- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Army chiefs insist 'faulty' weapons are fine


Alt Tv/Fleet FM Breakfast News Comment
Army chiefs insist 'faulty' weapons are fine
Australian and New Zealand Army chiefs have rejected claims they are putting troops in the way of danger armed with unreliable weapons. Using documents obtained under freedom of information laws, Channel Seven reported that the Steyr rifles used by both armies were subject to locking, jamming and misfiring in the harsh conditions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Austrian-designed, Australian-made Steyr is the two armies' standard infantry weapon and the backbone of combat forces deployed on operations from Timor Leste to the Middle East. It equips many of the 3500 Australian troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Timor Leste and the Solomons, and most of the more than 300 New Zealanders serving in similar deployments. Channel Seven said the Australian Army was further plagued by problems with pistols used by its special forces and with heavy 50 calibre machine guns. The network said up to 20 per cent of Steyr rifles on operational duty with Australian troops were rated "unsatisfactory", that there were 44 serious failures of war stocks of ammunition - including hand grenades, bullets and rockets - in the two years to last March, and that SAS soldiers had been sent to war with faulty equipment. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry, obviously guns that don’t work means fewer civilians ‘accidentally’ shot by our troops, but asking our soldiers to go and do something without giving them the protection to do the job because of faulty equipment is just careless.

22 Comments:

At 29/8/07 9:33 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The AK47 has proven itself the best weapon in those dessert conditions. But we have to suck up to Oz military by buying their crap guns.

 
At 29/8/07 11:18 am, Anonymous Jeff said...

Firstly I am not in favour of war but you still have to equip your men to be able to do their job, which is partly killing people (yay we have progressed so much havn't we as a species) and that means guns that don't jam. The fact that this is being found out in a war which shouldn't be being fought (Iraq) and one that is debatable Afganistan...

Bomber whilst I agree it hasn't worked out cause the US was more concerned with getting Oil if dont right it poss could have, plus you can't have a country that openly sponsers terroism and provides the basis for attacks against another country and is a nasty horrible regime that controlled its people through military force.

It is true america and Russia combined created the Taliban and working earlier to improve the prosperity of it would of deffinetly been a better alternative, I am not disagreeing with it. Just saying by the time 2001 had arrived I don't think aid could of helped the situation and for once I do think that force if used right and then with substantial capital inflowing to build an infrastructure for the first time in Afganistan you could of possibly made a positive change. Know you wont agree, and that is great, cause least in NZ we can have different opinions but still have a beer a the end of it.

Back to the news piece...

In response anonymous(that option should so be removed) fulling the pockets of Russia by buying their military equipment doesn't exactly full me with glee , and there are other weapons that have proven they can work in those conditions.

The swiss manufacture some brillant assault rifles and considering that their history over the last 400 years isn't all that aggressive I would be fine for some of our military budget to go there.

Finally you should also know by now the ak47 is heavily outdated they make a more modern more accurate weapon now, don't know its name (as I don't really care that much) but yeah.

Think the idea of laughing Bomber is kinda odd, get it but the reason the SAS would be using it is not for civilians I doubt.

 
At 29/8/07 11:22 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

obviously guns that don’t work means fewer civilians ‘accidentally’ shot by our troops

Sorry? When did our troops start shooting civilians? Care to show us some examples of this, or are you just making shit up to try and be edgy?

 
At 29/8/07 11:43 am, Blogger bomber said...

...
It is true america and Russia combined created the Taliban and working earlier to improve the prosperity of it would of deffinetly been a better alternative, I am not disagreeing with it. Just saying by the time 2001 had arrived I don't think aid could of helped the situation and for once I do think that force if used right and then with substantial capital inflowing to build an infrastructure for the first time in Afganistan you could of possibly made a positive change. Know you wont agree, and that is great, cause least in NZ we can have different opinions but still have a beer a the end of it.
BUT that didn't happen did it, in fact the very opposite has occured and we now risk a humiliating defeat, and it was a warning that was made very clear by many millions of vioces, so let's not pretend there weren't people pointing that out at the time.

