continuing proofs America is wacko

I like they fact they took their own double-decker bus with them- thats Scots ingenuity for you there, thinking ahead. There's some might not quite manage the march to the ground, but still have the right to make it there, so pop them in the bus and the party carries on!

Mrs Figg. A perfect seat! Put a piss-pot on the ground below you can stay at the bar all night!

Just hope they sanded it down properly, you dont want splinters.

A Yorkshireman once tried to explain the rules of modern football to me.
What does "Bunch'o yobs lookin fera punchup" mean?

see 'Tartan Army'. its probably in Wikipedia.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And as to Aussie Rules- its exactly the sort of game I would expect from a nation of exfelons-vague rules, lots of violence. Football is much more respectable that that- we keep the violence in the stands where it belongs.

Strange game Aussie Rules is, now as I come to think on it, Petty... When I go to a game, I can take my children, sit next to my opposition supporter, be entertained by the game I'm watching and not have to make my own entertainment, head home after the game slaked on blood and excitement and exhilharation or vital pessimism, if if you're a Tigerland Man, and feel I've spent my money well. What ever happened to the Old World idea of sport to be watched as opposed to venue at which to fight a tribal war?

As to "no sleeves" Mrs Figg - that's how we show off our muscles. As to 'silk hankies"- we never cry and so don't need 'em...

As to the rest of the posts since my last --- how come everyone has fun when I'm asleep or at work? How excluding of you all!!!

Mmmm... I wonder if one army fought another army, one person at a time, how long would it last?

probably as long as waiting for Petty to do your music video.

Good point, Mrs Figg... But as most people I know, when facing each other one on one, are rarely brave, usually compromising, to save face and limb... Backed by others around you, you do feel bigger and braver. Maybe wars are not really for heroes but for cowards puffed up by your mates?

Orwell wrote: But as most people I know, when facing each other one on one, are rarely brave, usually compromising, to save face and limb... Backed by others around you, you do feel bigger and braver. Maybe wars are not really for heroes but for cowards puffed up by your mates?

I see your point. Alcohol can do the same thing.

Orwell wrote:Good point, Mrs Figg... But as most people I know, when facing each other one on one, are rarely brave, usually compromising, to save face and limb... Backed by others around you, you do feel bigger and braver. Maybe wars are not really for heroes but for cowards puffed up by your mates?

Orwell, I think you do not understand war, especially modern war at all. It's goal is to neutralize an enemy while perserving itself. It's members are ordinary people trained to do a job and not required to be heroes. They are just supposed to do their job effectively. On todays battlefield you rarely if ever actually even see an enemy. And they do cry, both men and women when they have lost friends or see them damaged, but they continue to fight and the tears normally come later, and are not less men or women for it. It is assinine to call or even suggest they are cowards, and it only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Who is the 'better man' in the traditional sense is both outdated and immaterial. For one, your hypothetical soldier might be facing a woman. Secondary we don't really give a rats ass. If you are an enemy the point is to neutralize you in any way possible, and fairness does not come in to it. If 12 of us can catch you alone and blow you to pieces, that is good tactics in our eyes. Patton said it best I think. 'Your job is not to die for your country...it is to make the other guy die for his'. If you want to be Conan the Barbarian you would need to find another field.

I'm not sure I understand modern war. The rules seem to be changing as rapidly as the technology. I know that in my Dad's day, terror was a natural part of the everyday life of a soldier. None of them would have chosen to be there except for the collective will of the US Army. But cowardice would have been a term reserved for refusing an order.

One of the "funny" stories one of his buddies told on Dad is of taking direct artillery fire in an exposed farmhouse. Dad apparently took the initiative to "dig" a hole through an oak floor with nothing but his bayonet. When they'd all safely squeezed through the hole into the shallow cellar they noticed that Dad was down there still trying to dig through the stone and concrete floor to get even deeper with no idea what he was doing. That's terror, but in that environment I don't think it counts as cowardice.

I do think that after 9/11 there were some people in our government throwing our military into places it probably had no business going. I'll entertain the suggestion that THAT might have been cowardice.

I'm very concerned about the process of determining who is an enemy though, especially after talking with an Israeli soldier who was in Gaza. Can you shed any light? It was so much easier in my Dad's day.

Its laid out in the Rules of Engagement which can vary from theatre to theatre or even change at times within a theatre. A specific operation might have a specific ROE for instance. Typically deadly force is only authorized against combattants actually shooting at you, though at times it can be extended to any carrying arms. The enemy learns the rules quickly btw, and so you will see them set up an ambush and when the tide turns against them, drop their weapons and walk away. In such a case you are not allowed to shoot at them.

