By American military you mean the Army
And that's not a fair statement imo. I have to disagree highly that after OIF III when Iraq wasn't a living hell on earth, the Marines I worked with and around were very very very restrained.
And that's not a fair statement imo. I have to disagree highly that after OIF III when Iraq wasn't a living hell on earth, the Marines I worked with and around were very very very restrained.
M
member 3289
Guest
Don't wanna get all Murrican on you but with the measly amount of money your country spends on its military, you should be a little more appreciative of daddy for protecting you.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
It's well known Americans are all fat morons, the British all have shitty teeth and eat crumpets for every meal.
Or perhaps you can show me some sources for rate of missions tasking vs friendly fire between countries.
Given the size and scope of our military interventions, im suspect of the details that this is just stupidity of that the friendly fire RATE is much higher.
Maybe you're right, but this lack of evidence based argument is out of character for you, in which I'm used to being schooled with stats before I get a chance to retort.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Is this real life?
Yes I do mean the army. Apologies
OK, I believe it.
Protecting us from who? With all the money you guys spend on your military, you should be able to figure out his to stop killing your own troops and allies.
M
member 3289
Guest
ISIS
Al-Qaeda
The Russians
Don't forget that the military intelligence we give you or instruct you to collect counts.
Yeah you're gonna have to show me better stats than your 1 in 3 bro knowledge.
Here is a list of US blue on blue incidents killing UK soldiers.
List of U.S. friendly-fire incidents since 1945 with British victims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you provide the reverse?
Honestly, that really isn't much.
You're just trolling now. We don't need protecting from ISIS or Al Quaeda and providing Putin with details of our nuclear weapons programs doesn't qualify as military intelligence that protects us.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
But again, thats not the point.
Raw numbers don't tell the story. The question is rate of mission tasking.
How many men and missions are being run??
I don't think I'm out of line in thinking that the US rate is abnormally large.
I don't think you're out of line either, I also think the US rate is abnormally large.
The whole continent of Europe couldnt slow down Milosevic until the US got involved, tell me again how you dont need our military might.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Evidence?
Homogenous force in a much clearer battlefield...less than 2 months:
- Companies A and C of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army engaged each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons and artillery strikes, resulting in eight casualties.
- 2 June – A friendly fire incident took place between the SAS and the Special Boat Squadron (SBS). An SBS patrol had apparently strayed into the SAS patrol's designated area and were mistaken for Argentine forces. A brief firefight was initiated during which one of the SBS patrol, Sergeant Ian Hunt, was killed.[99]
- 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident – Due to a lack of communication between the Army and the Navy, the destroyer HMS Cardiff shot down a British Gazelle helicopter over the Falkland Islands, killing four British soldiers.
- Two nights before the Battle of Two Sisters, British units of 45 Commando Royal Marines onreconnaissance patrol were mistaken for Argentine units in the dark and the British mortar group opened up on them, only to be met with a withering hail of fire from the 45 Commando in return. In the confusion, five British troops died, including the mortar troop sergeant, and two were wounded.[100]
Gonna have to go off more than gut and British late night jokes to convince me.
But George Bush
M
member 3289
Guest
I'll give it to the UK. They spend the fourth-most.
But NATO has protected you since 1949, and without US funds or military might, NATO doesn't exist.
So yes, we've protected you since 1949.
M
member 3289
Guest
You're trolling if you believe that you don't need our protection.
Our "special relationship" relies on you being a solid ally that provides us with all the intelligence we instruct you to gather and on us protecting you if shit hits the fan.
No way in hell you can defeat ISIS on your own, but thank Jesus that for your sake you don't have to.
I think that due to the sheer size of the US military it's only inevitable that they lower the requirements of the common soldier in order to swell the ranks.
Same with all armed forces. Some of the stupidest people I ever met where in the military, and will remain so for years to come because they suck so bad at everything that they wouldn't be able to hold down a normal job.
The problem is they are not usually the ones giving out orders to fire. They just follow orders
Same with all armed forces. Some of the stupidest people I ever met where in the military, and will remain so for years to come because they suck so bad at everything that they wouldn't be able to hold down a normal job.
The problem is they are not usually the ones giving out orders to fire. They just follow orders
Protected from who exactly?
I'll give it to the UK. They spend the fourth-most.
But NATO has protected you since 1949, and without US funds or military might, NATO doesn't exist.
So yes, we've protected you since 1949.
Freddy Krueger?
I'm still not seeing 1 in 3
You're not wrong, but the opposite of this also holds true. I've met a ton of morons in the military and also met some of the smartest people I know in the military. There's two sides to the coin.