More classic Iron man

Admin's and Mod's Admins and Mod's - Archive Room
#781

Fuchs, your colloquial German is quite good! :smiley:

Jan

#782

It would be interesting if you and a few other putz had something to discuss other than US war mistakes. Then you would not look like a hatemonger.[/quote]

Hmm, a trolling response to a perfectly reasonable statement.

Why this obsession with calling everyone “hatemongers”?[/quote]

Why the obsession with badmouthing the US military?[/quote]

Why this obsession with defending them when they do something indefensible?

Why respond to questions with other questions?[/quote]

Why do you get hyper-pissed then when someone mentions something indefensible done by the British?

#783

The problem only occurs with US pilots? Must I post reports of RAF friendly fire occurances to show you how biased and false that perception of yours is? Man you are thick. You really believe that crap? Haven’t you seen that Bbritish soldiers make friendly fire mistakes already from the few reports I’ve posted of showing you that very thing, as if you were ignorant of it completely? You see, that kind of bullsiot right there is what we call hypocracy. Even arrogant hypocracy.

Yes, “blue on blue” accidents happen. You are right. But everyone makes them. Even the RAF. Let me explain what is so offensive about this thread.

Someone pointed to a video on the net saying that the US soldier was firing aimlessly into the streets as his convoy was under attack.

Then it was shown that he was not firing into the streets because his weapon was pointed upwards.

So they complained that he was shooting wrecklessly.

Then it was discovered from other reports of that incident that the soldier was only firing back at insurgents shooting at him from the window of a bulding.

So they complained that the other gunfire they heard in the video was another US soldier firing unaimingly into the streets.

Then it determined that the gunfire was returning fire in sportatic, sparse rounds, obviously carefully fired at someone shooting at the convoy.

Then they complained that US soldiers shoot wrecklessly all the time and it’s just typical of them, and their wreckless small arms fire casues lots of friendly fire deaths.

Then I pointed out that British soldiers make the same mistakes.

Then they talk about how the US did this that and the other.

So I said, the british make those mistakes too!

Then bla bla bla… for another 38 pages.

Then you come in here and say you were targeted by an A-10 (implying bombed) on 8 occasions and if it hadn’t been for your guys each one of those times you would have been bombed, even though you were not bombed because the system of identification for both your guys and the pilot worked.

Do you see the ridiculous pattern? The wanting to complain about the US military, and if a reason for doing it is taken away by showing that the incident was not culpable afterall, they go after the US military for something else, because they simply must put them down somehow. Even if it means complaining about the ground troops, or the USAF, or whatever, as long as you can keep complaining about them.

And even when it is pointed out that British soldiers make the same mistakes by referring to actual incidents, nobody is willing to accept that it is not a “US only” problem, and nobody is willing to stop their continuous criticizing of the US military.

It’s perposterous. It’s also offensive, and it’s hypocritical to carry on and on about it when the British make the same mistakes, even though i am not carrying on and on about that. The attitude is very offensive.
It’s the norm here. And this is not the only thread where discussion of the US military being wreckless has been started. They start such criticisms anywhere they think they can get away with it. It is a compulsion. It never ends, even after repeatedly petitioning you guys to plese stop it.

#784

Then it determined that the gunfire was returning fire in sportatic, sparse rounds, obviously carefully fired at someone shooting at the convoy.

can we now stahrt a dicshunary for the spalling mistaykez in Ironmans pohsts.

these are not typos, but genuine spelling mistakes,

for instance,

“Sportatic”
“persepctive ranges”
“suposicion” for supposition
father - call of duy game manual

|IRONMAN if you stop shooting at the wrong guys we will stop taking the piss and winding you up! is that a deal or dont your seventh day adventist parents allow deals! here be demons blah blah blah,

#785

There’s the hypocricy right there, and the hateful attitude. What say you about UK soldiers shooting the wrong guys? Nothing eh? Why don’t you just let it be Bluffcove.

#786

SCORE! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I will now draw your attention to the the “piss taking and wind up” element of my post that you have failed to read!.

Cocksucker extraordinaire.

#787

There’s the hypocricy right there, and the hateful attitude. What say you about UK soldiers shooting the wrong guys? Nothing eh? Why don’t you just let it be Bluffcove.[/quote]
I would tell you qhy I wont let it be, but… You didnt put a question mark on it so… na na na na nana :stuck_out_tongue:

#788

Ironman, I’m not sure which other posters have said that it was a “US only” problem.

I commented on the video, but also mentioned that should a Squaddie have shot into the air to make a noise I’d be giving him a hard time for it.
He’d be charged at the bare minimum !

When Fuchs66 said he’d been targeted he was not implying that he had been bombed.
That they weren’t bombed does not alter the fact that they’d been targeted.

If you could possibly take a little more time to read what people actually write rather than what you think they’re writing, then a lot of this unpleasantness could be avoided.

