The downfall of the US Military, or Russian myth.
15-03-2004 22:52
к комментариям - к полной версии
- понравилось!
You know I have never seen so many “specialists” on the US Military as I see here on li.ru. Anyone and everyone seem to know the US Military inside out, they can point all the problems in it right away tell you exactly what will cause the downfall of the US Military force.
The problem is that everyone who “thinks” they know something about the US military have ever served in the American forces or have even done any kind of extensive research or even try to understand why the US Military does what it does. However it does not stop them from having an opinion and thinking that they are right.
As a person whose knowledge about the US Military didn’t come from Russian books and movies, but rather came from actually serving in the US Military, let me try to analyze some of the arguments seen here on li.ru
The most popular idea (look at the post by “Klushkin” for example) is this:
The problem with the US Military, and the reason why the US Military will never win a serious contest is that American Forces are too obsessed about ZERO Casualties in the war (which can never be achieved), and that their soldiers are not ready to sacrifice their lives for the cause, and that Americans are to reliant on their technology and if that was to fail, Americans will be destroyed…and blah, blah, blah, blah…
The people who are saying that not only know nothing about American military, but they also know nothing abut the Military science in general and are judging US Military by the same standards as the Russian military is judged.
Let’s not even talk about how technology makes the soldiers better, how they can kill their enemy from a distance and the enemy wouldn’t even know they are there. That’s obvious, let’s talk about the HUMAN factor.
First of all, US Military is a PROFESSIONAL organization; it’s a BUSINESS like any other. That means that EVERYONE who join any branch of US Military (just for record the US Military branches are: US Army, US Marine Corps, US Navy, US Air Force, US Coast Guard, US National Guard – falls under Army, a bit different from other branches) has done so VOLUNTARY and is making HIS LIVING in the US Military for which he/she gets paid for. The contract is usually for 4 years, after which you can extend your contract for another term.
Second of all, let’s talk about this ZERO casualty policy of the US. First of all, everyone knows that ZERO casualty in a war is impossible to achieve, but minimizing the loss of man power is the BEST possible strategy in any military conflict for a professional Army.
It cost US Government upwards of $50,000 to make ONE professional and capable soldier, after you include the training, food, clothing, salary paid, and other expenses. It costs more then $100,000 to make a capable Middle Management soldier (Sergeants and above, since those are almost all served more then 4 years already). It costs a lot more to make an Officer.
So every time a US soldier or an officer is lost, US government loses a lot of money, and that simply makes no Business sense. So as you can see, it would be CHEAPER for the US government to lose a couple of tanks, a plane or some other piece of expensive technology than to lose 30-40 soldiers including sergeants and officers.
That’s one side of the coin, the other side of the coin is CONFIDENCE in your own command. Every single US Soldier knows that his Command will do EVERYTHING humanly possible to make sure he survives and comes back to his base. Every single soldier knows that he’ll never be simply wasted away, because he is too expensive to waste.
Just how important is that? Who do you think would be willing to fight better and more confidently? A scared 18-19 year old soldier who is unsure of his officers and command, or an older, better trained professional who knows that technology and support of this command will be always there for him?
The point is any PROFESSIONALY run Military organization should strive for minimizing their human casualties as much as possible if they want to succeed in a military conflict in the 21st century.
вверх^
к полной версии
понравилось!
в evernote
You know I have never seen so many “specialists” on the US Military as I see here on li.ru. Anyone and everyone seem to know the US Military inside out, they can point all the problems in it right away tell you exactly what will cause the downfall of the US Military force.
The problem is that everyone who “thinks” they know something about the US military have ever served in the American forces or have even done any kind of extensive research or even try to understand why the US Military does what it does. However it does not stop them from having an opinion and thinking that they are right.
As a person whose knowledge about the US Military didn’t come from Russian books and movies, but rather came from actually serving in the US Military, let me try to analyze some of the arguments seen here on li.ru
The most popular idea (look at the post by “Klushkin” for example) is this:
The problem with the US Military, and the reason why the US Military will never win a serious contest is that American Forces are too obsessed about ZERO Casualties in the war (which can never be achieved), and that their soldiers are not ready to sacrifice their lives for the cause, and that Americans are to reliant on their technology and if that was to fail, Americans will be destroyed…and blah, blah, blah, blah…
The people who are saying that not only know nothing about American military, but they also know nothing abut the Military science in general and are judging US Military by the same standards as the Russian military is judged.
