Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:02:51 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
> @"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> No. TBH I don't know anyone in the forces who signed up in order to
>> kill anyone. The JD is primarily about ensuring peace and security -
>> not killing thousands of innocent people on some misguided lie of a
>> political agenda.
>
> but there's no guarantee that having joined up you're not going to have to
> go into a high-risk situation where you may be shot at and if unlucky
> killed. That is, IMHO, par for the course.

SG: Right now, anyone who joins any of the armed forces thinking he/she
won't see active service is either blind, deaf, stupid or from Mars ...
or all of the above. It has always been the case that soldiers are
infantrymen first and foremost irrespective of the arm of the service or
corps/regiment.

>
> And the ordinary soldier on the ground never did get any say in where and
> what he did, he obeys orders from his superiors.

SG: Too bl00dy true! There is more leeway these days to refuse illegal
orders though.

--
Regards

Steve G
 
Tom Woods wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:02:51 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:19:21 +0100, Tom Woods
>> <news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Its still a war though!.
>> No it isn't, it's a conflict. Don't confuse a conflict with a war.
>
> I thought a war was just a conflict that took place between lots of
> people on a large scale and often involved weapons?
>
>>> You choose to be a soldier you run the risk of getting killed, part of
>>> the job description isnt it?.
>> No. TBH I don't know anyone in the forces who signed up in order to
>> kill anyone. The JD is primarily about ensuring peace and security -
>> not killing thousands of innocent people on some misguided lie of a
>> political agenda.
>
> I didnt say that killing other people was part of the job, but being
> killed by someone else is one of the risks of being in the army.
>
> I mean that if you become a soldier you might expect to be involved in
> armed fights that may end in you getting shot or killed.. in the same
> way that if you become an IT techie you might expect to get RSI or
> develop a liking for beards and sandals.. One of the expected risks of
> the job i'd have said.
>
>
Oops (hastily removes sandals and looks for trainers)

--
Regards

Steve G
 
On 2006-07-01, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:

> You're quite right Austin, but the troops killed in Afghanistan weren't
> SAS and normal grunts don't get the degree of training needed to be
> effective in (what is euphemistically called)a pink panther.

I think his point was that armour plated, blast-proof vehicles aren't
what the army need all of the time, most of the time it's a
disadvantage because the vehicle is then slow, cumbersome and large.

It has to be said that while there are casualties in Iraq, British
casualties are very low, although I think they've now overtaken the
number of British soldiers killed by the Americans ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On 2006-07-01, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:

> You're right there, Richard. The British methodology is a hearts and
> minds approach which contrasts starkly with the American "kick ass"
> philosophy. The average British soldier is much happier wearing his
> beret than a kevlar helmet.

Indeed, hence the use of unarmoured land rovers, rather than sodding
great big tanks crawling through the towns. The British army has
armoured vehicles, I'd imagine they're not using them for a very good
reason that's not got much to do with our sometimes rather inept
government.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:17:39 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:

>AJH wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:56:11 +0100, Austin Shackles
>> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
>>> and so forth :)
>>
>> 'cept these feeble little bullets penetrate armour.
>>
>> AJH
>>
>No better than anything else.

I've no experience of being on the sending or receiving end, nor have
I ever wished to be, but I did work on the range at Beckingham. The
LA81 cartridge fires a "semi-armour piercing" round. Whether it works
in the field or not is another matter but the little rods in the slug
do get through kevlar vests and light armour, whereas ak47 bullets do
not.

AJH

 
AJH wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:17:39 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:
>
>> AJH wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:56:11 +0100, Austin Shackles
>>> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
>>>> and so forth :)
>>> 'cept these feeble little bullets penetrate armour.
>>>
>>> AJH
>>>
>> No better than anything else.
>
> I've no experience of being on the sending or receiving end, nor have
> I ever wished to be, but I did work on the range at Beckingham. The
> LA81 cartridge fires a "semi-armour piercing" round. Whether it works
> in the field or not is another matter but the little rods in the slug
> do get through kevlar vests and light armour, whereas ak47 bullets do
> not.
>
> AJH
>

I've seen test results from LA81 firings with AP heads but it isn't
standard issue AFAIK - something to do with the Geneva convention and
how much damage it can inflict on casualties.

