NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/12/1081621898368.html

What do you think?

I think I'm not surprised. :?

Considering that US forces learnt their doctrine of occupation from the Israelis, I'm not surprised that you're not surprised.

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.



Ave Satanis!
Rege Satanis!
Hail Satan!

Big Jim P!
SC!

http://www.magickalshadow.com/daca/

http://www.shelterfordarkness.com/dadv/index.html

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.

May well explain why the British troops in Iraq do not seem to be having the same amount of problems.

Our Aussie troops haven't suffered a single casuality, whereas the Yanks have had like 500 die.

Now Australia had less troops, but I can't imagine that they had 1/500th of the amount that the US did in Iraq.

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Our Aussie troops haven't suffered a single casuality, whereas the Yanks have had like 500 die.

Now Australia had less troops, but I can't imagine that they had 1/500th of the amount that the US did in Iraq.

Crikey mate, we had a small contingent of SAS, who get in do their thing, and get out.

Other than that, we had two small ships - look at a map sometime, Iraq is nearly landlocked - and some air traffic controllers.

We basically have a token "us too' force as a sop to the US, thanks to "deputy sherrif" Little Johnny.

But, I know that the Brits have a sizeable force, admittedly located elsewhere than the yanks, but they do not seem to have the same knack for upsetting the natives.

Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

I'm sorry but I thought you were arguing in favour of US tactics. Is your point now that the American Rebels provide a precedent and justification for the terrorists?

Sorry for the inconvenience, I just wanted some clarification :?

Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Washington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

I'm sorry but I thought you were arguing in favour of US tactics. Is your point now that the American Rebels provide a precedent and justification for the terrorists?

Sorry for the inconvenience, I just wanted some clarification :?

Actually we should not be in Iraq. We should have done the Job right the first time.

However if you look at all imperial wars/conquests of the past, the victors/Empire builders have always ended up, the losers.

Jim

"Oh where are kings and empires now,
Of old that went and came?"


I'm glad I was not the only one, by the way, to see the similarity between our gunship response and Israel's.

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!

Considering the officer refused to be identified..I have no idea what his rank or position in the British Chain of command is....it gives no indication of his political leanings which can definitely shape his opinion. For all I know..he's a Leftenant with a grudge because he's been passed over for promotion and had a chance to portray us in a bad lite, I read the entire article before anyone has a chance to jump in..it's ambigous at best.

And we perfected urban warfare techniques separate from IDF training thank you very much....but yes our counter-battery fire is excellent in locating the source of firing back...I blame any deaths of civilians on those who place themselves in the midst of a civilian population...if they would have stood up and said.."Hey..if you want to fire the Americans, fine, do it out of my neighborhood because my children are asleep next door".

The Battle of Britain vs Iraq?

The two are not comparable, you are comparing Apples to Oranges.

The Battle of Britain involved the British defending their homeland from Nazi Aggression. The situation in Iraq is concerned with Iraqis attempting to free their country from an illegal US Occupation.

I do not support the Iraqis but then I do not supprt this illegal war either, but at the end of the day all they are doing is fighting for their freedom.

You may call them Terrorists and I will call them Freedom Fighters. Both sides of the same coin.

The Battle of Britain vs Iraq?

The two are not comparable, you are comparing Apples to Oranges.

The Battle of Britain involved the British defending their homeland from Nazi Aggression. The situation in Iraq is concerned with Iraqis attempting to free their country from an illegal US Occupation.

I do not support the Iraqis but then I do not supprt this illegal war either, but at the end of the day all they are doing is fighting for their freedom.

You may call them Terrorists and I will call them Freedom Fighters. Both sides of the same coin.

Bull...freedom is what we brought them..or do you think life under Saddam was free?

Talk to the Kurds..they like US assistance just fine...and they won't have to worry bout being slaughtered by Iraqi forces anymore.

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!

No kidding Steph?

I am an Old soldier and we should not be there. Want al queda?

Simply start nuking the capitols of any nation that supports terrorism.

Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.. Lybia was brokerage by the UK.. and it started long before 9/11. It had every thing to do with the Lockerbee hijacking and they wanted sanctions lifted. Pre-dates 9/11 they finally came to a settlement that all could live with, part of the sanctions being lifted was to give up their WMD.. thank the UK.. the US had little to nothing to do with it. You're going to have to provide another example.

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.. Lybia was brokerage by the UK.. and it started long before 9/11. It had every thing to do with the Lockerbee hijacking and they wanted sanctions lifted. Pre-dates 9/11 they finally came to a settlement that all could live with, part of the sanctions being lifted was to give up their WMD.. thank the UK.. the US had little to nothing to do with it. You're going to have to provide another example.