Let’s not even talk about how technology makes the soldiers better, how they can kill their enemy from a distance and the enemy wouldn’t even know they are there. That’s obvious, let’s talk about the HUMAN factor.
First of all, US Military is a PROFESSIONAL organization; it’s a BUSINESS like any other. That means that EVERYONE who join any branch of US Military (just for record the US Military branches are: US Army, US Marine Corps, US Navy, US Air Force, US Coast Guard, US National Guard – falls under Army, a bit different from other branches) has done so VOLUNTARY and is making HIS LIVING in the US Military for which he/she gets paid for. The contract is usually for 4 years, after which you can extend your contract for another term.
Second of all, let’s talk about this ZERO casualty policy of the US. First of all, everyone knows that ZERO casualty in a war is impossible to achieve, but minimizing the loss of man power is the BEST possible strategy in any military conflict for a professional Army.
It cost US Government upwards of $50,000 to make ONE professional and capable soldier, after you include the training, food, clothing, salary paid, and other expenses. It costs more then $100,000 to make a capable Middle Management soldier (Sergeants and above, since those are almost all served more then 4 years already). It costs a lot more to make an Officer.
So every time a US soldier or an officer is lost, US government loses a lot of money, and that simply makes no Business sense. So as you can see, it would be CHEAPER for the US government to lose a couple of tanks, a plane or some other piece of expensive technology than to lose 30-40 soldiers including sergeants and officers.
That’s one side of the coin, the other side of the coin is CONFIDENCE in your own command. Every single US Soldier knows that his Command will do EVERYTHING humanly possible to make sure he survives and comes back to his base. Every single soldier knows that he’ll never be simply wasted away, because he is too expensive to waste.
Just how important is that? Who do you think would be willing to fight better and more confidently? A scared 18-19 year old soldier who is unsure of his officers and command, or an older, better trained professional who knows that technology and support of this command will be always there for him?
The point is any PROFESSIONALY run Military organization should strive for minimizing their human casualties as much as possible if they want to succeed in a military conflict in the 21st century.
DarkMagician
18-03-2004-22:29
удалить
Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
Исходное сообщение Bald_Eagle
patrioteers are of the same kind as any fanatics: they are driven by false beliefs and exaggerated emotions, and any attempts to convince them in anything opposite to their misbeliefs with logic and common sense are futile.
These words are universal truth -- and also apply to Americans 100%.
Yep, you're right, as long as you don't maintain that this applies to 100% of Americans.
There are alot of fanatic groups in the USA - look at survivalists, KKK, fascists, various religious groups, state militias.......
Same as in any other country I suppose.....
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
18-03-2004-22:33
удалить
The creationists are the worst kind indeed.
And what I meant by "100%" was not "all Americans" but the equality of proportion.
And what I meant by "100%" was not "all Americans" but the equality of proportion.
Исходное сообщение DarkMagician
Исходное сообщение Клюшкин
DarkMagician
Неужели у вас так много педерастов в войсках?
Даже пришлось в Uniform Code of Military Justice прописать статьи !!!
А сам говоришь в армии США педиков нет. Может именно поэтому армия США ТРАДИЦИОННО СЛАБА?
Клушкин, в России есть Уголовный кодекс - Неужели у вас так много уголовников в стране?
А еще есть статья о совершении развратных действий в отношении малолетних. По твоей логики выходит, что в Росси такое огромное количество педофилов.... что даже статью пришлось заводить.
Клюшкин, может ты сам того? :)
Глупый пример...потому что у вас тоже таковой имеется..и подобные статьи тоже..есть...
А вообще-то правильно у вас преступности нет...поэтому большая часть граждан России ездит на спизженых у вас тачках.... У России со страховыми американскими агенствами договор...Агенствам денег девать некуда..вот мы им и помогаем от них избавиться... мы тачки у вас пиздим, а они вам страховки за них выплачивают...никакой приступности..сплошной бартер))))))))))
Ух ты как про геев интересно у вас...... Тоесть если командир взвода регулярно имеет тебя в анус...то ты не гей...а вот если ты ему честно после 150 раза признался, что дескать извините, так и так..я вам трахать себя в попку давал лишь по одной причине, что гей..это значит катит??
Ой, как весело-то у вас)))))))))))))
Jackill-MF-Clan
18-03-2004-23:13
удалить
Please tell me about war campains in Afghanistan and Iraq. How about perspectives of both last? What area you control in Kabul?
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
18-03-2004-23:22
удалить
Исходное сообщение Jackill-MF-Clan
Please tell me about war campains in Afghanistan and Iraq. How about perspectives of both last? What area you control in Kabul?
"campaign"
"what about", not "how about"
"prospect", not "perspective"
"what area DO you control"
DarkMagician
18-03-2004-23:59
удалить
Исходное сообщение Пузякина
Исходное сообщение DarkMagician
Исходное сообщение Клюшкин
DarkMagician
Неужели у вас так много педерастов в войсках?
Даже пришлось в Uniform Code of Military Justice прописать статьи !!!
А сам говоришь в армии США педиков нет. Может именно поэтому армия США ТРАДИЦИОННО СЛАБА?
Клушкин, в России есть Уголовный кодекс - Неужели у вас так много уголовников в стране?
А еще есть статья о совершении развратных действий в отношении малолетних. По твоей логики выходит, что в Росси такое огромное количество педофилов.... что даже статью пришлось заводить.
Клюшкин, может ты сам того? :)
Глупый пример...потому что у вас тоже таковой имеется..и подобные статьи тоже..есть...
А вообще-то правильно у вас преступности нет...поэтому большая часть граждан России ездит на спизженых у вас тачках.... У России со страховыми американскими агенствами договор...Агенствам денег девать некуда..вот мы им и помогаем от них избавиться... мы тачки у вас пиздим, а они вам страховки за них выплачивают...никакой приступности..сплошной бартер))))))))))
Ух ты как про геев интересно у вас...... Тоесть если командир взвода регулярно имеет тебя в анус...то ты не гей...а вот если ты ему честно после 150 раза признался, что дескать извините, так и так..я вам трахать себя в попку давал лишь по одной причине, что гей..это значит катит??
Ой, как весело-то у вас)))))))))))))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Мда, Пузякина, иронию ты сначит не поняла в моем посте....хочиться хоть верить что может Клюшкин поимет, я ведь тебя по-умней его считал...
Давай попробую объяснить:
Клюшкин написал - Неужели у вас так много педерастов в войсках?
Даже пришлось в Uniform Code of Military Justice прописать статьи !!!
Я ответил - Неужели у вас так много преступников и педофилов в России?
Даже пришлось в Федеральном Законе прописать статьи !!!
Параллель видишь? Факт отсутвия или присутствия статьи в законе не говорит ничего о наличии или отсутствии того или инго явления в обществе. Он привел глупый пример, я ему ответил точно каким же примером.
Если я несу околесицу, то и значит и он делает тоже самое...
DarkMagician
19-03-2004-00:19
удалить
Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
Исходное сообщение Jackill-MF-Clan
Please tell me about war campains in Afghanistan and Iraq. How about perspectives of both last? What area you control in Kabul?
"campaign"
"what about", not "how about"
"prospect", not "perspective"
"what area DO you control"
Thanks for the corrections, however it would be easier probably if you just re-wrote the whole post over, since I’m not sure I understood just what exactly the author is trying to say.
First of all, if anyone wants to post a comment in English – he or she is welcomed to do so, and I don’t really care about the proper grammar, spelling or things like that. If your English is not so “fluent” and you are trying to improve your English – I’ll try to make sure you are treated with the same respect as everyone else.
Now to your post:
If I understood you correctly you were asking me just want area of Kabul the US forces control, right?
My answer: Directly – they only control their own military bases, some important government buildings and their own embassy.
Indirectly – they control the whole country. My point is this – US Armed Forces routinely go on patrols all over Afganistan, besides for some of the very-hard-to-get places, American patrols go to EVERY part of the country. If an American patrol meets any kind of resistance, a bigger force is then sent to deal with that situation. Would you like me to provide you with the links on that information? You’d have to read it by yourself though, I won’t be able to provide the translation, it’s just too much stuff.
This situation is different from Chechnya because there are parts of Chechnya which are under the control of the local WARLORDS (terrorists - not local government), and those territories are NOT routinely patrolled by the Russian Forces, because quite simply can’t, they will suffer too many casualties. So there are territories in Chechnya where if a Russian patrol meets any resistance, Russian Forces cannot and will not send any reinforcements to that area.
Would you like me to find you a map of Chechnya, which shows exactly which areas are controlled by the WARLORDS (terrorists) and where Russian military has NO presence whatsoever?
I hope that answers your question.
DarkMagician, Возникновение того или иного закона говорит о актуальности проблемы... тобишь случаи далеко не единичные...
И какая уж тут ирония...это беда общества...
И какая уж тут ирония...это беда общества...
DarkMagician
19-03-2004-00:40
удалить
Исходное сообщение Пузякина
DarkMagician, Возникновение того или иного закона говорит о актуальности проблемы... тобишь случаи далеко не единичные...
И какая уж тут ирония...это беда общества...
Вот и опять вы не правы, Пузякина..
In Florida, having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.
То есть вы хотите сказать что проблема секса с дикобразoм актуальна во Флориде? :)
Jackill-MF-Clan
19-03-2004-09:00
удалить
Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
Исходное сообщение Jackill-MF-Clan
Please tell me about war campains in Afghanistan and Iraq. How about perspectives of both last? What area you control in Kabul?
"campaign"
"what about", not "how about"
"prospect", not "perspective"
"what area DO you control"
Спасибо, года три не переводил в эту сторону - разучился нафиг :)
Jackill-MF-Clan
19-03-2004-09:53
удалить
If I understood you correctly you were asking me just want area of Kabul the US forces control, right?
Yes, that's right.
My answer: Directly – they only control their own military bases, some important government buildings and their own embassy.
Indirectly – they control the whole country. My point is this – US Armed Forces routinely go on patrols all over Afganistan, besides for some of the very-hard-to-get places, American patrols go to EVERY part of the country. If an American patrol meets any kind of resistance, a bigger force is then sent to deal with that situation. Would you like me to provide you with the links on that information? You’d have to read it by yourself though, I won’t be able to provide the translation, it’s just too much stuff.
Ok, maybe if I control a whole goverment I control a whole country, but if the goverment doesn't control their own area then what do I control? The answer is - nothing. US Army can go to every part of the country but they can't stay there any longer than only the time of patrol. Is it normal?
US try to create in Afganistan a safe modern country - they take out Taliban (thanks for this) but after that something goes wrong. Population don't want the american (or european) life style. So I don't understand what they want at all, but the drug traffic from Afganistan to our country is grew up to ten times... I think that's need no comments.
In Iraq US have growing partizan movement. I think you know better amount of US Army casualties from the end active actions phase.
This situation is different from Chechnya because there are parts of Chechnya which are under the control of the local WARLORDS (terrorists - not local government), and those territories are NOT routinely patrolled by the Russian Forces, because quite simply can’t, they will suffer too many casualties.
Situation in Chechnya is little differ than in Iraq or Afganistan. The first of all it' a territory of our counrty. The second is that there live our citizens. That is why we forced not to make wide actions unlike the US operation in Iraq.
Partizans are very hard enemies...
Jackill-MF-Clan, i've already mentioned the differences to darkmagician but with no comments on my reply.
I don't think we can ever finalize the discusion here unless we give it up))..
I don't think we can ever finalize the discusion here unless we give it up))..
Jackill-MF-Clan
19-03-2004-13:34
удалить
Russians don't give up. :)
Bald_Eagle
19-03-2004-13:55
удалить
Исходное сообщение Jackill-MF-Clan
Russians don't give up. :)
Smart people know when to give up. But stupid folks have been a problem of our motherland for quite some time. :)
Bald_Eagle, what you're telling us about is called "compromise".
"give up" is different.
"give up" is different.
DarkMagician
19-03-2004-20:22
удалить
Jackill-MF-Clan
If you want to actually think before trying to answer you, you have to consider the difference in time between Russia and USA
Usually when it's day in Russia, it's night here and vice versa. :)
flat-out Sorry about not getting to your comment, my friend, it got kind of lost in transition.
Next post I'll create will address both of your posts at the same time.
If you want to actually think before trying to answer you, you have to consider the difference in time between Russia and USA
Usually when it's day in Russia, it's night here and vice versa. :)
flat-out Sorry about not getting to your comment, my friend, it got kind of lost in transition.
Next post I'll create will address both of your posts at the same time.
Jackill-MF-Clan
19-03-2004-21:10
удалить
consider the difference in time between Russia and USA
So? I can wait.
DarkMagician
19-03-2004-21:35
удалить
Jackill-MF-Clan, flat-out
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I’m going to repeat myself. The difference between Iraq/Afghanistan and Chechnya is the following:
American Military can and does patrol EVERY part of those two countries, so there are no territories in either Iraq or Afghanistan where American patrol haven’t been at least once (excluding mountain ranges too difficult to get to). If at any point the resistance is met while on the patrol, a bigger force is sent out to deal with the situation.
In Chechnya, there are territories controlled ONLY by the local Warlords/Chieftains where neither the Russian military nor the local Chechen Military does not dare to go into. There are maps of Chechnya with those regions clearly identified as hostile territories and NOT under Russian/Chechen government’s control. Neither Russian forces not local militia EVER patrol those territories, so the law is in the hands of the local Warlords and not the recognized government.
Please keep in mind I’m not trying to put the Russian military down, I’m simply stating the fact of the matter. I would very much like for the Chechen terrorists to pay for everything that they have done, but what we want and what we have are often very different things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Second of all, your arguments contain two false assumptions:
1. USA is trying to mold Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries into a mini-USA with USA-like laws and society structure.
Politics is a cold-blooded arena. If you strip away all the emotions from this, you will see that n the bigger scale no one really cares about anyone else. USA does not care what kind of government or society those little countries have, as long as don’t do anything to undermine whatever America is trying to do. America only cares about taking care of their own people and really no one else, and so is every other country in this world.
So it doesn’t matter what kind of government a country has- feudal, tribal, modern, as long as the country plays by America’s rules – America does not care and will not interfere.
Also something to think about – why would America want for Iraq and Afghanistan to be more modernized?? Modernized means technologically advanced. Do you really want the Arabs to have technologically advanced weaponry? As long as they live in their tribal ways, they cannot compete with America’s military technology and that’s the way USA likes it.
2. The only way to control a country is through the use of your own military.
That’s simply is not true, there are a lot of other means of controlling a country – political, financial, through propaganda, etc. USA just made sure that whoever is controlling Afghanistan and Iraq will play ball with the USA, or least do not interfere with whatever America is trying to do.
When American forces leave those countries, the governments of those countries will still be if not loyal, at least benevolent towards the USA. So America has achieved her goal. How long it’s going to stay that way – no one knows, nothing in this world ever stays the same, but USA will use other means to try to prolong this situation in both countries through other means – political, financial, etc.
When someone new comes into the power in those counties, USA will try to play ball with him, and if he doesn’t – USA will do whatever is necessary to maintain their interest in the region for as long as possible and when that person crosses the line he’ll be taken out just like Saddam.
That’s just the cold hard truth.
Please keep in mind that I might not necessarily like what the USA is trying to do, I’m simply stating that USA is very good in achieving their goals and taking care of THEIR OWN people, and you have to admire that, whether you like it or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s something off topic – I recent read an interesting article where it talked about Saddam Hussein and how USA NEEDED him to be in power in that region for all this time, so USA did not do anything about him until he crossed the line and started causing too much trouble.
Basically a strong leader is needed in that part of the world to keep the countries from breaking up and forming more and more terrorist organizations which are not under anyone’s control. Whatever you say about Saddam, but while he was in power, there were few (if any) Iraqi terrorists in the world, he simply kept them in line.
