Anyway, we must hope for the best possible outcome here! Maybe USA got very lucky, knock on wood!!
You can be a grammar cop as much as you like, but you need to weigh it against the likely effects, in this case, none.
First, this is an AP article and grammar copping in this forum is not likely to have any effect.
Second, this is a quotation by an Australian. The Brits frequently refer to the United States as a plural entity. And, after all, Australians are just Brits with the pommy bits knocked off.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page51.shtml
The United States has been considered a singular entity by Americans since shortly after the Civil War. Note the use of the plural in the Thirteenth Amendment (1865):
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
It’s unfair to hold Brits (or Aussies) to American English standards.
Ayep. Cain’t 'spect them folks t’talk all k’rekty-lahk, now can ya?
British usage, and I presume Australian as well, often refers to corporate entities in the plural as well. “Microsoft are under investigation by the EU”, for example.
As noted by @the_loan_arranger, it is the Queen’s English.
As any White House spokesperson could explain to you:
The Aussies are very weak and didn’t join the Great State of America on July 4, 1776, to fight and defeat the Redcoats. While we spent that night celebrating with fireworks on the National Mall in DC, the Aussies were letting England cram the British language down their throats. Australia’s ban on assault weapons allowed the Redcoats to defeat the Aussies so easily. England also forced weak Australia to drive on the wrong side of the road and take a whole bunch of bad hombres that had been locked up in England’s prisons. It wasn’t until Obama was president that America was so weak that Australia forced us to take those prisoners and let them come to America and live next to our children and schools and golf courses. Unbelievable!
Is it my imagination, or has there been a string of military ship/aircraft “mishaps” lately?
The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey: Unsafe At Any Altitude.
“They are not our friend, believe me. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I live near Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (sorry, no Navy Top Gun here anymore – too much development), so I see and hear the V-22s flying overhead pretty often. They do their training flights over the ocean, and tend to travel from Miramar along a few corridors that have more open space and fewer people below. They are very distinctive craft, but totally utilitarian in appearance. The “Osprey” name wasn’t inspired by its appearance.
Anyway, the Marine Corps statement in the Osprey incident is ridiculous:
“The aircraft involved in the mishap had launched from the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) and was conducting regularly scheduled operations when the aircraft entered the water,” the Marine Corps said in a statement.
Entered the water? There isn’t a scuba version of the aircraft. Presumably, the military is using broad terms (“mishap,” “entered”) either because they don’t yet know the details or are not yet ready to make many more detail public.
There is no other aircraft or ship mentioned, so that seems to rule out a collision or a takeoff/landing accident. Also, the “search” part of the search and rescue effort indicates that there wasn’t a ship in sight at the time. My impression is that the services tend to support their pilots when they can, which would mean that they would tell us if the pilot had reported mechanical difficulties. It is possible that there is some sensitivity about Osprey mechanical issues, especially when overseas, that would lead them to withhold such info, but pilot error is usually the winning bet when the cause is TBD.
“They have been involved in a series of high-profile crashes in recent years.”
Recent years? MV-22 Ospreys have been involved in a series of high-profile crashes throughout the history of the program.
The Osprey is unusually sensitive to “human error”. However, it is a vital piece of the profits that were made off of defense contracts.
The Osprey was supposed to be en route to Korea.
But, snark aside, it does seem that way. I think, though, that an objective analysis would show nothing out of the ordinary; there isn’t a trend or pattern emerging above the noise. It might be that there has been a change in media coverage. Trumpp, as you probably recall, insisted on military flyovers at his inauguration, has talked about military parades, and told the NYT that “we’re going to be showing our military.”
All the crashes seem to come when there is a human operating the aircraft. That can’t just be coincidence.
Training can be as bad a combat ops. Recover your brother’s bodies Marines.
your either an helicopter or an aircraft theres no such thing as both guess its going to take 1000 dead marines for that to sink in
I watched one break up on the ground, never got airborne. So, yes, you are correct.
Marines always get the vehicles no one else will fly. Just think, thousands of parts, all simultaneously moving in different directions all at the same time. It does have a lot of potential.
There is more information available now. According to the BBC, the aircraft was attempting to land on the USS Ronald Reagan. The report says there were 26 people on board.
Trump should take his trips to his properties in an Osprey from now on 