vortexring

Our 'guys' have had to stand down from one conflict I remember in particular -I won't go into detail with which one, it is irrelevant- they were ready, ready to jump -geared up, suited up, circling the LZ when they were called back. Men like that are amped up for the situation, they are PREPARED for that challenge because it is what they've trained to do, what they were meant to do...I can tell you that when they had to stand down and come back, it was like trying to bottle a Tazmanian Devil; like watching wild horses penned up. They weren't afraid of what they were on their way to do. Coming home, they were too keyed up to calm down for days...but they came home. They didn't fight that fight not because they were cowards, but because the mission had changed for them. Your statement here reminded me of some history from North Africa in WW II. Through David Stirling (and Jock Lewes, Paddy Mayne), the present day SAS had come into existence through great difficulty. On their first operation the method of insertion was by parachute, and this really was the early days of military parachuting. Unfortunately the evening they were due ( and had to ) to go in a bugger of a storm brewed up - winds were estimated to be around 30 to 40 knots. But the mission had to go ahead. Amongst other reasons, failure for it to do so would mean the end of the SAS before it had properly begun. And nobody was in any doubt there would a high rate of casualties on the drop. So it went ahead. 65 men dropped - everybody - and the outcome was 22 men survived the actual drop. Absolutley tragic really. When I first heard of this story I was already a paratrooper. Initially I thought over the sanity of such a decision. They certainly did things differently in those days, such as marches covering perhaps 100 miles through the desert in November, carrying only 4 pints of water. And their water discpline was to have a mouthful swished around your mouth then spat out (!) so as to reduce the temptation to guzzle all ones water. Their utter selfless dedication and courage to take the fight to the enemy almost goes beyond modern comprehension. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? How did they get all the animals to the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? Why did the dinosaurs survive up until the flood and then die afterwards? How did they manage to fit enough food onto the ark to feed all the animals for so long? How did they keep the food fresh? How many hours each day did Shem, Ham and Yapeth spend mucking out? Why did no one get scurvy? Which of Noah's kids was infected with syphillus? How did Kangaroos and other marsupials get to Australia, and only Australia? Why didn't all the sea creatures get killed by the massive desalinisation of the oceans when all that extra water was poured in? If the flood waters were salty, why didn't all the freshwater fish get killed? When the Ark ran aground on the mud after the flood waters receeded, what did all the animals eat in the time before vegetation came back? Why (and this one is very important) does Woodmorappe use the median size of the animals on the ark to demonstrate that they could all fit, when he should have used the mean size, which is much larger? If evolution can account for a few thousand kinds becoming a few million species in only 4.5 thousand years, why can't evolution account for a bacteria becoming all of todays species in a few billion years? Why do you believe something so blatantly absurd? Bollox to that - the pertinent question is why did he take mosquito's and midges on board!? The bloody lemon. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

A well trained soldier with an M4 or M16 can clear a malfunction, fire, and hit their target at 300M in less time than it would take a so-so trained AK47 bearer to hit the broad side of a barn at a similar distance. Will the Iraqi army be well trained in the use of the rifle? Simplistically, if 2 sections are involved in a fire fight, one being armed with M-16A2's and well trained, the other with AK -47's, and so-so trained, and taking hot, sandy and dusty conditions into account, AK- 47 guys win. Unless the M-16 users were British....... History?

10 votes - and not a single explanation of the reasons why. Horrifying - are people avoiding posting an explanation through fear of being ranted at? Or proven 'wrong?' ( how could you be? It's your opinion ) What's up then? I'd be delighted to read people's general reasons for their vote. If it's simply because you have a gut feeling Bush is a wanker or a genius strategist, then say so! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Why would any sane or reasonable person think a person being captured or killed in war is entertaining?? I'm suspecting some black humour behind this statement. Very unamerican of you not to ignore black humor when it suits you. Cut it out and climb on your high horse or they'll have to deport you. I doubt I'm understanding you here - I'm about unamerican as they come; I'm Scottish. As for deportation - I'm back in the UK fairly soon. Either way - wibble. I know that, hence the comment. Ah, of course. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Like gun laws, issues concerning Iraq are always coming up on SC. It's sometimes quite apparant what side of the fence people stand through their posts. But not always. I figured it could be quite interesting to read where exactly a random group of peoples ( posters on SC) opinion on the matter now lies. Especially where their opinion may have changed and why. It would also be useful if any arguements and rants over opinions were kept back until later. I think people might prefer not to post an opinion if they feel it's likely to agitate everyone. (Seriously!) At one point I thought I was beginning to see a slight trend of war supporters, people who were anti-war, and people who didn't really have a clue, and therefore, no particular opinion. The trend of these opinions seemed to relate to personal education and social standing. However, I'm not trying to imply some healthy poll results here would provide any confirmation regarding this trend. So if you make an effort to post your vote and opinion, thanks.

