Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
can we call it sabotage now?
some entropy with that sink? entropysink.com
there are two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness. - franz kafka
RTFA.
Naturally I didn't feel inspired enough to read all the links for you, since I already slaved away for long hours under a blistering sun pressing the search button after typing four whole words! - Quzah
You. Fetch me my copy of the Wall Street Journal. You two, fight to the death - Stewie
adrianxw was right about it.... I think the brits are more sensible and experienced (from the colonial times).. on the other hand the Ammerican photos and videos seem to be true..
apparntly the polish have good relations with the iraqis and they never colonized anyone. maybe it's because they were invaded? even though none of the soliders there were alive at he time. seeing videos of regular soliders in Iraq, I was pretty shocked by their arrogance.Originally Posted by vasanth
Originally Posted by vasanth
Are you kidding me? Can you truly tell me that the colonial British military has any affect whatsoever on the modern British military?
I don't think it's outlandish to think that the British military may have learned from prior mistakes. British troops in Iraq seem to have had a better relationship with the local population than their US counterparts. Part of the reason may simply be due to more experience in handing this kind of situation, afterall the British did face very similar problems in 1920.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
1920's yes, 1620s and 1720s no.
Militaries worldwide learn from each other's mistakes, not only their own.
Britain still had colonies in 1920.1920's yes, 1620s and 1720s no.
You would hope so, but if that were true then why do the same mistakes get repeated?Militaries worldwide learn from each other's mistakes, not only their own.
There was article in the telegraph a while ago that was very critical of the US for not considering past conflicts that were similar particularly the 1920 shiite revolt.
Warning: It is opinion, and should be taken as such.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixnewstop.html
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
I didnt believe the British were capable of such things anyway, with the actually worthwhile education system and sensitivity training. I think the real difference can be seen when UK troops are willing to walk around on the streets and actually meet/talk to people and ask their thoughts, while US troops ride around like cowboys in their tanks and APCs. This not meant to be a flame, but I would have to say that US troops on average... suck ass. A lot of it has to do with the fact that a majority of the armed forces of the United states come from "The South", where racism still runs pretty rampant and quite a few people believe that muslims should be all killed.
I think we all can thank the British for atleast learning from their mistakes, instead of making new ones like we did.
Many Points:
1) Clyde, I realized that vasanth was referring to the British colonies after I posted by I was too lazy to edit. In America, British colonialism is automatically associated with America.
2) That article is bullocks. When someone says... "I was confronted with the disturbing reality about the way Americans make policy," grouping an entire, diverse population like that, the person should be immediately ignored.
3) The # of US Troops ># of British Troops. Therefore, there are going to be many more Americans in tanks and the like in comparison to the British. Most militaries of similar capabilities and similar countries are primarily the same. They are all taught the same concepts and use similar weaponry.
well sorry if I meant anything wrong... I was not grouping the entire US army with the tag.. but saying things in general.... In general i find that the british army is more diplomatic which even at some higher levels the US army lacks.. I agree they are taught the same concept and use of similar weaponary but there are various other factors which influence how they behave under stress, how they handle diplomacy etc... but all these are my personal opinions and they might be wrong..Originally Posted by golfinguy4
In the instance you quote I think he's referring to the current American administration though even then i agree it is still an over generalisation and poorly phrased, on the other hand i don't think it warrants completely ignoring everything he has to say.That article is bullocks. When someone says... "I was confronted with the disturbing reality about the way Americans make policy," grouping an entire, diverse population like that, the person should be immediately ignored
Sure but if you compare how British and Ameircan troups interact with the local populations there seem to be some differences - well atleast according to some of the documentaries i've watched. They did seem to paint a picture of the US troups being alot more detached than there British counterparts.The # of US Troops ># of British Troops. Therefore, there are going to be many more Americans in tanks and the like in comparison to the British
Right but surely there are differences in policy, and those differences have effects all the way down.They are all taught the same concepts and use similar weaponry
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem