HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Thu 24 Jan 13 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


News of the Day

First thing's first.....Hilary Rodham Clinton attended her hearing in front of the US Senate Committee about the Benghazi incident today.

A few posts ago, I warned against this. That's all I am saying.

But since nobody listened to me, how did she do?

She was glittering, powerful, damning and merciless.

On the US political side, all that happened is that all of America and maybe the world saw how much better she is than the petty politics of a few partisan senators.

On the reality side, we found out that:

1. Benghazi is NOT Tripoli. Benghazi is an annex, a "commission". The US Embassy resides in Tripoli.
2. The US Ambassador attended Benghazi doing what Ambassadors do. They take risks.
3. There were no Department of Defense soldiers in protection of Benghazi because, basically, that is standard procedure.
4. Where were the Marines? Marines stand post at places that contain classified documents or equipment. I can verify this. There was nothing classified at the Benghazi commission. Therefore, no Marine protection.
5. There were "Accountability Review Boards" (ARBs) both classified and unclassified that swung into action once the event happened. Either the Senate of the United States ignored them or tried to interfere with them.
6. ALL State Department activities we reviewed both prior and post the event. The State Department was upheld.
7. Republican members of the Committee REALLY hate Hilary Rodham Clinton and
8. Nothing done in this committee changed ANYTHING apart from making Hilary Rodham Clinton look amazing.

I KNEW this was gonna happen......it's called a "bitch slap". They deserved it The whole thing was done because of the 2012 election and a waste of time.

jmaxg embarrasses himself

The United States Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, today announced that ALL restrictions on women being applied in combat have been rescinded.

The United States has now followed nations like New Zealand and Australia in allowing total female access to every facet of military conduct. "G.I. Jane" is now a fact of life as far as the US is concerned.

The embarrassing part? Oh...that was just me thinking of the worst sexist scenario.....

A section commander and crew are stuck in a stand-off. With no ideas, the corporal turns to his 9 crew members....

"C'mon people! They are just 20 feet away! What can we do?"

A sheepish 2-IC comes forward....

"Corp? We got no options......but..."

"But what?"

*distant feral noises heard

"It's Annie."

"What about Annie?"

"It's that time of the month."

"Oh shit! Alright, this is what we are gonna do.....gun group? Take that high ledge and distract. Annie's goin' in"

*minutes pass as M60 rounds pound in distraction......Annie makes it in.

*there are noises that amount to Warner Brothers cartoon wildcat sound effects and distant soldiers exclaiming "In Allah's name no! Please No! Not that! Arrggghhhh!"

*The section commander calls another group....

"Ok, let's get our story straight. Annie went and did her own thing, ok?"

"Aw, c'mon chief. You worried about the equal opportunity board? The sexist police??"

Section commander: "As if! I'm worried about the Geneva Convention!"

End story

My point is intended to be humorous, even if grossly politically incorrect.

My point as an ex-soldier and "digger" until the day I die?

It's about bloody time! Gays and females alike! I am sure ALL of us are EQUALLY capable of defending our shores.

To "Annie" I say, I welcome your feral ass to my section of feral idiots.

To all of you I say just do your bloody job.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #2 
Honey Badger
Member

Honesty, you really are a piece of work. Hilllary and the gang are disgraceful. She lied under oath and her politacal career is over. She did NOT look amazing. Smokescreen.

WHERE ARE THEY HIDING THE 30 ODD RESCUED PEOPLE BEING HIDDEN? WHY ARE THEY BBEING HIDDEN??? Trouble, on a major level will ensue.