Steph...while I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on when steps might have orginated to try to resolve the issues with Libya and who begun them...you are trying to tell me it's pure coincidence that Libya capitulated shortly after military operations began in Iraq against Saddam?

And we perfected urban warfare techniques separate from IDF training thank you very much....but yes our counter-battery fire is excellent in locating the source of firing back...I blame any deaths of civilians on those who place themselves in the midst of a civilian population...if they would have stood up and said.."Hey..if you want to fire the Americans, fine, do it out of my neighborhood because my children are asleep next door".

Wonderful. Pontius Pilate would have loved this argument. "I wash my hands of it." :roll:

So, pray tell, if you lived in an Iraqi neighbourhood and saw one person protest and get shot by these insurgents would you have the guts to stand up to them knowing you'd get a bullet between the eyes?

Its like in Vietnam when civilian villages were massacred because a few of the villagers had harboured Viet Cong forces.

The Brits aren't using such tactics in this war and although they've taken casualties, they're doing a lot better than the Americans.

The fact is, this war should never have been started in the first place. Every civilian killed is not collateral damage. It is murder. I agree that extremists are murdering their fellow people but the US soldier in charge of the counterbattery fire unit is just as much a murderer. If things continue the way they are, in 20 years time, young Iraqi parents will be telling their children about the day the Americans blew up their neighbourhoods. And in many cases, the day the Americans blew up their families.

Is that really what you want to have happen?

Freedom is what you bought to Iraq?

The freedom to watch as trigger happy US soldiers gun down women and children? But its ok if somebody nearby attacked the US first, then it only counts as so-called "collateral" damage.

The freedom for the US to impose a ruler upon them? No you can't vote democratically, this man is now your ruler so shut up or we will arrest you for "Crimes Against Iraq".

The freedom for the US to attempt to arrest a religous leader because he disagrees with them? Whoops he got away, better start the spin machine against him.

The freedom to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it and why they are "lucky" to be able to do it?

How the happy free people of Iraq must be praising God that they are so lucky to have US troops colonise thier country!

The arrogance and stupidity of it all.

WAR IS PEACE

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Big Dubya is watching you...

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.. Lybia was brokerage by the UK.. and it started long before 9/11. It had every thing to do with the Lockerbee hijacking and they wanted sanctions lifted. Pre-dates 9/11 they finally came to a settlement that all could live with, part of the sanctions being lifted was to give up their WMD.. thank the UK.. the US had little to nothing to do with it. You're going to have to provide another example.

No Steph am not going to have to provide another example: When the US started using its millitary, First in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, Libya suddenly gave up It WMD programs.

*If you believe that Libya did give up the programs, then look at how Iraq gave the inspectors the run around for 10 Years. *

I just can't beleive that the USA, an imperialisic power At least since the civil war, waited so long to try and conquer another Nation.

Jim

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.. Lybia was brokerage by the UK.. and it started long before 9/11. It had every thing to do with the Lockerbee hijacking and they wanted sanctions lifted. Pre-dates 9/11 they finally came to a settlement that all could live with, part of the sanctions being lifted was to give up their WMD.. thank the UK.. the US had little to nothing to do with it. You're going to have to provide another example.

Steph...while I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on when steps might have orginated to try to resolve the issues with Libya and who begun them...you are trying to tell me it's pure coincidence that Libya capitulated shortly after military operations began in Iraq against Saddam?

It may very well be Salishe, I know that these were the terms set out.. and these were the goals when talks began which again pre-dated 9/11. Lybia hadn't really done any thing in recent years either so I'm not sure they would of feared being next on the hit list either. Iran, Syria had/has much more to worry about. However, these talks with this objective do pre-date 9/11. Maybe it played a small part.. but I don't really think so. However, I can't say that 100%.. all evdience would suggest not though.

Freedom is what you bought to Iraq?

The freedom to watch as trigger happy US soldiers gun down women and children? But its ok if somebody nearby attacked the US first, then it only counts as so-called "collateral" damage.

The freedom for the US to impose a ruler upon them? No you can't vote democratically, this man is now your ruler so shut up or we will arrest you for "Crimes Against Iraq".

The freedom for the US to attempt to arrest a religous leader because he disagrees with them? Whoops he got away, better start the spin machine against him.

The freedom to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it and why they are "lucky" to be able to do it?

How the happy free people of Iraq must be praising God that they are so lucky to have US troops colonise thier country!

The arrogance and stupidity of it all.