Sure we shouldn't send people to fight wars without equipping them properly, better yet let's not sende them to fight pointless wars in the first place. Oh and if we couldn't negotiate with the Taliban because they were so unreasonable, how come they were in America negotiating oil pipelines with them? Funny how we could attempt to negotiate with them when oil was involved isn't it?

obviously guns that don’t work means fewer civilians ‘accidentally’ shot by our troops

Sorry? When did our troops start shooting civilians? Care to show us some examples of this, or are you just making shit up to try and be edgy?

Sigh, swing and miss, read what I said again tough guy, obviously guns that don’t work means fewer civilians ‘accidentally’ shot by our troops - I didn't say we shot civilians, I said if the guns don't work we couldn't 'accidentally' shoot them - but while we are on the subject - how do we know that doesn't happen, Christ our Government don't even tell us when the SAS fart, but they would tell us about civilians they accidentally shoot?

Hmmmm, edgy enough for you?

 
At 29/8/07 1:48 pm, Anonymous Jeff said...

BUT that didn't happen did it, in fact the very opposite has occured and we now risk a humiliating defeat

Bomber I didn't say we don't now risk that but what I did say is that if they had done what they originally protrayed they intended to do, i.e. get rid of the Taliban and see it through with the required number of troops insted of going of on a crusade to Iraq for Oil then there would of been a good chance that in the long run it could of had a positive impact when combined with investment in infrastructure, BUT THIS DIDN'T happen so of course they now face potential (not deffinite) defeat in Afganistan.

Sure we shouldn't send people to fight wars without equipping them properly, better yet let's not sende them to fight pointless wars in the first place

It wasn't a pointless war, the country a) attacked first by the use of an intermediatary that they supported and b) was a corrupt brutal regime.

if we couldn't negotiate with the Taliban because they were so unreasonable, how come they were in America negotiating oil pipelines with them? Funny how we could attempt to negotiate with them when oil was involved isn't it?

I am not defending America on that (if true I have no clue) or many other grounds as I am defending NZ's involvement in the war in Afganistan.

Secondly the fact a nation is willing to negotiate for $s does not stop making it unreasonable with actions like:
Enforcing woman to cover every part of their body and making them a sub species.
Capital Punishment for adultary, even if not consential.
Prohibitting free speach.
Defacing your countries herratage (those massive stone statues) just to piss off the international community.
Supporting groups who only objective is the spread of their views by force with no restraint.

I could go on but I made my point.

Whilst I have sentiment for your total no war approach, I believe that there are situations where direct intervention is the proper answer, those situations are very rare but they do exist and one of them was Afganistan. Yes the bombers came from Saudi Arabia (who yes have puppert government) but Afganistan openly supported terrorist (hate using this word as it has been blasfirmised, i.e. in Palestine where the biggest terrorists are "legit forces" )activies against a country who was not directly fucking with them at the time.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

So yes your right this could end worse than it begun, but it didn't have to if the orignal intentions were followed through properly and I rebute your comment that this was a pointless war as it should not of been.

 
At 29/8/07 2:04 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Hahahahaha
Enforcing woman to cover every part of their body and making them a sub species.
Capital Punishment for adultary, even if not consential.
Prohibitting free speach.
Defacing your countries herratage (those massive stone statues) just to piss off the international community.
Supporting groups who only objective is the spread of their views by force with no restraint.

Okay Jeff - please tell me when we will be launching our invasion of freedom and democracy - based on every word you've written above - on Saudi Arabia?

Just a rough time, not an exact date....

 
At 29/8/07 2:14 pm, Anonymous Jeff said...

Okay Jeff - please tell me when we will be launching our invasion of freedom and democracy - based on every word you've written above - on Saudi Arabia?

Just a rough time, not an exact date....


Yet again answering my points with a question not directly related. Beginning to think you actually didn't read my argument. Im actually disapointed

Hahahahaha

Whats so funny?

 
At 29/8/07 2:17 pm, Anonymous Jeff said...

As a second point as you are going to rehash some tripe anyway,

when has Saudi Arabia the state actually directly attacked the US?

O thats right never

Is Saudi Arabia as bad as Afganistan was under the Taliban?