I do agree with you about women in frontline combat. They are certainly smart enough but they are not strong enough physically. They don't belong there and it is trouble waiting to explode in our faces. Why turn the world upside down to say we are PC? What's the point? And, uh, who gets to keep the babies??? LOL


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #3 
Ajax
Contributor

Hmm, you don't need to have a time of the month. You know that don't you? You can have a time of the year if you choose. Or just whenever you go on leave.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #4 
Ajax
Contributor

Oh, and Hilary is the poo here because she's been mean to Bindi Irwin.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #5 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Women in the front line ?? Nope, ain't a good idea and I don't agree with it at all.
All going to go well until one of the lasses gets shot.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #6 
Ajax
Contributor

Some women are fairly blokey. Why should they miss out if they want to do it? Better than putting them in charge of the prisoners.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #7 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Why is a woman getting shot any worse than a guy getting shot?

Sure - it'll make the headlines as being a first but should we really make any distinction?

If they can shoot as well as the next man and generally function as infantry then why isn't it a good idea?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #8 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Basically because they will not function the same as men. Any guy in frontline units will not treat women as equals. They will try to protect them and if they are wounded they will pull out all the stops to make sure they are safe. You ask why a woman getting shot is worse than a man ?? Look out for headlines the first time it happens !!
I know I'm old fashioned but if you can't see the difference between a woman getting shot and a man..............
I don't know of any soldier that thinks this is a good idea. In base units and admin they will be fine but as frontline shooting troops NO !!
Another thing, any ideas about what will happen to these girls if they are taken prisoner ?? Looking at the type of scum we are currently fighting do you think the rules of war will apply ?? A fate worse than death ??
No, No and thrice NO !!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #9 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

So, the problem is that they'll distract the guys? Oh come on, that's pretty lame. If that's it then why not just have same sex regiments? No question of any chivalric distractions there.

But when it comes to pulling out all the stops to protect them and preserve the wounded...isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what you want infantry to do with their brothers in arms, never mind their sisters?

Sure, there are exceptions (the only one that springs to mind is when storming a position, where it's important to maintain momentum) but generally I'd expect combat troops to look out for each other.

What'll happen if they get taken prisoner? Bad things, no doubt. I just don't see it as being the government's choice whether that risk is acceptable to the individual.

If women want to risk getting themselves shot or taken prisoner then I'm absolutely fine with that.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #10 
kevg
The Grumpinator

"pulling out all the stops to protect them and preserve the wounded"

nope, go back for the wounded later after you've destroyed the enemy. that is the purpose of infantry not to act as stretcher bearers for anyone unlucky enough to lose a foot. best thing to do in combat is make sure that you are safe and worry about the other guys later.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #11 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

And you think they couldn't do that if the wounded soldier was female?

You're obviously far more romantic than me then. There are women I know who I'd leave wounded far more easily than I would some male friends.

It seems like a poor indictment of the professionalism of the modern army if they go all misty eyed over a wounded comrade who just happens to be wearing a bra underneath their uniform.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #12 
Honey Badger
Member

I think they could certainly serve in many ways but Panetta is talking about putting women on the front lines which means they will have to carry a pack weighing approximatly 70 pounds. That's heavy!

I heard a hefty womany complaing about how hard and debilitating it was for females to carry such heavy loads, She went on to say that she has found serving with these loads that she felt that here lrgs was breaking down from carrying too much weight and she said her body waa generally breaking down.

No, I don't think they should be on the front lines at alll


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #13 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Sure - men are generally stronger than women but it's not the case that all men are stronger than all women.

There are men who would struggle with carrying that heavy pack. They shouldn't be on the front line. Similarly, there are women who wouldn't have a problem with carrying it.

Anyone who can't cope with the physical rigours of the role shouldn't be on the front line. That, though, is down to an individual's physical capabilities - not their gender.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Fri 25 Jan 13 #14 
USS Palladin
Contributor

It is a pretty proven fact that when the s**t hits the fan fighting for your country goes out the window and you start fighting for your self, the guy next to you and your unit because that is what you learned in infantry training. Been that way since the phalanx so why couldn't/wouldn't a woman have the same espirit d'corps that men do. The U.S. Marines train the women just like the men except they segregate and the women do well.
The simple fact of the matter women have already been serving in combat for a decade now, providing security, guarding convoys, etc, etc, etc. but doing so without any of the benefits that accumulate to a member of the armed forces that is actual in a branch that does the fighting and thus denied promotion. Doesn't take a man to fire a howitzer, or be a sniper, or fire an M-16.
And how many men have fallen apart upon seeing a fellow man blown apart by combat and been unable to carry on? Many and I doubt that seeing a woman blown apart that is in your unit is going to be any less hard on you than seeing your buddy.

