and settled the skirmish would have celebrated a job well done. As the the admiral addressing his men, the remark about hammer time was taken out of context completely.
Have some respect for the US miltary and its leadership. Its not perfect, and sometimes the choice of words plays badly over here, but we are at war, in a combined and joint operation. Carping serves only to support the other side.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, you have absolutely no idea. You are full of such pompous, self importance but do a great diservice to the the very few real reporters who know how to report a war. Every one of the people on here who have sickened me and many others with their hand-wringing, liberal, knicker wetting shock and horror at the pictures of the US troops whooping at the hit of the missile have never, ever, (obviously) been in the military in the front line as a combat soldier.
G.Khan summarises it best. Jacko and the others who are so far up their own backsides with their pompous pontifications about how the soldiers should behave. Just because there is some teat sucking reporter present with a camera who has very obviously no idea about what is going on around him, the soldiers are expected to alter their behaviour so as not to offend the sensibilites of the Nintendo audience.
War is horrific, and I don't mean those skirmishes that we witnessed yesterday, yet we have the hand wringers who spout off about the freedoms they have thanks to the young men and women who are out on the front lines and they still try and tell us how put out they are at the typical behaviour of ANY front line combat soldier who is in action and on the winning side of a skirmish just like we saw yesterday.
Just keep the reporters with the back up/logistics troops. To have anal retentive, sanctimonious reporters preach about the actions or morals of our allied troops behaviour in the middle of a skirmish is just the limit.
G.Khan summarises it best. Jacko and the others who are so far up their own backsides with their pompous pontifications about how the soldiers should behave. Just because there is some teat sucking reporter present with a camera who has very obviously no idea about what is going on around him, the soldiers are expected to alter their behaviour so as not to offend the sensibilites of the Nintendo audience.
War is horrific, and I don't mean those skirmishes that we witnessed yesterday, yet we have the hand wringers who spout off about the freedoms they have thanks to the young men and women who are out on the front lines and they still try and tell us how put out they are at the typical behaviour of ANY front line combat soldier who is in action and on the winning side of a skirmish just like we saw yesterday.
Just keep the reporters with the back up/logistics troops. To have anal retentive, sanctimonious reporters preach about the actions or morals of our allied troops behaviour in the middle of a skirmish is just the limit.
Last edited by Danny; 24th Mar 2003 at 11:35.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lincs
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only have a couple of points I'd like to make on this subject.
Some people see our senior officers as being pompous and out of touch. This is not true at all, but that's how their accents and queen's English comes accross. The senior Officers of our Allies often come accross as ghetto types with a gung-ho attitude. I would suggest that all sides are communicating in the way the troops and they know best. Cultures are funny things and I for one would not expect our allies to know our culture perfectly, as a few individuals here (including me) would expect to understand the American culture totally.
The second point I'd like to make is that whooping & hollering is somewhat better than parading POWs on camera and firing wantanly into a river where it is believed an enemy may be hiding. A little vocal acknowledgement of success is not against the Geneva Convention so I would suggest that while we may not agree with this type of celebration, folks like Jacko and the rest should look at more important factors in this conflict.
I for one would like to thank our colleagues and allies for their commitment and for giving me a safe umberrela under which to live. If you want to get cheap points from our allies, then please have the good manners to back it up by saying it say it to their faces!
If I've made any spelling or grammar mistakes Jacko, please feel free to point them out, as I'd feel better if you took cheap shots at me rather than my colleagues in the front line.
Some people see our senior officers as being pompous and out of touch. This is not true at all, but that's how their accents and queen's English comes accross. The senior Officers of our Allies often come accross as ghetto types with a gung-ho attitude. I would suggest that all sides are communicating in the way the troops and they know best. Cultures are funny things and I for one would not expect our allies to know our culture perfectly, as a few individuals here (including me) would expect to understand the American culture totally.
The second point I'd like to make is that whooping & hollering is somewhat better than parading POWs on camera and firing wantanly into a river where it is believed an enemy may be hiding. A little vocal acknowledgement of success is not against the Geneva Convention so I would suggest that while we may not agree with this type of celebration, folks like Jacko and the rest should look at more important factors in this conflict.
I for one would like to thank our colleagues and allies for their commitment and for giving me a safe umberrela under which to live. If you want to get cheap points from our allies, then please have the good manners to back it up by saying it say it to their faces!
If I've made any spelling or grammar mistakes Jacko, please feel free to point them out, as I'd feel better if you took cheap shots at me rather than my colleagues in the front line.