--
Regards

Steve G
 
On or around Sat, 01 Jul 2006 21:44:41 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> enlightened us
thusly:

>AJH wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:17:39 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:
>>
>>> AJH wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:56:11 +0100, Austin Shackles
>>>> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
>>>>> and so forth :)
>>>> 'cept these feeble little bullets penetrate armour.
>>>>
>>>> AJH
>>>>
>>> No better than anything else.
>>
>> I've no experience of being on the sending or receiving end, nor have
>> I ever wished to be, but I did work on the range at Beckingham. The
>> LA81 cartridge fires a "semi-armour piercing" round. Whether it works
>> in the field or not is another matter but the little rods in the slug
>> do get through kevlar vests and light armour, whereas ak47 bullets do
>> not.
>>
>> AJH
>>
>
>I've seen test results from LA81 firings with AP heads but it isn't
>standard issue AFAIK - something to do with the Geneva convention and
>how much damage it can inflict on casualties.

what, like "too much"? I love the way some of these people allegedly think.
Lets use less harmful bullets so they don't hurt people too much.

'course, there's always the fact that one enemy soldier lying wounded and
groaning and crying in pain on the battlefield can really screw the enemy's
morale.

but I doubt the people investigating it are doing it for that reason.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then
something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination -
we learned to talk." Pink Floyd (1994)
 
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:10:46 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote:

> I love the way some of these people allegedly think. Lets use less
> harmful bullets so they don't hurt people too much.

'Tis odd. I'm going to shoot to kill, but only a little bit.

> 'course, there's always the fact that one enemy soldier lying wounded
> and groaning and crying in pain on the battlefield can really screw the
> enemy's morale.

Isn't more to do with the fact that a dead soldier can be left for a
while, were as a wounded one requires attention of comrades and resources
to get him to the medics... If the enemy is tending their wounded, they
aren't fighting.

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On or around Sun, 02 Jul 2006 00:19:08 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<new5pam@howhill.com> enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:10:46 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> I love the way some of these people allegedly think. Lets use less
>> harmful bullets so they don't hurt people too much.
>
>'Tis odd. I'm going to shoot to kill, but only a little bit.
>
>> 'course, there's always the fact that one enemy soldier lying wounded
>> and groaning and crying in pain on the battlefield can really screw the
>> enemy's morale.
>
>Isn't more to do with the fact that a dead soldier can be left for a
>while, were as a wounded one requires attention of comrades and resources
>to get him to the medics... If the enemy is tending their wounded, they
>aren't fighting.

well, yes, there is that, too. wounded men occupy resources that dead ones
don't.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio" (it is when I struggle to be
brief that I become obscure) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Ars Poetica, 25
 
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:28:30 +0100, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

> ...
> wounded men occupy resources that dead ones
> don't.

same is true of servers

still p*ss*d off with the data-centre - can you tell?

--
William Tasso

110 V8
 
William Tasso wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:28:30 +0100, Austin Shackles
> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> wounded men occupy resources that dead ones
>> don't.
>
>
> same is true of servers
>
> still p*ss*d off with the data-centre - can you tell?
>
Yes. And on a similar note, if the firewall at my client's site doesn't
repsond to a ping inside the next 5 mins (10pm Sunday here) it'll be
dead after I finish with it. And it'll cost them a taxi fare as I'm too
full of rather good Scotch to consider driving there.

--
EMB
 
EMB wrote:
> William Tasso wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:28:30 +0100, Austin Shackles
>> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> wounded men occupy resources that dead ones
>>> don't.
>>
>>
>> same is true of servers
>>
>> still p*ss*d off with the data-centre - can you tell?
>>
> Yes. And on a similar note, if the firewall at my client's site doesn't
> repsond to a ping inside the next 5 mins (10pm Sunday here) it'll be
> dead after I finish with it. And it'll cost them a taxi fare as I'm too
> full of rather good Scotch to consider driving there.
>


Ok, So which scotch is it......Lots to choose from..?

RichardB



--
Every day of my life I am forced to add another
person to the list of people who **** me off....
 
Dave Liquorice wrote:

>
> Isn't more to do with the fact that a dead soldier can be left for a
> while, were as a wounded one requires attention of comrades and resources
> to get him to the medics... If the enemy is tending their wounded, they
> aren't fighting.
>

Spot on Dave. 1 wounded person takes up to 10 fit people to care for
him, at least up to the point of getting them to the hospital.

2 battlefield medics to administer first aid
4 stretcher bearers
2 ambulance medics
1 ambulance driver
1 security person in ambulance

Granted you can carry 4 wounded people in a typical ambulance, so that
cuts down the overall average but it's still better (?) than having a
dead enemy. Twisted minds afoot in the military planning arena :)

--
Regards

Steve G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.