Strength may be an issue I agree but other armed forces integrate women into their combat units and they seem to be effective.

Maybe if they hadn't been actually doing combat stuff the past ten years I might feel differently but now that they have and been doing it well in Iraq and Afghanistan I say time to give it a try.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Fri 25 Jan 13 #15 
sally906
Contributor

I personally couldn't think of anything worse than being in the front line. But if a woman wants to and she has trained the same way as the guys then she should if she wants to. I've know a woman in the Aussie Army I wouldn't like to meet in a dark ally who would be perfect at the front! In fact she would be protecting the young male babies they send to the front line because she is bigger and meaner looking than some of the new male recruits they are sending through.

I weep when I hear of one of our soldiers have been killed - I would weep the same if it was a woman. They are out there fighting for me I don't care if they are male, female or polar bear - I want them there instead of me.

Kev glad you are an old fashioned foggie who wants to protect the women - but some of the women in the military would eat you for breakfast rather than let you protect them!


Knows 27415 facts
like | send message


Fri 25 Jan 13 #16 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

For the record, Sal, if the Australian army is drafting polar bears then I'm glad we're allies.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Fri 25 Jan 13 #17 
sally906
Contributor

I don't know where polar bears came from - nothing to do with the French champagne we were consuming at the time :)

And I couldn't spell hermaphrodite for love nor money then - can now :)


Knows 27415 facts
like | send message


Sun 27 Jan 13 #18 
jmaxg
Contributor

For the record, as a retired soldier, my opinion is, hell yes!

My above scenario was meant to cause comment. Including a JMK that got really pissed off at me.

The fact is, I used to think the "old" thoughts with regard to females and gays.

But the fact is, where do we get off continually underestimating them?

The fact is when supersonic "cracks" are going past your head, you don't really care is the person to the right or left is female or gay. All you care about is, did they see where that fire is coming from and are they returning it?

What most disturbed me about comments from the peanut gallery during this last week was, they were always the same and with no back-up except for the standard argument going back forever......nothing new.

Another thing.....a point was raised by a retired female general that pointed out as follows:

Women HAVE fought at the "sharp edge", RIGHT at the line where the metal meets the meat, the "front line".

MEN get credit for that in allowances, medals, points for promotion. Women don't. Ya know why?

Because women can't be "assigned" because of previous policy, they can only be "attached". Being "attached" meant they did all the same things and perhaps got a higher rate of pay, and maybe a copper badge if they hung in there long enough, but no actual medals or being considered if there was a Unit Citation, no points towards promotion.

This decision is just and correct. It will take time to implement just as it's taking time in New Zealand and Australia. But the end result will be, proper acknowledgement of service, no more "attachments", just "postings", proper awards for service, points towards promotion, the possibility of females and gays taking Commanding Officer appointments in front line units, more ribbons and medals and eventually, Command positions (Brigadier and above) being assumed by kick ass and experienced gays and females........real war heroes.....and they will probably have the scars to prove it.

It will also do much to overcome the US Defense Department's reputation of ignorance relative to sexual harassment. Pretty hard to get away with that one day, if your Colonel (CO) is the most experienced hard charger in modern history....

And you refer to her as "ma'am" and you just raped her niece in basic training.

That's what this decision has done.

It's called equalization and it's about time.....although it will take time.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 30 Jan 13 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

One more thing.....

And this is for the ladies.....

All countries have classified front line combat service as "voluntary" for females. You have that choice, us men don't.