No, bad but not that bad.


believe that there are situations where direct intervention is the proper answer, those situations are very rare but they do exist

Quoting myself as you seem to off missed that point

 
At 29/8/07 3:27 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Jeff, you were telling me that we had to invade Afghanistan because they...

Enforcing woman to cover every part of their body and making them a sub species.
Capital Punishment for adultary, even if not consential.
Prohibitting free speach.
Defacing your countries herratage (those massive stone statues) just to piss off the international community.
Supporting groups who only objective is the spread of their views by force with no restraint


So when are we spreading Freedom/Democracy to Saudi Arabia via invasion? Oh and could you point out when Afghanistan attacked America? Because the way I remember it, the Taliban said they would hand Bin Laden over if America provided evidence of his involvement with 9/11, but America refused to and invaded, hardly action that is honourable is it Jeff - Oh and could you remind me how the Taliban came to be the dominant force in Afghanistan, it didn't have anuthing to do with America arming fanatics to the teeth and then leaving without disarming all those groups to allow the power vacum to collapse upon itself leaving the Taliban as the only stability did it?

You really want to start defending Afghanistan Jeff you need a lot more denial than you have written here. And yes I read your 'there are a few occasions when armede interference is acceptable' crap, why aren't we invading Zimbabwe?

 
At 29/8/07 3:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US should do what the UN - NOTHING. Maybe they could jump in on the act and write nice little reports about trifling racism in stable western democracies while the slaughter in Sudan continues unabated.

 
At 29/8/07 5:09 pm, Anonymous Jeff said...

Oh and could you remind me how the Taliban came to be the dominant force in Afghanistan, it didn't have anuthing to do with America arming fanatics to the teeth and then leaving without disarming all those groups to allow the power vacum to collapse upon itself leaving the Taliban as the only stability did it?

Did I not say this was the case in my first post, that the US AND RUSSIA (who was the nation that invaded) created the Taliban? Guessed the fact I admitted that was irrelevant when you tried to shoot me down on the issue.


Oh and could you point out when Afghanistan attacked America? Because the way I remember it, the Taliban said they would hand Bin Laden over if America provided evidence of his involvement with 9/11


Ummm did Afganistan knowingly allow groups to train in Afganistan whose sole purpose was as I earlier mentioned "the spread of their views by force with no restraint". They made that call as a last desperate plea cause they knew they had finally gone to far. You can't arm a fanatic with everything they need to go and acquire the ability to fly into a building killing thousands of people knowing full dam well that they intended to carry it through and then go "umm whoops tell you what we will give you that fanatic" tumm dee dumm. I mean seriously.

You seem to be getting pretty angry cause I don't buy what you say word for word. I have stated what I agree on and what I don't think you can handle the point that I accept nearly all your facts that you state are true yet I come to a different conclusion, so instead you berate me for not being in denial. Seriously WTF.

As for Zimbabwe thankyou for at least drawing a parallel to something more along the lines I was arguing but again it doesn't quite meet the extreme threshold, there is still opposition there yes they get beaten up but still there is hope for it to end in a non military struggle. As a side note they are not harbouring places that train people to go and blow up other coutries civilians.

If you want another example of where I feel it is justified they are in the Dafur (Sudan?) (excuse my spelling) where yes there has been jack all action and millions killed in Genocide and Serbia where there was action which Russia desperately tried to block.

So dont give me "crap" to my posts, I show more respect to your ideas even when I strongly disagree with you.

 
At 29/8/07 5:44 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Jeff you’re being disingenuous, we disagree on the most basic point – you say it was good (even justified?) that America went in and I say it wasn’t – and even though you agree with all the history, you seem to want to defend America in this. Well I’m sorry but that doesn’t cut any mustard with me, America has fucked this up, of course we should work hard to stop brutality anywhere in the world, but to use force to do that won’t work in Afghanistan, a point I and many millions of others made prior to the invasion.

 
At 29/8/07 6:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing back to the topic people .... I think the AK47 will be and awesome upgrade for SAS aim forces. way better choice than the crap they use now. It is a no fuck around weapon, swiss couldn't make a decent weapon even if they tried, and they do try... but sorry AK47 is truely one of the best.