I’ll try to find the article on the Internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I’m going to repeat myself. The difference between Iraq/Afghanistan and Chechnya is the following:
American Military can and does patrol EVERY part of those two countries, so there are no territories in either Iraq or Afghanistan where American patrol haven’t been at least once (excluding mountain ranges too difficult to get to). If at any point the resistance is met while on the patrol, a bigger force is sent out to deal with the situation.
In Chechnya, there are territories controlled ONLY by the local Warlords/Chieftains where neither the Russian military nor the local Chechen Military does not dare to go into. There are maps of Chechnya with those regions clearly identified as hostile territories and NOT under Russian/Chechen government’s control. Neither Russian forces not local militia EVER patrol those territories, so the law is in the hands of the local Warlords and not the recognized government.
Please keep in mind I’m not trying to put the Russian military down, I’m simply stating the fact of the matter. I would very much like for the Chechen terrorists to pay for everything that they have done, but what we want and what we have are often very different things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Second of all, your arguments contain two false assumptions:
1. USA is trying to mold Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries into a mini-USA with USA-like laws and society structure.
Politics is a cold-blooded arena. If you strip away all the emotions from this, you will see that n the bigger scale no one really cares about anyone else. USA does not care what kind of government or society those little countries have, as long as don’t do anything to undermine whatever America is trying to do. America only cares about taking care of their own people and really no one else, and so is every other country in this world.
So it doesn’t matter what kind of government a country has- feudal, tribal, modern, as long as the country plays by America’s rules – America does not care and will not interfere.
Also something to think about – why would America want for Iraq and Afghanistan to be more modernized?? Modernized means technologically advanced. Do you really want the Arabs to have technologically advanced weaponry? As long as they live in their tribal ways, they cannot compete with America’s military technology and that’s the way USA likes it.
2. The only way to control a country is through the use of your own military.
That’s simply is not true, there are a lot of other means of controlling a country – political, financial, through propaganda, etc. USA just made sure that whoever is controlling Afghanistan and Iraq will play ball with the USA, or least do not interfere with whatever America is trying to do.
When American forces leave those countries, the governments of those countries will still be if not loyal, at least benevolent towards the USA. So America has achieved her goal. How long it’s going to stay that way – no one knows, nothing in this world ever stays the same, but USA will use other means to try to prolong this situation in both countries through other means – political, financial, etc.
When someone new comes into the power in those counties, USA will try to play ball with him, and if he doesn’t – USA will do whatever is necessary to maintain their interest in the region for as long as possible and when that person crosses the line he’ll be taken out just like Saddam.
That’s just the cold hard truth.
Please keep in mind that I might not necessarily like what the USA is trying to do, I’m simply stating that USA is very good in achieving their goals and taking care of THEIR OWN people, and you have to admire that, whether you like it or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s something off topic – I recent read an interesting article where it talked about Saddam Hussein and how USA NEEDED him to be in power in that region for all this time, so USA did not do anything about him until he crossed the line and started causing too much trouble.
Basically a strong leader is needed in that part of the world to keep the countries from breaking up and forming more and more terrorist organizations which are not under anyone’s control. Whatever you say about Saddam, but while he was in power, there were few (if any) Iraqi terrorists in the world, he simply kept them in line.
I’ll try to find the article on the Internet.
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
20-03-2004-02:20
удалить
What's the point in copying the correct parts?
Исходное сообщение DarkMagician
Thanks for the corrections, however it would be easier probably if you just re-wrote the whole post over, since I’m not sure I understood just what exactly the author is trying to say.
it would probably be easier (порядок слов)
the author was trying to say (согласование времен)
First of all, if anyone wants to post a comment in English – he or she is welcomed to do so, and I don’t really care about the proper grammar, spelling or things like that. If your English is not so “fluent” and you are trying to improve your English – I’ll try to make sure you are treated with the same respect as everyone else.
anyone is welcome to post comments in English (английский, а не русский синтаксис)
"I don’t really care about proper grammar spelling " -- you'd probably appreciate "Pygmalion" by B. Shaw, it proves the importance of correct speech. And grammar is an abstract noun, thus no article.
"If your English is not so “fluent” and you are trying to improve your English – I’ll try to make sure you are treated with the same respect " -- it's not a matter of respect, It's a matter of literacy.