It's a tough life. The physical training is hard and constant. But if you are in the right unit, the camaraderie is high and your spirit will be buoyed. Just remember the basic skills.......shoot well and know your weapons inside out, well performed drill is a matter of pride, so are well turned out uniforms, an example of pride and discipline, and be prepared to be dirty and smelly in the bush and in combat...........and tired, always tired. Putting up with all that is a matter of discipline......sometimes wearily so. But that's what you signed up for.

Now, if any of you ladies think that this way ahead that will eventually result in representative command and eventual protection from a form of unique and even traditional abuse?

Then, even though it seems scary, do like Nike says and...

Just do it.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 30 Jan 13 #20 
kevg
The Grumpinator

ooo dirty women ?? I like dirty women.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Wed 30 Jan 13 #21 
jmaxg
Contributor

And he's got the shankers (chancres) to prove it!

But seriously folks.......ladies, make it so.

Prove to me before I die that my granddaughter might command a combat unit, a battalion or a division one day.

Just the thought of that makes me feel very proud.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 30 Jan 13 #22 
sally906
Contributor

you mean I can't take my Chanel #5 to the front? No shiraz?

Dirty and smelly? I don't think so!!

I like my creature comforts too much, my idea of roughing it is a 3 star motel!!!

BUT

I defend anyone's right, male or female, to be at the front line if that's what they want to do and they do the appropriate training


Knows 27415 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Fri 1 Feb 13 #23 
Honey Badger
Member

Right now, in the USA, we have an all volunteer army. If a woman enlists she is doing so with the full knowledge that she could end up on the front line. It is her choice. If she has some brains and talent she will not end up as cannon fodder just like her male contemporaies. I personally think it's stupid but let them do what they want to do. If they are so gun ho to do it, let them, if they are able.

I don't know the rules of other countries.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 1 Feb 13 #24 
kevg
The Grumpinator

We tend to recruit from the scum of the earth. Beat them and whip them into shape until they do exactly what they are told without argument. Every 5 years or so they can write home to their mothers ( if they know them).
Our navy prefer to scour fishing villages and kidnap people. Usually end up taking a lot of foreigners off ships we've sunk/captured. They aren't allowed to write home at all.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 2 Feb 13 #25 
jmaxg
Contributor

Congratulations Honey Badger, you did it again.

Not only don't you know the rules of other countries, you have no rational appreciation of your own.

Did you read the bit above where I stated that females conduct front line activities but are not RECOGNIZED for their service due to loopholes?

Maybe this discussion is a little too mature for some.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 2 Feb 13 #26 
USS Palladin
Contributor

HB nice to know how much you deeply appreciate the men and women that serve the armed forces of our country, the self same that allow you run off at the mouth.

Cannon fodder?????


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #27 
Honey Badger
Member

Damn! I wrote a long thing on this ands also answered jmaxg's silly accusation and it all got erased. I don't have time to rewrite it now but briefly, Pall. cannon fodder is a term used to describe the unfortunate soldiers who are sent into a combat situation first. They are the ones who suffer the heavierst casualties and it is a dread assignment. I did not make up that name. It is in the lexicon. As far as my appreciation you just don't know that my heart aches for the men and women who serve in our armed forces. They are honorable people who volunteer to do a nasty job. I respect them totally and when I hear of their injuries and deaths I am greatly affected. I cannot help it if the term cannon fodder is an old miliary term. It just is. I AM NOT RUNNING OFF AT THE MOUTH.....cut it out!

Jmaxg, your answer has to wait. You frustrate the hell out of me. I don't feel like defending myself to you right now.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #28 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

I think you're confusing the term "cannon fodder" with something like a "folorn hope", HB.

