Sure. So you don’t want to debate sexuality then? Ok. I understand. I really don’t either. Not here.
He coined it and used it was the 1st to use it in reference to war. Appearently the British like it and adopted it.
If you want to debate sexuality I am willing, but this is not the appropriate forum to do it. If you find one and wish to persue it, I’m willing.
Otherwise we should not fill THIS thread with THAT subject.[/quote]
Yes please if you all want to have some kind of male bonding moment do it on another site please.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This is possibly the weirdest thread/site/forum I have visited for a long time. Especially for one that is supposed to be primarily aout WW2.
On the one hand we have a large number of serving and ex military, together with engineers both civil and aircraft. Together their collective knowledge is vast and should be used to increase the knowledge of the site.
On the other hand we appear to have one person, whose post rate is very high (indicating what?) and who appears to have little real knowledge of any given subject, but will intercede on these subjcts constantly.
Now it turns out that he is also amounst othe things actualy the GURU, well bugger me, Ive never met one so expert in everything.
Incidentally I’m really Tom Clancy, but prefer to keep my private and personal life out of it, just Google, another bollox book where yanks save the world and take no casualties and kill no civvies, youll find me there.
What a thread…
RM - were in Korea and not only that, but with the USMC at Chosin.
Royal Marines were involved in the Korean War. No 41 Commando was reformed in 1950, and was originally envisaged as a raiding force for use against North Korea. It performed this role until after the landing of United States Army X Corps at Wonsan. It was then put into the line, as part of the US 1st Marine Division, and took part in the famous retreat from Chosin Reservoir. After that, a small amount of raiding followed, before the Marines were withdrawn from the conflict in 1951.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Royal-Marines
Hearts and minds - Was first used in its present incarantion (as a Military tool for suppressing resistance) http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Desert_song/Hearts.htm <<<<<Example of how it was performed.
As well as patrolling the border, the SAS took on another very important task - that of winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the native people. By gaining an understanding of their lifestyle and language, by living with them and despensing medical aid when needed, the SAS gained important allies in intelligence gathering. The local people, who still crossed the border freely into Kalimantan to trade their goods, often brought back valuable information on Indonesian troop movements.
http://www.geocities.com/saspastandpresent/borneo.htm
<<<example of the benefits
This is the first recorded example of Hearts and minds being used In a large scale way and with direct psychological intent, in Borneo, by SAS, during the Malayan conflict.
Vietnam - Your intent was to protect the civilians and not carpet bomb them - My lai? agent orange / napalm :evil:
Winning the War on Terror - George Bush has just banned US service personel from entering the M25 (in the same week the British have declared we shall not be cowed) - Does this suggest the terrorists have “beaten” the American spirit of 9/11?
We are fighting the war on terror, however… The war by the very fact it is a war against an abstract noun can never be “won” in a conventional military sense, and for as long as we fight conventional military wars against it we will never see victory. You yourself have stated that the terrorisits have moved their training camp from Afgahnistan to Syria (?) well surely all you need to train terrorists is a weapon a field and some leadership/motivation. By waging wars lead by Christian troops in Muslim states leadership and motivation are plentiful. Especially if matters such as oil, political influence and religion cloud the issue - we are fighting a war on terror not a war agaisnt Islam, and yet you reference Islam far more than Terror. There are enough weapons and angered men across the world that the war cannot be won through a military scenario. That said, the war in Iraq can be won, If we dominate the ground and deny the terrorists political influence Iraq will stabilise (but terror will continue elsewhere) This however would be winning a war against one particular group of terrorists in one particular timeframe, not winning a war against all “terror.”
How do you think we can actually measure success in this campaign, and what if the day after Bush declares victory in Iraq (for the second time) Somebody gets blown up by a nail bomb, would we then re-liberate the people with foreign forces? At what stage do we hand Iraq back to its own citizens and government and allow them to control their own future?
Revolutions happen and to a large extent they are a matter for ones own government to deal with. not external governments to control. (this is purely a “political theory” note) but what about Pakistan, a Military Dictatorship of sorts, formed through a coup d’etat, that has been left untouched by US foreign policy? Are certain governments above reproach despite their evident militant nature?
Muslims have always hated the US? - ask a Bosnian Muslim if he liked the US during the mid 90’s Im not so sure hed have been resented our presence.
I am a sexual orator and fount of knowledge - :lol:
Firefly I concur!
A source of wisdom on
Political theory
International politics,
British and American Military structures,
Religion,
Psychology,
Military tactics,
Aircraft design,
Weapons systems,
Infantry fighting skills,
Pilots and airbourne troops
Women (of various ethnicities)
Womens sexuality,
Mens sexuality,
My God! there is only one conclusion
The Name Is Walt, IRONING WALT.
Yes. So? However, the USMC did most of the fighting. It was the USMC that the Chinese generals said one regiment of could not be whipped by their 4 divisions. They were referring to a regiment of the 1st Marines. I don’t see where you are going with that.
Interesting. John Adams probably had no idea that the term would be used so much.
That was the intent I am sure.
Yes, we are. That does not mean we will ever kill everyone who wants to be a terrorist. That would require killing them before they made it apearent that they were terrorists - impossible.
Since the 1950’s at least.
EDITED TO CORRECT FORUM CODES
[quote=“Bluffcove”]
RONMAN
Yes, we are. That does not mean we will ever kill everyone who wants to be a terrorist. That would require killing them before they made it apearent that they were terrorists - impossible.
Since the 1950’s at least.
EDITED TO CORRECT FORUM CODES[/quote:6229a3025b]
A highly questionable statement, that we are winning the War on Terror.