Now to your post:
As for your post -- the phrase "now to" does not exist in English.
I'm extremely sorry to state that you don't speak English -- you speak Russian roughly translated into English. The reader indeed can grasp the meaning, but the language is terrible.
I'm not being obnoxious or arrogant! Just read more newspapers in English as often as you can, and try to memorize the key phrases, try to analyse to word order. Otherwise it's an insult to the language of Shakespeare and Milton.
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
20-03-2004-02:32
удалить
Исходное сообщение nika5
дед совсем обалдел от безделья...
представь, как меня он бесит - живет на мои налоги и учит жизни 24 часа в сутки...
b]Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам,/б]
на ВАШИ ДЕНЬГИ? покажите, пожалуйста...
DarkMagician
20-03-2004-02:53
удалить
[QUOTE]Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
Please allow me to disagree.
The rules of English language, or as in my case American-English language, are changing constantly to accommodate the ever-changing world around us. Nothing ever stays stagnant. So, many of the rules you are so furiously defending simply do not play as important of a role in my culture as they once used to. The main thing here is that people can understand me irregardless of how proper or improper their English is.
What you call “improper” I call a free-flowing writing pattern, and sorry to point that out, sir, but this is my journal, so I’ll write how I wish. Thank you for your concern though. If you choose to criticize it’s your prerogative, but don’t expect me to reply to you anymore.
As for you trying to belittle me, sir, I really don’t care what your opinion of my English level or my grammar is, the diploma on my wall from a prestigious American University Summa Cum Laude (perhaps you know what it is, perhaps not) gives me all the confidence I need in life.
Once again, thanks for your concern.
Please allow me to disagree.
The rules of English language, or as in my case American-English language, are changing constantly to accommodate the ever-changing world around us. Nothing ever stays stagnant. So, many of the rules you are so furiously defending simply do not play as important of a role in my culture as they once used to. The main thing here is that people can understand me irregardless of how proper or improper their English is.
What you call “improper” I call a free-flowing writing pattern, and sorry to point that out, sir, but this is my journal, so I’ll write how I wish. Thank you for your concern though. If you choose to criticize it’s your prerogative, but don’t expect me to reply to you anymore.
As for you trying to belittle me, sir, I really don’t care what your opinion of my English level or my grammar is, the diploma on my wall from a prestigious American University Summa Cum Laude (perhaps you know what it is, perhaps not) gives me all the confidence I need in life.
Once again, thanks for your concern.
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
20-03-2004-03:05
удалить
Ah, I was neither furious nor critisising nor belittling you.
I spoke agaisnt belittling the laguage.
Let God kill me on the spot if I was wrong.
End of story.
Truthfully yours, Vlad.
I spoke agaisnt belittling the laguage.
Let God kill me on the spot if I was wrong.
End of story.
Truthfully yours, Vlad.
DarkMagician
20-03-2004-03:09
удалить
One more thing I forgot to mention in my previous post –I’m sorry to say that sir, but I don’t think you ever read any of the Shakespeare’s works in the way they were originally written. Because if had, you would notice that the language you are using is much different from the English language spoken in the 16th century. Would you like to include a couple of quotes?
I’m not being obnoxious or arrogant and I’m extremely sorry to state that your English is also an insult to the language of Shakespeare.
I’m not being obnoxious or arrogant and I’m extremely sorry to state that your English is also an insult to the language of Shakespeare.
DarkMagician
20-03-2004-03:13
удалить
Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
Ah, I was neither furious nor critisising nor belittling you.
I spoke agaisnt belittling the laguage.
Let God kill me on the spot if I was wrong.
End of story.
Truthfully yours, Vlad.
Just to make sure we don't belittle the English language, you forgot an "n" in your original post, as well replaced a "z" with and "s" and the "s" with a "c" in criticizing.
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
20-03-2004-03:15
удалить
Music to hear, why hear'st thou music sadly?
Sweets with sweets war not, joy delights in joy:
Why lov'st thou that which thou receiv'st not gladly,
Or else receiv'st with pleasure thine annoy?
If the true concord of well-tuned sounds,
By unions married, do offend thine ear,
They do but sweetly chide thee, who confounds
In singleness the parts that thou shouldst bear.