Why would any sane or reasonable person think a person being captured or killed in war is entertaining?? I'm suspecting some black humour behind this statement. Very unamerican of you not to ignore black humor when it suits you. Cut it out and climb on your high horse or they'll have to deport you. I doubt I'm understanding you here - I'm about unamerican as they come; I'm Scottish. As for deportation - I'm back in the UK fairly soon. Either way - wibble. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Why would any sane or reasonable person think a person being captured or killed in war is entertaining?? I'm suspecting some black humour behind this statement. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Quality. Perhaps the best thing you'll do prior to melting is realise nobody really worked out the answer because too much self-interest agenda's swung into operation, clouding up the entire issues. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

All very commendable, but it's too idealistic. I suspect that a true balance of power would be nigh on impossible. I also suspect it would turn into an almighty gangfuck. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Quite right but I think all sides are making a lot out of this. If nobody knew what unit he was in or what he did that'd be fine but sending him in there with a big announcement is fucking stupid. There's evidence that the enemy is already targeting scimitars and it's gotten one crew killed so far (that's if you accept there's a connection). They may turn around in a year and say he's been deployed all along and he's returning after serving with his unit, at least then I'd get the (possibly misleading) impression that our military is not being run by a bunch of dozey fuckwits who couldn't throw a surprise party for a deaf, dumb and blind retard. I'm cynically suspecting the decision not to send him into Iraq hasn't really much to do with his or his men's safety. I'd imagine even a complete mong would have been able to envisage threats being made towards him - whilst he was undergoing his training at Sandhurst. OF COURSE the enemy would directly target him! (Doh!) So this sudden change stinks. There are some arses being covered here. And they don't belong to Harry or any of the HCR lads. edit: He'll more than likely be making his shiny with the odd visit to the Colonel... As in Gaddafi; Naafi. (PX) 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Never! () 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Hardly earth shattering news is it? Here's a statement from the BBC news website: (This is the full text of the statement by the head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt.) "Over the last few weeks I have made a particular point of saying that I would keep under constant review my decision to deploy Prince Harry to Iraq with his troop. As with any military operation, circumstances do change, and therefore so should decisions, if necessary. I have decided today that Prince Harry will not deploy as a troop leader with his squadron. I have come to this final decision following a further and wide round of consultation, including a visit to Iraq by myself at the end of last week. There have been a number of specific threats - some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual. These threats expose not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable. Now that I have decided that he will not be deploying with his troop, the risks faced by his battle group are no different to those faced by any other battle group or other of our servicemen in Iraq. I have to add that a contributing factor to this increase in threats to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his deployment. Prince Harry is said to be disappointed It is a fact that this close scrutiny has exacerbated the situation and this is something that I wish to avoid in future. Let me also make quite clear that as a professional soldier, Prince Harry will be extremely disappointed. He has proved himself both at Sandhurst and in command of his troop during their training. I commend him for his determination and his undoubted talent - and I do not say that lightly. His soldiers will miss his leadership in Iraq, although I know his commanding officer will provide a highly capable substitute troop leader. In conclusion, two further points: first I have asked Prince Harry's commanding officer to continue to develop Prince Harry's professional career in the Army, but I am not prepared to speculate, either now or in the future, on what Prince Harry might be doing over the next few weeks and months. Second, I pay tribute once again to the excellence and commitment of all our servicemen deployed around the world and I thank them, and their families, for the way that they are doing their duty in the best traditions of the Armed Forces." I guess there are many issue's to consider over all this - such as the greater threat to his soldiers and squadron - but me personally, I still think he should deploy. This next part is someone elses opinion from the BBC news site which I happen to agree with: "Suprise,suprise.Prince harry can`t go to Iraq because he would be a high profile target.But surely every british soldier in iraq or any other conflict is a target.So what is the point of Prince harry being in the army. Its like being a fireman but not being able to fight fires.Its almost as embarrasing as his father wearing a line of medals he didn`t earn in front of real soldiers on remembrance sunday." Martin, Eastbourne 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

"Stand by, stand by..." 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That's a timely reply... Did Michael Durant post here? Or Andy McGrab(sic)? So you're still talking BS int'cha!? SERE training amongst professionals is massively relevant. Unlike yourself, I'm a professional. You would have been told specifically the level of classification regarding your SERE course. Weren't listening, were you? You've actually pissed me off. Well done!

I so have to agree with you here mate. Apart from 4. Prison Break is better.

Tony B'liar!

What exactly do you mean by 'we?" The USA? The UN? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm Try being in combat worrying about the above.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Despite having a dodgy goaty beard Steve, as a Paster(?) ((Wahtever on Earth that is)), you talk decent sense mate.

You tell 'em Pops - I'm sure you're really either British or German. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Regarding the Prince - I was recently in the Naafi waiting for a brew, after a few sorties - guess who came in - all by himself - and stood around waiting for a brew himself? I've no doubt he'll be a sound officer and leader to his men, given the chance. And under his circumstances and lifestyle - respect. Although in saying that, if he did start trying to tell me my job, he would receive a poke in the eye and a kick up the arse. But I sincerely believe he'd react in a more positive fashion to this than your general gay Sandhurst type. Besides - how many Royal Princes dress up in Nazi uniforms and frequent titty bars?

I have a sneaky feeling wish agree's with you on that one mate. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It astounds me that people believe God is responsible for everything. Whether it's falling in love, getting squished low hooking, or even making somebody commit mass murder. I - like everyone else - am not completely convinced He exists. I could brag about my faith being so strong that in actual fact I am convinced, but this would be a lie. A white one perhaps, but a lie. My belief is that He's quite simply left us to it. What we do as humans is quite simply what we do. I honestly believe Christians who blame God for mankinds atrocities are fucking mentalists of the highest order.

I'm beyond the point of gobbin' off about the ... (I struggle to think of a suitable description here) .. Prime Minister (!). I suspect he is nutcase and should be treated accordingly. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'