#789

What he said was:

…and then complains about not being bombed because the communication beteen UK and US forces worked to prevent a friendly fire incident? They did what they were supposed to, to prevent a mishap. The pilot did what he was supposed to, to prevent a mishap. Isn’t everything that a pilot flies over a potential target? You bet it is. Especially men and vehicles on the ground? Do you honestly think that a pilot, no matter how well trained, can always recognize a camo vehicle from 2,000-5,000 feet and not need intel before dropping? Do pilots not phone home about targets before firing, especially if they are not looking at a column of enemy vehicles a block long? So because the pilot flew over and asked for intel he made a mistake?

This is like complaining that everyone did their jobs and nobody was hurt… 8 times. It’s pointless.

#790

Ironman I’d ask the Canadians ( FW Pilot feel free to jump in) about this one, having heard the radio chatter between the pilot and ground control during the blue on blue in Afganistan( posted on the net ) The pilot was clearly told not to engage but did so anyway at the cost of Canadian forces in a recognised a training area.

#791

Edited for typos

#792

My advice to you is not to make every other post in a forumn something critical of the US military. It makes you look like a schmuck.

Edited to correct a typo.[/quote]

You are a complete waste of H2O, I defy you to trawl through my posts and show me where 1 out of every 2 criticise the US military, its just not true and you know it. The trouble you have is you make things up to suit yourself.

Oh and edited to include - You are an Arse!

#793

Thanks, I’ve lived here long enough.

#794

Hey Gabriel, I mean Fuchs66, you know. I don’t feel like a cowboy at all. :lol:

The causes for friendly fire kills in warfare is the poor ability of a soldier to identify the enemy and the environment of the battlefield. It is a symptom of war, and not a symptom of a particular armed force. US forces have done the vast majority of the fighting in Iraq, and will therefore commit the vast majority of fracticides. If UK forces were in the role that US forces are in, they would be commiting the vast majority of fracticides. But since they are not, it olny gives the British something to bitch about, which they enjoy doing because they resent the fact that they are not in a leadership position in the war.

“Conclusion: We cannot hope to eliminate fratricide as a problem in modern war, however, through advances in technology coupled with modifications in training, we will be able to reduce the likelihood of its occurring. Developing the capability to identify friendly vehicles in battle will bring about a reduction of fratricide.”

  • Major A.C. Koehler, United States Army
#795

What about Mk1 eyeballs? Even I can distiguish a Hummer from a Landrover.

Jan

#796

If the blue on blue rate is a sad fact of war and only a result of war not a result of training or poor drills you would expect the ercentages to reflect that,

However per man, and per confrontation it would appear that the blue on blue occurence is higher within US armed forces, Do not forget IRONMAn that whilst you are talking the talk a large majority of the British servicemen on this site have also walked the walk. even so far as being targetted (not bombed) by US forces, you hve not shown where this was repeated with Uk aircraft.

I am not hatemongering, we need the US in this war to fund it if nothing else, and we sure as hell couldnt financially afford to wage war at the scale that the US does, but… and it is a genuine and feasible “but” there does appear to be a difference within the training that becomes apparent whilst in the hot zones. This is not leftist media gossip, but heard from the voices of servicemen who have served alongside the US infantry in theatre. You have not served and have no grounds from which to talk about what the actual situation on the ground is, these guys have (some of them on this forum also) and they do have authority over you when they refer to their genuine experiences. You will be sadly missed at the west country piss up when it occurs, I quite like a fight after a shandy!

#797

Bluffcove you beat me to it, you also said basically everything that just went through my head.

I have heard of a Lessons learned report by the US military under the responsibility of Adm. Edmund Giambastiani Jr that basically stated that lessons pertaining to blue on blue had not been learned. Apparently it was reported by Reuters in October 2003 but I cant find a reliable link so I will not rest my case on it. If however true it would hint that even the US military doesn’t agree with Eisentunte.

In a bit of a shitty mood today after what’s happened so I’ll resist the temptation to rip into the oaf as I may go OTT.

But I will get back to this…

#798

It is a point made last year by General Tommy Franks, the commander of the US Central Command who has overseen operations in Afghanistan and will supervise a new war with Iraq.

Franks said:

“The fact is that we are not ever going to be able to absolutely eradicate the loss of life and in some cases the loss of the wrong life when we’re engaged in this kind of operation. Regrettable, but true.”

But the Army’s new guidance does not stop with the acknowledgment that mistakes will happen. It suggests public affairs specialists make clear to reporters that fear of friendly fire deaths should not inhibit commanders - or public support for war. Quoting now: “we must not let reasonable caution evolve into timidity.”

That last quote leaves an awful lot of scope for interpretation by the man on the ground, now whilst it is down to the integrity of the individual soldier to decide when and specifically what action should be taken, words like that from the GOC “suggest” that “action is preferable to caution/hesitation”

I clearly read this tainted with the views of people that I have spoken to, Woe betide me for forming opinions off the back of people that have seen NDs (sorry AD’s*) in mess halls! and on patrol! forgive me for valuing the word of soldiers who have fought in conflicts from 20 years ago until the preent day who have fought alongside nearly every Nato Nation, I apolgise for valuing their opinions over the word of the computer gamer from Missouri, But tough shit.

