America's Army Sucks, Fact

Nobody "wins" without overwhelming power. Perhaps you would prefer the
massive
battle of attrition (something with which the soviets have had a great deal
of
experience) over tactics which minimize your own casualties.

Depends on definition of "overwhelming power" if you understand overwhelming
power as overwhelming numbers you can find many examples in history,for example
during Civil War and during WWII.


You clearly know less about the present-day US, than you do about the USA of
1865. Perhaps what you really require is a slave- or peasant-class in the
background before you can imagine a modern equivalent of your so-called
"aristocracy".

Unlike your assertions,I know present day US very well.
If you want draw comparisons between present day US and other advanced
nations,just watch and compare live TV apperances of our president,a graduate
of an Ivy League elite university,with the live apperances of the leaders of
other nations,for example Mr.Blair.
Or just watch late night Shows.

Aristocracys tend to spend their energies in pursuit of the past, and we are
well rid of them, and their apologists.

Surely we got rid of them in 1865 and thats the main reason why US is not a
sophisticated country today.
Lets look at Europa,they toppled aristocrats after French Revolution,but with a
difference they toppled Aristocrats not Aristocracy.On contrary European elite
who toppled Aristocracy embrace many malues of Aristocracy and more opened more
elite schools like French Lycees and German Gymnasiums so that their childred
could be edecated like Aristocrats.
In other words Europeans made Aristocracy more accessible for general
population,whereas US terminated aristocracy without any replacement.

Thats the reason why even Graduates of Yale are only good to become
laughingstock every night in Kimmel or Leno shows.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter Kemp
wrote:



SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
(have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.


Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
understood?

Its required for all procedures in the British Army
and as such needs no special orders

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter Kemp
wrote:



SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
(have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.


Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
understood?

Its required for all procedures in the British Army
and as such needs no special orders

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:

Its required for all procedures in the British Army
and as such needs no special orders

Keith



Could Keith please leave the cavern, his posts are echoing. . .


Echoin. . .

Echoi. .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us
how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to
what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst
recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it
actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of
any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not
to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.

'Normal' wars are not that common these days. Have you come upon the term
'asymmetric warfare' at all?

The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.

I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. I said that incarcerating,
torturing and murdering people on suspicion of support for a guerilla enemy
didn't work awfully well for us in NI. It hasn't done the US many favours in
Iraq either.

Pragmatism, not morality or law. Though obviously, the three tend often to
overlap.

IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.

No indeed.

John

Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
got things more right than wrong.

Keith

And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
the Italians!
One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
to Guderian as well???

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
got things more right than wrong.

Keith

And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
the Italians!
One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
to Guderian as well???

The repetitive "If"...the continuing mantra of those who cannot accept the
fact that Germany screwed the pooch in WWII and lost. As much as I respect
Rommel, wasn't he the guy who commanded the losing side at Normandy, having
taken a quick getaway trip back to see his family when the invasion began
because he thought there was no *way* the allies would attack in that kind
of weather...?

Brooks


Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Which pale beside his achievements. Montogomery like Patton
was a prima-donna, a pain in the arse and an excellent
field commander. Like all generals he made mistakes but
got things more right than wrong.

Keith

And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
the Italians!
One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
to Guderian as well???

Thing is, if he had, he wouldn't have been Hitler, would he?

John

And Rommel was better than both of them combined. If only he had the
resources in men and material that the US/Britain possessed... or at
least the Heer's PROMISED material from Berlin and not had to babysit
the Italians!
One might also wonder what would have happened if Hitler had listened
to Guderian as well???

Yeah I bet you almost wet yourself thinking of the possibilities.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base