all of it is unfortunate. caused by sin when you keep taking all the layers apart.
i wouldn't trust hiliary clinton as far as i could throw her. she will take the stand of anyone that she perceives will help her out, i don't think she really cares about anyone.
cathy

Hi folks. Yes reading all of the replies about this it is a "Hot Potato", but in war things happen, mainly due to indiscipline, not just our American allies but some of our own troops have tarnished the name of the British Army as well. I'm meaning the guys from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers who were mistreating Iraqi prisoners in a Basra Jail, just in the same way that those American Troops did the same in that jail in Bagdad, they brought shame on both Armies.
My Grandfather who fought in Normandy said that they lost more troops to the American 8th Airforce than they did to the German Army.
But saying that. I think that it is time to bring our guys home, let the UN take over in Iraq, it is now an untenable situation, and I think that it would be best to bring the boys home, American & British. We've done our job. But Tony Blair and George Bush will not listen to us. How many more young men and women in our 2 armies have to die, be maimed for life and suffer the hell of combat stress, just to satisfy 2 politician's egos. Enough is enough.
Sure, concentrate on Afghanistan, as that is the main problem, and of course where it all started after 9/11. They will never be peace in the Middle East, The Romans couldn't do it 2000 years ago, what chance have we.
Anthony, you said that the best US Troops are their Marines, but I would say that there best Army Units are the 82nd & 101st Airbourne divisions these guys are the best, I worked with guys from the 101st during the 1st Gulf War and these guys know there business.
Cheers
Scott

No no Scott, I said Marine level of training, not marines in general... not basic US Army enlistment. Any soldier in the US forces with training equal too, or above, marine level, is what I believe the minimum requisite for the US to be sending into war. I dare say the groups you mentioned above, are more disciplined than regular US army?

Your absolutely right though mate... war and politics are hot potatoes, but I as you, believe they can be discussed, as long as we all keep discussions factual.

I think this is a very good discussion actually... quite thought provoking.

Cathy, is that the general consensus within the US about Hiliary Clinton?

Hi Anthony. I only mentioned about the US Marines as they are the best that the Americans have, but they are increasingly used as infantrymen now. Their training is second to none, same as our Royal Marines, who I think are the best in the world. I mean 35 weeks training. I thought 18 weeks was tough.
Yes this is a good topic for discussion.
Cathy. Who is popular in the US for President, as I think that Hilary Clinton is to much tarnished by her husband. Or put it this way, if Tony Blair was running for president, (Give him time) would you vote for him.
Cheers
Scott

ha, i don't know enough about tony blair to vote for him, but his is not a citizen here, so he couldn't run anyway.
who is popular is up in the air right now, hil is popular in some circles, there is a plethoria of presidential hopefuls right now.
cathy

Anthony
"Those guys" ARE regular U.S. Army! The only diference in the 82nd and any other Army unit, Except spec ops, is that they jump from airplanes. I know from first hand experiance. I was in the 82nd for a while. All the worlds forces have idiots in leadership positions. I have a friend who was 101rst in Afganastan and watched as two F-16s droped six five hundred pounders on a ground platoon. 43 U.S. 101rst troops killed by their own bad call for close air support. Yes they called it in on themselves. My buddy could not get his SATCOM up in time to intervien.
It sucks but it happens in all conflicks. I worked with some Royal Marines on a joint training operation on Ft. Lewis Washington U.S.A. They called our mortar fire on themselves. Once again training, artillery sims were used to simbleize incoming rounds and yes they went off all around Her Majesties Marines. It can happen to any one at any time. Stress is a bitch. It gets people killed frequently even in civilian life.

BTW I do believe some of the coments made about the U.S. would not have made it to the bord if the rolles were reversed.

Seems everyone has posted a lot of good points here, even if it has slipped away from the main topic. I can't continue to argue here because I can't demonstrate proof... I can only say what I believe/know/experienced to be true and my opinion's on such (and not having any inclination to dig up news articles and the like), only this as evidence of fact.

Hey Ranger, oh no mate, don't exempt Australia from mistakes, they do get made, as with the UK. The thing is though, is that when you look at the data for friendly fire, the US lead the way over all other countries on a statistical basis, per man compared to total force. That is unacceptable IMHO, and that is at the higher level where training is either not being instilled long enough, well enough, or soldiers are simply ignorant and want to die. I doubt very much it is the later, which means US military training must change.

Let me compare training... the US soldiers are trained to do one job, and one job only, nothing more, nothing less. Now whilst this may sound good, its actually what I believe kills more soldiers than does good. Most armies cross train their troops, so they have a variety of skills across the board. In the Australian forces, every soldier, sailor and airforce member are trained to be the basic roles first, and trained highly in that role. Then they are cross trained in many many roles, so they can assume many positions, have many skills, all in order to help any soldier stay alive by knowing what to do under multiple conditions. I believe this is a major issue where the US let down their soldiers, attempting to make numbers that are off a majority, less than adequate for combat roles. As you state, this doesn't apply to everyone, and I have trained with US soldiers, and within those I have met some that are very clever, use a lot of commonsense and I have no doubt would survive war, but the majority where twits when it came to soldierly techniques, and couldn't be sneaky bastards if they tried. Why? A lot where simply too loud, didn't care, undisciplined. They where too busy yahooing, yes, even here in Australia, they where yahooing, and they wondered why they got their arsed kicked each and every single time. Its not because of any advantage, merely because you can find them without really having to look, they just stand out and you can hear them a long way away.

Malaysian soldiers whilst not so noisy, are very messy also, and you just have to follow their garbage collection they leave along the way... not real challenging stuff. Is any country doing their troops any favours by not training their soldiers to a high level? Lets face facts, training means survival. If Australia sends 10,000 troops into a war zone, we expect to bring home 10,000 troops. If we lose one or two, that is a tragedy. The US send 10,000 troops into a war zone, they estimate losses around 20%... why? Why would any country already expect to send in 10,000 troops, yet only get 8,000 back, and accept that rate? That is not acceptable, these people have families, they have lives... and smart tactics ensures soldiers come home. I just don't get that mentality to be honest... I wouldn't join an army that didn't care about me as a human life, the basic level of existence.

Hi Ranger. The RAF have made the same mistakes as well as the US Airforce, but it gets covered, just like this latest incident has been, its been covered up for 3 years and that is what upset the families of the guys killed by the A10s. If they were only told the truth in the beginning, then I think all of this would have been resolved. But the MOD and The Pentagon are both to blame for this secrecy.
Don't get me wrong, the average GI is a good soldier, but its their officers that let them down on many occaisions. Our own officer training is good but it could be better. They spend 35 weeks at Sandhurst being trained, I don't know how long they spend at West Point. But I think that all officer candidates should spend a year in the ranks, especially in a unit of the line as we call it. (Infantry or Armoured). Before they go to Military Academy. And that would give them a taste of what its like.
But I now say that its time to bring the boys home, enough is enough, its becoming a grinder out there in Iraq. Afghanistan is the main danger point, especially the Taliban.
Cheers
Scott