"Cannon fodder" suggests troops who are considered expendable. Treating your soldiers as "cannon fodder" suggests throwing them into assaults regardless of the likelihood of massive losses.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #29 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Whilst the miltary has moved on I think "cannon fodder" is still acceptable. The outstanding example of that in "recent" times is probably US Marines. Never afraid to take casualties to achieve a mission. Some of their tactical commanders would not have passed my course I'm afraid.
I've travelled to many UK Army and RAF camps and I guarantee you would not sleep as safe in your beds if you saw the lads who do the fighting at the sharp end.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sun 3 Feb 13 #30 
Honey Badger
Member

Stu, you are wrong. Cannon fodder may be somewhat archaic in its origin but it definitely refers to the first troops to face the enemy and it is they who always suffer the heaviest losses. It is a shame that it happens but it does. I hear the term all the time so maybe it is more of an American term than British. It is a commonly used term over here. I am not confused.

Just to be absolutely certain this wasn't something written on the inside of a telephone booth, I looked it up in a Webster's Dictionary and it says the cannon fodder refers to the soldiers who are at the greatest risk of death or injury and the dates it apparently came into usage were 1890-1895. More proof than that just ain't coming.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #31 
Honey Badger
Member

Listen, I am not going to feel as if I am justifying every single thing I say. If Everyone else is treated that way, fine but as it is it is not really fair.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #32 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Sorry HB - I just disagree. You could describe any troops who suffer heavy losses as "cannon fodder". It's not necessarily the first in.

It's not an American term and it's well used over here too.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #33 
Honey Badger
Member

No, Stu. It refers to the "first in".. I suppose it could be used in a hideously egregious battle with outlandishly severe and continuous casualties, but in general a situation like that would be described with another term. You are, of course, free to use it as you wish. I think that Pall's immediate unfavorable reaction to me using that phrase was that he thought I had no respect for soldiers. I think I explained very clearly that that is not the case at all.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Tue 12 Feb 13 #34 
jmaxg
Contributor

The fact is, I applaud the US and their change of policy.

As I stated above, women are already in positions that constitute "front line" but are not getting credit for it relative to medals and career progression like men are.

This changes things.  It will take some time, but it will result in proper credit.

And female command postions eventually will happen.  Inhabited by bullet scarred and/or bullet proof female exemplary leaders honouring the tradition.

If you can tell me why, after seeing as much action as anybody else, my next female CO isn't as good as my last male CO, if not better, then I fear you have a problem with being a soldier.

That also applies to my section commander, my platoon sergeant, my platoon commander, my company commander or my battalion commander.

As long as she's committed, the rest will follow.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 12 Feb 13 #35 
USS Palladin
Contributor

War takes up and expends a lot of resources, the most valuable one being the men and women asked to go the front line because somewhere, somehow politicians can't agree to fix something without resorting to arms. Yes, I don't disagree that there are some wars that are fought for a good cause, WWII, but after that I think it becomes questionable.  

Cannon fodder is a term that actually should never be used in my opinion as it implies "expendable" when actually the opposite is true. I get more concerned about politicians having this attitude but more concerned when the general public looks at that way too. 

Since I can't ever be sure that you say what you mean and mean what you say HB, you are known to reverse course suddenly, I still find the term offensive since many of my family members have served and are serving and many of my employees have spouses and family members that are currently serving or have served. 

I am glad to see that you say you support and have empathy for our armed forces, perhaps then you might stop using the term "cannon fodder" as it is offensive and shows a great deal of disrespect. 

Jmax, I think by now we should all know that leadership is not gender specific. Seems to me that we want to go to war with the best and the brightest. I think what stands in the way for a lot of advancement is the long history of male leadership, good and bad, in the armed forces. I can't wait to see a female general in charge of a fighting unit like the 101st Airborne or the 1st Infantry Division. That will be  the day, won't it. 




Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 12 Feb 13 #36 
kevg
The Grumpinator

That will be the day I take up needlepoint.




Knows 40110 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 14 Feb 13 #37 
Ajax
Contributor

Well, someone needs to be left behind to do it.