Until you can provide me with your military credentials (not involving call of duty “hair tonic”) you are just gonna be whistlin’ Dixie compared to the informed educated experienced views of veterans (that is not a computer game level if difficulty, it refers to real experience!)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ND / AD
What in heavens name is so “A” about an AD, ND I understand, but
accidentally loading a mag
accidentally leaving a round in the chamber
accidentally cocking a weapon
accidentally removing the safety
accidentally pulling the trigger
well its not really an accident by the time it reaches that stage is it!

#799

To go back to the source of all the debate, which has generated far more heat then light on the subject.
Contrary to some statements, it didn’t start over a video.
It started thus:

That’s pretty much the norm though. I have not seen a single comment by a member who is British that is critical of Britain untill this thread. However, once you see a number of anti-American comments and none that relate to britain, a pattern begins to reveal itself.

I wonder how you mean. I see the forces of both nations performing search & destroy missions. I see both investigating the locations of terrorists and going after them. Surely you’re not going to suggest that the US is using cluster bombs on civilian locations or something like that.
[/quote]

Now, I’m not concerned with a video showing whatever anyone might decide it shows. I haven’t watched it, because frankly it, or any other individual incident is irrelevant to the discussion.
Soldiers make mistakes, regardless of what uniform they wear, that’s an inevitabilty of being human.
It is still not the point at issue.
Ironman, you took the above post by Ale, and subsequent posts re sunglasses and helmets, as anti-American, despite several people saying, as they posted, that they weren’t claiming either were better, but that they were different.
Some of the criticism you even introduced yourself. You were the first, possibly the only person, to infer from the remark made about sunglasses, that American soldiers were being seen as presenting a

“Duke Nuke’Em” personna
.
I would suggest that it indicates nothing more than a difference of emphasis in the training of troops from our respective countries.
I accept that American soldiers are very well trained to fight, that’s obvious to anyone, but there seems to be a lack of training in peace-keeping methods to be used after the war phase is over.
I am well aware that the American zone of operations has proved much more violent that that policed by British troops, but that’s not the point at issue either.
Your own reaction to the original suggestion gives a clue.
When Ale suggested
the British and US have gone about operations in Iraq, especially since the end of conventional hostilities in very different ways.

your reaction was,

I see the forces of both nations performing search & destroy missions. I see both investigating the locations of terrorists and going after them.
.
Had Ale made the same statement to almost any Brit, they would have understood him to be referring to a peace-keeping role.
Thirty years of trying to keep two murderous warring factions apart, while both tried to kill them, innocent civilians and each other, but in what was still a non-war situation on “home” soil, has had an institutional legacy in the British Army.
The reaction to the deaths of British soldiers in Ireland could not be similar to the attack on Fallujah, for example.
Your own automatic assumption immediately sprang towards the remaining agressive aspects of the situation in Iraq.
When I posted the comments of the Baghdad Blogger, one of the remarks he made differentiating his experiences in the two zones, British and American, was his comment about being greeted at a checkpoint by a British soldier who spoke to him in Arabic.
You dismissed that remark pretty disparagingly, but it’s a point raised by Human Rights watch in their report on civilian deaths in Bahgdad.

Basic language and cultural training to teach soldiers hand gestures used and understood by Iraqis and essential Arabic words and phrases would minimize confusion at checkpoints or during raids.

They even quote your own forces on the ground as saying the same things

U.S. combat troops in Baghdad like the 82nd Airborne and 1st Armored Division are being asked to perform law enforcement and policing tasks for which they are not prepared. According to soldiers and commanders, there was inadequate training and equipment for what the military calls SASO (Stability and Support Operations) and an inadequate supply of Arabic interpreters.

and again :

Often times the unit had crowds and upset civilians to deal with and absolutely no way to verbally communicate with them.

The peace-keeping role is not one in which American troops seem to receive any particular training, and that is different to the training of British troops.

“Our mentality as soldiers is combat,” said Lt. Lucas Hale, from the 1st Armored Division, who is trying to modify urban combat techniques (Military Operations in Urban Terrain, or MOUT) in the field. “We don’t deal with civilians well as a whole. But in Iraq, you have to understand that 99 percent of the people [we encounter] are simple people who just want to get on with their lives.”

It has also been noted that the US Marines seemed quicker to adapt to the changed circumstances than Army personnel.
No one doubts that individually, or en masse, the American soldier wants to help the Iraqis.
What was said originally, before the thread deteriorated, merely implied that the British soldier receives a higher level of training for the post-conflict phase than his American counterpart, and, as a result, slips more easily into this role.
That is not, in any way, an anti-American sentiment, merely a reflection of factual cultural differences in our respective militaries
(my emboldenment throughout)
Link to HRW Report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/4.htm

#800

Concur.