Remember, they hate us because we're free!

Here we go again. Let me take the discussion step by step.
1) Bartron points out that one of top reasons that Arabs dislike the US is because of their support for Israel.
2) I reinforce the point that, in spite of other reasons, Arabs express one of their main reason to dislike the US because of their support for Israel, so much of their dislike is because the Arabs dislike anyone who supports Israel.
3) You make the comment and somehow try to attribute it to me, that we, and I assume you refer to Canada, are being accused of being "to close an friend of the US."
4) I call you to clarify your statement and you dodge answering it with "Who said what, doe,s not matter".

I really enjoy having discussions, but it would be nice if you would discuss the subject at hand.

your mother wear army boots!

Deank wrote:your mother wear army boots!

not anymore...she was killed in combat.

Pav, are you suggesting that Canada's close relationship with the USA makes us friends by association to Israel, which puts us on the enemies list of the bad guys?

That is a valid comment.

Attributing it to the "Freeman news desk" is not.

AGEsAces wrote:

Deank wrote:your mother wear army boots!

not anymore...she was killed in combat.

This got me thinking of a very morbid subject: what do they bury deceased soldiers in?

FlyingRat wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:

Deank wrote:your mother wear army boots!

not anymore...she was killed in combat.

This got me thinking of a very morbid subject: what do they bury deceased soldiers in?

Class A uniforms (dress uniform).

so oxfords instead of the army boots, then....

FlyingRat wrote:so oxfords instead of the army boots, then....

or corfams (at least that's what we called them).

Kind of a patent leather clone.

In the Canadian Army, they actually made us polish our shoes/boots. Not sure what is issued these days, but I was issued a pair of ankle high parade boots, and 2 pairs of shoes, one of which were my #1's, with a double sole, and metal cleat on the heel and one under the toe. And of course the usualy assortment of combat boots, overshoes, etc.

never heard of a corfam, but there is definitely some differences in terminology between Canadian and American forces.

Corfam was the centerpiece of the DuPont pavilion at the 1964 New York World's Fair in New York City. Its major advantages over natural leather were its durability and its high gloss finish that could be easily cleaned with a damp cloth. Its disadvantages were its stiffness which did not lessen with wearing and its relative lack of breathability. DuPont manufactured Corfam at its plant in Old Hickory, Tennessee, from 1964 to 1971. After spending millions of dollars marketing the product to shoe manufacturers, DuPont withdrew Corfam from the market in 1971 and sold the rights to a company in Poland. Corfam is mainly remembered as a textbook marketing disaster.[3]

Corfam is still used today in some products, an example being certain types of equestrian saddle girth. Corfam shoes are still very popular in the military and other uniformed professions where shiny shoes are an asset.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleather

My favourite term was "American Gloves." Another was the command to do an "American Unload."

Freeman wrote:Another was the command to do an "American Unload."

Was that a command to discharge your weapon is the most expeditious manner possible?

"Another was the command to do an "American Unload.""

circle jerk?

Freeman wrote:In the Canadian Army, they actually made us polish our shoes/boots. Not sure what is issued these days, but I was issued a pair of ankle high parade boots, and 2 pairs of shoes, one of which were my #1's, with a double sole, and metal cleat on the heel and one under the toe. And of course the usualy assortment of combat boots, overshoes, etc.

In training commands, we were required to polish our shoes/boots too. Anyone caught with corfams were reprimanded for it.
Once training was completed though...most everyone went and got some to reduce the amount of polishing required to do.
The thing about corfams over patent leather though...is that corfams did require minimal polishing. But not with polish, you just used water/spit and a rag.

Freeman wrote:My favourite term was "American Gloves." Another was the command to do an "American Unload."

I'd be curious as to what these were defined as and where they were referenced?

When someone was caught standing with their hands in the pockets, we referred to that as wearing "American Gloves", and an "American Unload" was firing off any unspent ammunition rather than unloading it and repackaging it for later use.

""American Unload" was firing off any unspent ammunition rather than unloading it and repackaging it for later use"

so just like a circle jerk then...

Freeman wrote:When someone was caught standing with their hands in the pockets, we referred to that as wearing "American Gloves"

I should have known!

Freeman wrote:When someone was caught standing with their hands in the pockets, we referred to that as wearing "American Gloves", and an "American Unload" was firing off any unspent ammunition rather than unloading it and repackaging it for later use.

Ahhh...yeah...in training we got quite chastised for putting our hands in our pockets .
Though once training was over..it was quite common to use our pockets till someone we had to salute walked by.

As far as the "American Unload"...we weren't supposed to have unspent ammunition. We were given enough ammo to hit each target once. If we had extra..it mean we missed a target somewhere...and that's not acceptable.

One thing we did do though...as training progressed...points are awarded to platoons based upon overall performance of the platoon. So "weaker" shooters were scheduled to shoot last during qualification rounds. Why? the stronger shooters would go first, as we knew if we were going to hit a target before we fired. If we couldn't hit it, we wouldn't fire...which would mean we might have 1 or 2 rounds left at the end of the shot. During the "cleanup", we were instructed to sneak our extra rounds out of the mags and into the sawdust, so as the weaker shooters took our place for the next shot...they would quickly dig out the extra rounds and pop them in their magazines...so they could take an extra shot or two at targets.

By about the 5th round of firing...some of the weaker shooters would actually have 6-10 extra rounds to fire for qualifications.

And then they would have a "fire off" to clear all the weapons on the range before brought back to the check-in point.

sneaky strategy!

crazy strategy when the targets also have weaspons...

Deank wrote:crazy strategy when the targets also have weaspons...

Yeah...but I don't think if the targets had weapons we'd be doing waves of firing like that .

And...if it wasn't the drill sergeants telling us to do it...we probably would not have done it on our own.

But thats my point, allowing the weaker shooters the chance and shooting more times to hit their targets does not do them any good.

I can understand its just a platoon bonding "game" and does enforce the fact that all soldiers need to help each other, but it can be dangerous if done too far.

Deank wrote:But thats my point, allowing the weaker shooters the chance and shooting more times to hit their targets does not do them any good.

I can understand its just a platoon bonding "game" and does enforce the fact that all soldiers need to help each other, but it can be dangerous if done too far.

Yeah...had we been infantry units...it probably would've made a difference .

Most of those in our platoons were support units though. I (for example) was leaving basic training to go to Warrant Officer and then Flight School. Not that my skills were a problem (I was always in the first wave of shooters)...but 1/2 our platoon were scheduled to be mechanics or cooks.

I'm sure in more advanced training AIT, the requirements were increased and enforced.

Deank wrote:But thats my point, allowing the weaker shooters the chance and shooting more times to hit their targets does not do them any good.

Extra practice doesn't help them? But I take your point to mean that receiving a qualification that they did not earn by the standard does not put them in a better situation.

kind of like allowing weaker smaller people to be firefighters and policemen