Kid Dynamite 7192 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Its like Bill Pullman climbing in the jet at the end of Independence Day. Theres no fucking need. We shouldnt be there in the first place. If he dies then it will be no more upsetting than when a normal bloke dies over there. Hes blatantly going to have an SAS team following him wherever he goes over there anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Hes blatantly going to have an SAS team following him wherever he goes over there anyway Wouldn't be a bad idea seeing as the best insurgents are going to try and find him, meaning we get to send a few to the virgins, given the fact that most of the time they never get in a straight fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7192 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Are you in the TAs by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Are you in the TAs by any chance? No, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7192 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 you seem a big fan of the forces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 20918 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Its a fucking joke letting any of the Royals in the forces for this exact reason. The lass that passed out with Wills, she goes to Iraq and dies whilst he gets pissed here, so why fucking join? They get paid to do fuck all because they are such a high security risk! That wasnt the case with Andy boy, he served in the Falklands. The Falklads and Andy was a totally differnt situation with regards to what they are facing with Harry. Andy was up in the air and it was also a "true" war, not the situation we have in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 doesn't matt what sort of war it is if the buggers are shooting at you.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. maybe if we moved away from history and concetrated on the 21st Century we'd be a bit more efficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. maybe if we moved away from history and concetrated on the 21st Century we'd be a bit more efficient? Now you're just talking shite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Its a fucking joke letting any of the Royals in the forces for this exact reason. The lass that passed out with Wills, she goes to Iraq and dies whilst he gets pissed here, so why fucking join? They get paid to do fuck all because they are such a high security risk! That wasnt the case with Andy boy, he served in the Falklands. Aye, was a bit different though, different war, he was doing a different job and wasn't a high priority target like the ginger one might be. On the other hand those in Afghanistan might realise it could be a PR disaster if they kill a child of St. Diana (she's eventually to become a Prophet of Islam no doubt too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. maybe if we moved away from history and concetrated on the 21st Century we'd be a bit more efficient? Now you're just talking shite Why? If we're living in the past how can we hope to face modern challenges?? It is indicative of an organisation that is too concerned with strange titles rather than functional descriptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Was asking my stepsister's lad yesterday who was actually at Sandhurst with William, it's a Troop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. maybe if we moved away from history and concetrated on the 21st Century we'd be a bit more efficient? Now you're just talking shite Why? If we're living in the past how can we hope to face modern challenges?? It is indicative of an organisation that is too concerned with strange titles rather than functional descriptions The Army has just gone through one of the biggest operational re-organisations in history. They're not stupid enough to be confused by a few different titles for crying out loud. You're off your rocker if you think this matters a jot to how the army operates. And believe it or not these titles do have functional meanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. maybe if we moved away from history and concetrated on the 21st Century we'd be a bit more efficient? Now you're just talking shite Why? If we're living in the past how can we hope to face modern challenges?? It is indicative of an organisation that is too concerned with strange titles rather than functional descriptions The Army has just gone through one of the biggest operational re-organisations in history. They're not stupid enough to be confused by a few different titles for crying out loud. You're off your rocker if you think this matters a jot to how the army operates. And believe it or not these titles do have functional meanings. Doesn't the US army have that letter + number grade system too? Which is as confusing as hell to anyone outside it, they still have the old names for grades too though, maybe shouting "grenade E4!!!" would be a bit confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. maybe if we moved away from history and concetrated on the 21st Century we'd be a bit more efficient? Now you're just talking shite Why? If we're living in the past how can we hope to face modern challenges?? It is indicative of an organisation that is too concerned with strange titles rather than functional descriptions The Army has just gone through one of the biggest operational re-organisations in history. They're not stupid enough to be confused by a few different titles for crying out loud. You're off your rocker if you think this matters a jot to how the army operates. And believe it or not these titles do have functional meanings. they did 150 years ago -these days they don't you never hear of anyone called "Driver" or "Radio man" or "automatic weapons operator" do you ??? Edited May 9, 2007 by Rob W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. maybe if we moved away from history and concetrated on the 21st Century we'd be a bit more efficient? Now you're just talking shite Why? If we're living in the past how can we hope to face modern challenges?? It is indicative of an organisation that is too concerned with strange titles rather than functional descriptions The Army has just gone through one of the biggest operational re-organisations in history. They're not stupid enough to be confused by a few different titles for crying out loud. You're off your rocker if you think this matters a jot to how the army operates. And believe it or not these titles do have functional meanings. they did 150 years ago -these days they don't you never hear of anyone called "Driver" or "Radio man" or "automatic weapons operator" do you ??? The steering wheel/radio/machine gun usually gives it away. If not, you can tell a driver or a signalman from their uniform straight away, ignoring the fact every private can drive/use a radio. There wouldn't be much point changing every 8th infantryman's title from 'private' to 'automatic weapons operator' now would there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now