We ousted the Taliban certainly, although they are not wiped out by any means, witness the downing of the SEALs Chinook a couple of weeks back.
Casualties continue to be taken: mainly insurgents, but troops and civilians too.
“More than 660 people have been killed since March, including 465 suspected insurgents, 29 US troops, 43 Afghan police and soldiers, and 125 civilians, a level unprecedented since 2001.”
(Telegraph 30th June: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/30/wafg30.xml )
So that aspect of the war is still ongoing.
Iraq did nothing to address the War on Terror, except to give the recruiters another justification to give the would-be suicide bombers, and to encourage a new crop of jihadis from surrounding countries and elsewhere.
Palestine remains a fertile recruiting ground and seems likely to continue so.
Muslim and Hindu extremists continue to kill each other in India and Pakistan.
Muslim extremists continue their war in Chechnya and in Russia.
It’s a long list, a lot longer than I have time for here, and shows no signs of growing any shorter because of actions in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I’d be interested to know the grounds for the original statement that we’re winning.
You can defeat a state by superior force; you can defeat a coalition of states by superior force, but you cannot defeat an idea by superior force.
What you can do is firstly show, by example, that the idea is false.
Then you work to persuade, cajole, coax and, just possibly, gently pressurise the vast majority of the populations from which the terrorists are drawn to disown them, condemn them and indeed to turn them in to the authorities when they come to recognise them for what they are.
As Mao said “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”
The only way to win this “war”, which we are certainly not doing so far, is to deny them the water in which to swim.
I’m sure the Glorious Glosters would argue with you about who did the most fighting - the USMC are undoubtedly good soldiers Ironingman, they don’t need people like you denying that any other soldiers in the world could ever have fought as well as them.
John Adams probably didn’t have a clue what “hearts and minds” warfare was. He said the war was won in the hearts and minds of the American people, as far as I’m aware, there was never a hearts and minds campaign during the American Civil War. The first (as far as I am aware) was the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment in Borneo in the 1950s.
Dropping liquid fire and gene altering chemicals on civillians was part of an intent not to cause civillian casualties?
WE ARE NOT WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM - where is Bin-Laden? he’s an old man with kidney failure and the cream of the US Army and intelligence services, backed up by the SAS can’t find him. There were more suicide bombs in Iraq today. The media hardly even bother to report anything that happens in Afghanistan anymore. Tell me where the victories are?
The civilian casualties of My Lai were accidental - terrible what injuries tripping over repeatedly whilst carrying a bayonet can cause!
Agent orange and napalm? not exactly the most discriminate weapons are they?
USMC had RM attached consequently they were part of the body of men that the Chinese generalys repsected, Imjin river was no sideshow either.
Muslims have hated the west since the 1950s? Right so we didnt lose any gurkhas or anyhting whilst ensuring there safe transit to Pakistan during the partition of the Indian subcontinent>
and no peace keepers ever went to The Balkans in an attempt to quell violence directed at Muslims?
Muslims do not hate the west - saying that they do, is both a lie and a simplification for no purpose at all. (I have not used any qualifying terms infront of the term “muslim” because neither did you in your original post and now can both enjoy the vagueness that you so utilise)
Winning the war on terror - how do you intend to win the war on terror? If not by killing everyone that wwants to be a terrorist? By removing the factors that make terrorism a vable option in their circumstances? so that would mean. Considerate foreign policy? non aggresive behaviour within theior locality? lessening aggresion in theatre and not antagonising the locals?
The “Hearts and Minds” campaign during the Malayan Emergency was the first post-WW2 incarnation. There are other earlier incarnations (from memory the USMC Small Wars Manual has quite a bit on it, and arguably the British Empire was founded on a similar princple - they might not like you, but if they don’t dislike you too much you stay in charge).
The problem with a concept like this is that to some extent it is as old as warfare itself, but has gradually mutated over time - the Romans after all may have had the same objective but went about it in a very different way. Therefore identifying the first modern use is a rather risky business.
Yes. So? However, the USMC did most of the fighting. It was the USMC that the Chinese generals said one regiment of could not be whipped by their 4 divisions. They were referring to a regiment of the 1st Marines. I don’t see where you are going with that.[/quote]
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/41.html
They had received a Presidential Citation for their Chosin operation the previous year and gained 30 British, and 14 American, gallantry awards.
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/41RMCpub.htm
41 Commando had suffered 93 casualties and was particularly short of
Not bad for a unit of 235 men.
Is it me or is something going wrong with this thread, first it would not take a post now it is all ski whiff.
I have no idea WTF is wrong with this one. Might just be this page. ww2admin just updated the forum version…it would seem that is has a few bugs in it.
In another forum, I have seen this happen when someone uses the “quick reply” function, something we don’t have on this site…,
Simple answer, I don’t know but it normally cures itself after one page
What’s this? Mass delete of messages? I can see the messages, but no content!
Jan
Jan,
Scroll to the right to read the posts.
Then again, you probably can’t see this message (how Zen is that?)
Tubs
Maybe he needs “broadband” internet
or a larger monitor?
Ohh ha ha ha - 
TAXI!
What’s wrong with this thread? Since Reiver’s post at 12.11, I can see the message boxes with the avatars, nbut there is no text in the boxes!
Jan
If
this
strange
layout
only
lasts
for
one
page
then
perhaps
this
might
help
us
get
over
it
?
Or
not
?
Has
it
hepled ?
Walther, just scroll right.
I think this forum holds 15 posts per page, unfortunately, we only have 14 on here so far.