www.ditl.org

Not only that but a country that keeps bitching about not having enough allies cant really go around shooting the ones they have.

Lookk before shooting.

ChakatBlackstar wrote: I was actually refering to your suggestion that we give you IR beacons on our bill. Come to think of it why didn't you have IR beacons?

Cpl Kendall wrote: Of course if we had the money we'd have them, maybe they should give them to us?

Money is tight for us, not everyone has the massive budget that the US does. I hear they are on order but like everything military related right now, there is a backlog. As for getting them for free, why not? If the US wants help then they sometimes need to donate things, they gave the ANA a bunch of Mil helicopters and those guys couldn't find their ass with a map and a guy behind them feeling for it. At the least they can make sure their allies get first priority on needed kit.

Teaos wrote:Not only that but a country that keeps bitching about not having enough allies cant really go around shooting the ones they have.

Lookk before shooting.

That's SOP save for certain situations anyways. But the US has a bad history of ignoring SOP and doing whatever they want, their not going to get seriously punished so why not?

So your country is too cheap to make sure their service men are safe? It's amazing anyone volunteers. And they wouldn't be free, we'd have to pay for them. Doesn't seem fair to have to pay to outfit our army and yours.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:So your country is too cheap to make sure their service men are safe? It's amazing anyone volunteers. And they wouldn't be free, we'd have to pay for them. Doesn't seem fair to have to pay to outfit our army and yours.

Go fuck yourself child. It's not that the county is cheap. Do you understand the concept of a balanced budget? Funny that we don't have these problems until we work with the Yanks. The Brits, Dutch, Germans, French and the Belgians aren't gunning us down. What do you think that says?

And they wouldn't be free, we'd have to pay for them. Doesn't seem fair to have to pay to outfit our army and yours.

Seems very fair when they are fighting there because you asked them to. Because yuo pissed people off who attack you. Hell you should be paying them to fight and supplying their gear and ceeding Washington state to them as payment.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:So your country is too cheap to make sure their service men are safe? It's amazing anyone volunteers. And they wouldn't be free, we'd have to pay for them. Doesn't seem fair to have to pay to outfit our army and yours.

It's not that the county is cheap. Do you understand the concept of a balanced budget? Funny that we don't have these problems until we work with the Yanks. The Brits, Dutch, Germans, French and the Belgians aren't gunning us down. What do you think that says?

They ran out of ammo? But in all seriousness, my point was that if you don't properly equip your forces you should expect accidents to happen. That, and that we shouldn't pay to equip your army

Go **** yourself child.

My gf is 800 miles away so I'm doing that every few hours anyway

Teaos wrote:

And they wouldn't be free, we'd have to pay for them. Doesn't seem fair to have to pay to outfit our army and yours.

Seems very fair when they are fighting there because you asked them to. Because yuo pissed people off who attack you. Hell you should be paying them to fight and supplying their gear and ceeding Washington state to them as payment.

They didn't have to fight. We asked. We didn't order them to, not that we have any authority to anyway.

So? You ask someone to help you move house you dont drop a fridge on their foot and then make them pay for the moving truck.

And while you can't "Make" someone fight you can make life difficult for them if they dont.

Teaos wrote:So? You ask someone to help you move house you dont drop a fridge on their foot and then make them pay for the moving truck.

And while you can't "Make" someone fight you can make life difficult for them if they dont.

That analogy doesn't even make sense. It would be more accurate if the someone we asked was to wear their own steel-toed boots. Would you want to pay for the moving guy's shoes? No, he's a mover and should've been properly equipped for the task.

If he's a mover then you are paying him to do his job.

You arent paying anyone who you asked to fight. Unless you count shrapnel as payment.

Teaos wrote:If he's a mover then you are paying him to do his job.

You arent paying anyone who you asked to fight. Unless you count shrapnel as payment.

Okay, so a friend is helping you. My point still stands. Do you want to pay for your friend's shoes?

Maybe not but you should buy the guy lunch and not drop anything on him.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Okay, so a friend is helping you. My point still stands. Do you want to pay for your friend's shoes?

It's customary to buy his beer. The same principle applies to international relations.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
They ran out of ammo? But in all seriousness, my point was that if you don't properly equip your forces you should expect accidents to happen. That, and that we shouldn't pay to equip your army

I guess the point that we don't have these problems unless we work with Yanks flew over your head then.

My gf is 800 miles away so I'm doing that every few hours anyway

Haha, touche.