Knows 20770 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Fri 15 Feb 13 #38 
Honey Badger
Member

I don't do needlepoint.  Hate it.  I most certainly NOT stop using the term "cannon fodder".  It is part of our lexicon and as unfortunate as it is, yes,there is an implied expendability in the phrase. You mention somewhere that WWII was a justifiable war, and I agree,  What would you call the soldiers in, say..... Bataan?  Or the invasion of Okinawa? They were horrors in which the first in suffered the heaviest causualties.....or are you unable to handle it?  I will use the phrase "cannon fodder" when it is apppropriate.  I am certainly NOT going to turn PC about warfare. Jeez.

As far as females achieving high rankings in every field of the services.  Recentle you may have seen a terrific female bomber pilot.  Her sexuality didn't hold her back.  Let me say it here and now.  Being a woman has never held a motivated woman back from greatness.  What about women in history whose influences upon the world have been astounding.  Marie Curie, Clara Barton, Mary Leakey, countless writers, doctors, any field you choose to look into you will find women making strides before Gloria Steinem. If a woman has the initiative and the will to fight a family which is probably horrified she can make it.   PS to self:  add Gloria Steinem to things that Cheese me off. 




Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 15 Feb 13 #39 
Honey Badger
Member

Why the hell wouldn't I support my country's troops and feel grief when the sad new of deaths and injuries occour.  It is abolutely insulting, Jon, that you would think anything but!  I am a true patriot.  I am deeply disturbed by what is going on in our country right now, the misinformation we get, the lack of any truth.  It is infuriating.  I want a country I can be pround of, not one I have to apologize for.  I say bring all our troops home.  We had no business being in any of the military actions since WWII. 

 




Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 15 Feb 13 #40 
Ajax
Contributor

I don't feel grief for people I don't know. It is part of the whole autism deal. It probably isn't an insult, maybe, unless intended as such. 




Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Fri 15 Feb 13 #41 
USS Palladin
Contributor

HB I just consider it absolutely insulting that you can call anybody in our armed forces or for that matter "cannon fodder". You certainly have the right to say it, but that doesn't make it right either. 

But knock yourself out, next time you see anybody that stands in the line of fire to protect you, be it somebody in the military or a policeman or even a firefighter, I bet you don't have the guts to go up there and tell them that they are "cannon fodder", do you? And why won't you, because it is insulting yet here you are telling us how great a patriot you are on the one hand yet disparaging the very same people that allow you to say the things you say on the other. There is a word for this: hypocritical. 




Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sat 16 Feb 13 #42 
Lucy
Contributor

Hey--what's wrong with needlepoint? My husband taught me how. He learned how in Viet Nam--one of the doctors did it to relax and probably keep his fingers nimble. He taught the guys in the clinic how.




Knows 71550 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 16 Feb 13 #43 
sally906
Contributor

A lot of Vietnam veterans here in Oz learned how to knit for the same reason Lucy - I know one bloke who is still a wonderful knitter and still does it - he is a huge truckie as well - no one laughs at him when he knits - the wouldn't be game :)




Knows 27415 facts
like | send message


Mon 18 Feb 13 #44 
jmaxg
Contributor

Hypocritical, indeed.

As a soldier who was once expected to serve, and if I was in a defensive position alongside a female comrade (applied in the camaraderie sense), and the turf was being blown apart by enemy rounds, and she was shooting back as I was, and we both wondered if we were gonna see out the day alive, I would assume the last thing in my mind was how good a rack she had.

Rather, I would be more concerned with if she had the makings of a Victoria Cross winner and somehow figure out a way to get my ass out of there.

(Victoria Cross (VC):  The equal to the US Medal of Honor)




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 18 Feb 13 #45 
jmaxg
Contributor

And yes.....it is insulting to refer to any troops as "cannon fodder".

You may refer to it in an overall, historical sense after the fact.

But to refer to current troops as "cannon fodder" is as insulting as it gets.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In