Of course in the case of the US its fair to say they pick the rules to suit themselves- torture, treatment of prisoners fof war etc were all thrown out the window- always been curious- how did the average US soldier view it when Bush backed out of the Geneva Conventions? Afterall it was their legal protections on the battlefield he was giving up.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Of course in the case of the US its fair to say they pick the rules to suit themselves- torture, treatment of prisoners fof war etc were all thrown out the window- always been curious- how did the average US soldier view it when Bush backed out of the Geneva Conventions? Afterall it was their legal protections on the battlefield he was giving up.

Personnally, I was pretty horrified and on more then one level. That kind of behavior is wrong, self defeating and can ruin a military if tolerated and it spreads. You really have to squash it hard and fast. That it was condoned by the senior administration leaders tells you volumes about those leaders & I wish they could have charges brought against them. As it is, I think only Rumsfeld can be charged, the others, Bush and Cheney having legal immunity, at least in our legal system.

But as far as protecting you on the battlefield, the Geneva convention might be useful for wiping your butt. Our enemies have usually not paid much attention to such conventions.

I agree its very unlikely whilst being captured and interrogated by some Al-Queda type that they will suddenly stop after realising they are contravening Article 26 paragraph 4 sub section C of some Conventions somewhere- however it does mean pressure can be applied on enemy forces by outside governments and bodies for prisoner releases, fo rthe well being of prisoners, UN inspections etc- by withdrawing from all that the US government sent out a message to its enemies- we wont treat you like human beings- and of course conversly put their own captured people in exactly the same bracket.
The Geneva Convention might in pratctice not do a soldier a lot of good but I for one think if I was US military I would have felt a lot worse if I was captured after they had abandoned it than before.

Interesting you sight the effect of such a change on your own side and its long term effects- do you think the abuses we have seen by a minority of US personnel stem from the message form the top at the time?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Interesting you sight the effect of such a change on your own side and its long term effects- do you think the abuses we have seen by a minority of US personnel stem from the message form the top at the time?

I doubt many at all in the military at large knew the message at the time. The functional area of prison camps is something of a seperate entity, to a degree secret and the CIA was heavily involved. Along with the top three administrators I also think the CIA should be investigated and changes made. To me they look out of control and may have crossed into criminality. Just from a physcological viewpoint, prisons are a very dangerous situation as far as potential abuses goes. I think our average soldiers who operate the camps (basically the military police elements of the forces) began unprepared/undertrained, under-supported and under-supervised. I have a good friend who spent the first year of the Iraq war serving in a Army prison camp there. He didn't see abuses like what would later be revealed, but related the prisoners were not treated well in respect to basic services. My friend on his own initiative procurred and built screening walls around the open latrines. He had letters from prisoners in their language saying he was a good guy. I always thought that would have been good things to have in case he was captured, but the problem with many of these enemies is they just shoot prisoners off-hand and so they might have just gone unread. In most areas they don't have prisons per-se.

Talking of prisons, from what I have read civilian prisons are probably just as dangerous if not more so than military prisons, I have seen some documentaries where gang members are banged up together, and I think I would rather be in military prisons any day, it looked truly scary.

Think I posted a link to this before but if you have not seen it its an entertainingly done, shocking, fascinating documentary at Miami's biggest (worst) prison.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Think I posted a link to this before but if you have not seen it its an entertainingly done, shocking, fascinating documentary at Miami's biggest (worst) prison.

Sounds like fun. Perhaps we can start a new thread, on parasitic diseases along the Amazon river basin. That should be a hoot.

Louise Therouex is an entertaining but insightful documentaring, and he gets people to talk. I'd recommend any of his documentaries. And few documentaries are a barrel of laughs Turembar.

I cannot stand Theroux, there is something very Borat Lite about his interviewing technique, its a kind of superior feeding time at the zoo attitude that I find impossible to watch. He may be clever and all that, but he lacks warmth and humanity in my opinion, I dont think he really connects with the people he meets, ok he does tend to interview 'monsters', and unpleasant folk, and obviously there has to be someone prepared to unmask their delusions, but all the same I find him almost as disturbing as the loony toones.

That was pretty cool.

Unlike the French gathering at a mountain to await doomsday, American's seem to be making their traditional response to anything, buying more guns. But not only in case of doomsday, but also Obama's re-election and Zombie apocalypse.

http://gma.yahoo.com/gun-sales-booming-doomsday-obama-zombies-193929184--abc-news-money.html

The zombie thing is kinda weird, but might be salvaged by the Russians who have been developing a Zombie-making weapon.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/russia-developing-gun-turns-people-zombies-seriously-232522297.html

Some discussions on how it might (or might not) happen

I thought Americans were zombies! Go figure....

Orwell wrote:I thought Americans were zombies! Go figure....

Well then, I hope you don't live near Darwin.




[