Mark how one string, sweet husband to another,
Strikes each in each by mutual ordering;
Resembling sire and child and happy mother,
Who, all in one, one pleasing note do sing:
Whose speechless song being many, seeming one,
Sings this to thee: 'Thou single wilt prove none.'
Shall I translate?
Sweets with sweets war not, joy delights in joy:
Why lov'st thou that which thou receiv'st not gladly,
Or else receiv'st with pleasure thine annoy?
If the true concord of well-tuned sounds,
By unions married, do offend thine ear,
They do but sweetly chide thee, who confounds
In singleness the parts that thou shouldst bear.
Mark how one string, sweet husband to another,
Strikes each in each by mutual ordering;
Resembling sire and child and happy mother,
Who, all in one, one pleasing note do sing:
Whose speechless song being many, seeming one,
Sings this to thee: 'Thou single wilt prove none.'
Shall I translate?
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
20-03-2004-03:16
удалить
Исходное сообщение DarkMagician
Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
Ah, I was neither furious nor critisising nor belittling you.
I spoke agaisnt belittling the laguage.
Let God kill me on the spot if I was wrong.
End of story.
Truthfully yours, Vlad.
Just to make sure we don't belittle the English language, you forgot an "n" in your original post, as well replaced a "z" with and "s" and the "s" with a "c" in criticizing.
blah. typo.
DarkMagician
20-03-2004-03:24
удалить
Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
Music to hear, why hear'st thou music sadly?
Sweets with sweets war not, joy delights in joy:
Why lov'st thou that which thou receiv'st not gladly,
Or else receiv'st with pleasure thine annoy?
If the true concord of well-tuned sounds,
By unions married, do offend thine ear,
They do but sweetly chide thee, who confounds
In singleness the parts that thou shouldst bear.
Mark how one string, sweet husband to another,
Strikes each in each by mutual ordering;
Resembling sire and child and happy mother,
Who, all in one, one pleasing note do sing:
Whose speechless song being many, seeming one,
Sings this to thee: 'Thou single wilt prove none.'
Shall I translate?
I'm sorry I must have missed the following words in your original post:
hear'st, thou, ov'st, receiv'st, thine, chide, thee, confounds, singleness, shouldst, sire, single, wilt
My fault. :)
On the serious note - do you honestly believe Shakespeare would approve of your English? My point was - English language is a constantly changing entity, so the language Shakespeare and Milton spoke then and the English that we speak now is much different. Would you agree?
Sorry if I offended you, I honestly didn’t want to turn this into a dick measuring contest. Your English language is very excellent, especially if are you a non-English speaker.
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
20-03-2004-03:28
удалить
English is certainly ever-changing, exactly as every language is, but it never assumes Russian syntax, such as in "now to..." or "my point is this".
And I'm certain about that.
And I'm certain about that.
DarkMagician
20-03-2004-03:33
удалить
Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
English is certainly ever-changing, exactly as every language is, but it never assumes Russian syntax, such as in "now to..." or "my point is this".
And I'm certain about that.
Don't be too certain. Both of the expressions are quite commonly used in the English-American language I am used to.
Ex:
"Now to get my point across, let me introduce an example."
"My point is this: There are many dialects of many languages, and English is not an exception, just because it's different from what you are used to, doesn't mean it is wrong."
And I am quite certain about that.
Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
20-03-2004-03:38
удалить
You're lost.
In the example you cite , "now to get my point", the particle TO simply indicates the infinitive -- "to get"
But you can never say "now to your letter".
And your second example definitely comes from a non-native speaker (or a thoroughly illiterate person) because there's another mistake in it, namely, Russian syntax).
In the example you cite , "now to get my point", the particle TO simply indicates the infinitive -- "to get"
But you can never say "now to your letter".
And your second example definitely comes from a non-native speaker (or a thoroughly illiterate person) because there's another mistake in it, namely, Russian syntax).
Вы сейчас не можете прокомментировать это сообщение.
Дневник The downfall of the US Military, or Russian myth. | DarkMagician - Дневник DarkMagician |
Лента друзей DarkMagician
/ Полная версия
Добавить в друзья
Страницы:
«позже
раньше»