Hated By Most

 
At 29/8/07 8:51 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah not doubt about that but 762mm kicks like a mule. Maybe if they could get them 556 it would be sweet.

J

PS You're all wrong the US didn't create the Taliban the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence Directorate.

 
At 30/8/07 3:25 am, Anonymous big_trev said...

"dessert conditions" - Yes the AK family of weapons is excellent around cake and jelly.

Hated By Most - are you really that ignorant of is it just an act? 'mungle' mob for life eh bro. Obviously you've been playing a bit of Counter Strike or something recently.

Jeff - Trying to have a meaningful dialogue with Bomber is like pissing into the wind. This is his little fiefdom and only sycophants have his ear.

TUMEKE! The best place on the Internet for ill-informed rants and half baked socialist dogma.

 
At 30/8/07 9:43 am, Anonymous Jeff said...

[i] Jeff you’re being disingenuous, we disagree on the most basic point – you say it was good (even justified?) that America went in and I say it wasn’t – and even though you agree with all the history, you seem to want to defend America in this. Well I’m sorry but that doesn’t cut any mustard with me, America has fucked this up, of course we should work hard to stop brutality anywhere in the world, but to use force to do that won’t work in Afghanistan, a point I and many millions of others made prior to the invasion. [/i]

Thanks for a straight post.
yes i agree we disagree my point wasn't so much defending america but saying if done right I believe it could of been successful, Just the US totally fucked it up in so many ways.


Anyway I have nothing more to say other than 2009 cant come soon enough..se the front page of the Herald. >.>

 
At 30/8/07 10:57 am, Blogger bomber said...

...
And I concede that you make a valid point Jeff - this blog can get a bit combative at times - yes the Taliban were nuts, but so much of them being in power had to do with America, and that just pisses me off - and yes you are right we should try and stamp out these crazy mofos around the world, and the injustice they spread does make me just as angry - Christ what is happening in Darfur and Chechnya makes me wince - but there has to be a better way than force - sadly we haven't found it yet

 
At 30/8/07 2:09 pm, Anonymous Jeff said...

And I concede that you make a valid point Jeff - this blog can get a bit combative at times - yes the Taliban were nuts, but so much of them being in power had to do with America, and that just pisses me off - and yes you are right we should try and stamp out these crazy mofos around the world, and the injustice they spread does make me just as angry - Christ what is happening in Darfur and Chechnya makes me wince - but there has to be a better way than force - sadly we haven't found it yet

Completely agree, think it has to do with not creating the situation for these things to start I guess.

 
At 30/8/07 9:54 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

big_trev said...
"dessert conditions" - Yes the AK family of weapons is excellent around cake and jelly.

Hated By Most - are you really that ignorant of is it just an act? 'mungle' mob for life eh bro. Obviously you've been playing a bit of Counter Strike or something recently.


Oh dear, spudnic is your new nick name hero... what seems to have tickled your ass crack... the only thing I have said on this topic is that AK47 assault rifle will be a good upgrade for the SAS, now out of that your find something offenive?

and what the fuck is counter strike? is that when a bunch of you run around with paint ball playing pretend.. Spudnic my only interest in this topic is because I am a gun owner, cat C & E endosement, I own 2 of these weapons.. lets hope you dont find that offenive...

suggestion spudnic... more ice cream in your milk shakes... and increase the meds..

Hated by Most

 
At 31/8/07 3:52 am, Anonymous big_trev said...

"AK47 assault rifle will be a good upgrade for the SAS"

On what basis? That makes no sense. Are qualified to give such a recommendation?

Mungle mob fo' life.

 
At 1/9/07 9:53 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

big trev... are you a gun owner, do you eve know what a cat C E endosesments are? go away and learn some more on the weapon before adding you 2 cents worth,

now your mungle mob fo life shit... I am glad for you, that you that you have found your home... if you love calling yourself a mongrel good for you.... re-enforces my thoughts about you... "no form no pride"

Hated By Most

 
At 12/4/10 12:58 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Annon, who has been speaking about Trev. You are a tool, a do gooder, and a wanker.

Cheers.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home