First off...US troops are not trigger-happy..and they fire upon receiving fire....and the rules of engagement are clearly defined..if you have specific claims of abuse under the Rules of Engagement then I suggest you back it up with proof and a claim to the Pentagon and thru the Dept of Defense. Unlike with Saddam who we know didn't distinguish innocents from combatants..in fact I have it under good authority as I was there for the first Gulf War..that regular Iraqi military surrendered to us solely due to the fact that Saddam had given orders to Republican Guard units behind the regular military to shoot anyone retreating...and on top of that..to shoot their families.

Second...we didn't impose a ruler....we set up a Interim Council made up of every ethnic minority in order to give them all a voice in the governing of their country..unlike under Saddam where the Sunni Iraqis were the only ones of any power and influence.

Third....The arrest order of Sadr came from an Iraqi court in response to the murder of a moderate Shiite Cleric that Sadr was suspected of murdering in order to further his own political career and power base. Unfortunately that Sadr was so low on the Iraqi police priority list that they waited a year to execute it, and even then had to have US troops assist them.

Finally...when all is said and done..do you think that Saddam would have tolerated any of the dissent which has occured?...a simple Yes or No would suffice please..no rationalizations necessary..

And we perfected urban warfare techniques separate from IDF training thank you very much....but yes our counter-battery fire is excellent in locating the source of firing back...I blame any deaths of civilians on those who place themselves in the midst of a civilian population...if they would have stood up and said.."Hey..if you want to fire the Americans, fine, do it out of my neighborhood because my children are asleep next door".

Wonderful. Pontius Pilate would have loved this argument. "I wash my hands of it." :roll:

So, pray tell, if you lived in an Iraqi neighbourhood and saw one person protest and get shot by these insurgents would you have the guts to stand up to them knowing you'd get a bullet between the eyes?

Its like in Vietnam when civilian villages were massacred because a few of the villagers had harboured Viet Cong forces.

The Brits aren't using such tactics in this war and although they've taken casualties, they're doing a lot better than the Americans.

The fact is, this war should never have been started in the first place. Every civilian killed is not collateral damage. It is murder. I agree that extremists are murdering their fellow people but the US soldier in charge of the counterbattery fire unit is just as much a murderer. If things continue the way they are, in 20 years time, young Iraqi parents will be telling their children about the day the Americans blew up their neighbourhoods. And in many cases, the day the Americans blew up their families.

Is that really what you want to have happen?

No one is washing their hands of it..but put blame on those who insists on hiding within civilian populations....every death is on their hands, not mine.
Freedom sometimes calls for the ultimate sacrifice..if enough of the Iraqis stood up and said to the insurgents..."Enough..go away we will not support or help you anymore" then their support base would fade like the morning dew. And I'm sorry comparing a soldier who is defending his fellow soldiers who might have suffered a mortar attack to a murder is ludicrous on it's own merit.

And like it or not...get over it..the war happened..they are there and we tried to bring them freedom...but apparently what they wanted wasn't freedom....what they all want is power...the Shiites make up 60% of the population and never had any power...as the political dealine approaches each ethnic, tribal, and religous persuasion is jockeying for position to grab a piece of the pie...and the Shiite insurgents think that because they outnumber the rest that their vision of Iraq is the only one acceptable, just as the Sunnis did for decades.

Freedom is what you bought to Iraq?

The freedom to watch as trigger happy US soldiers gun down women and children? But its ok if somebody nearby attacked the US first, then it only counts as so-called "collateral" damage.

The freedom for the US to impose a ruler upon them? No you can't vote democratically, this man is now your ruler so shut up or we will arrest you for "Crimes Against Iraq".

The freedom for the US to attempt to arrest a religous leader because he disagrees with them? Whoops he got away, better start the spin machine against him.

The freedom to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it and why they are "lucky" to be able to do it?

How the happy free people of Iraq must be praising God that they are so lucky to have US troops colonise thier country!

The arrogance and stupidity of it all.

First off...US troops are not trigger-happy..and they fire upon receiving fire....and the rules of engagement are clearly defined..if you have specific claims of abuse under the Rules of Engagement then I suggest you back it up with proof and a claim to the Pentagon and thru the Dept of Defense. Unlike with Saddam who we know didn't distinguish innocents from combatants..in fact I have it under good authority as I was there for the first Gulf War..that regular Iraqi military surrendered to us solely due to the fact that Saddam had given orders to Republican Guard units behind the regular military to shoot anyone retreating...and on top of that..to shoot their families.

Second...we didn't impose a ruler....we set up a Interim Council made up of every ethnic minority in order to give them all a voice in the governing of their country..unlike under Saddam where the Sunni Iraqis were the only ones of any power and influence.

Third....The arrest order of Sadr came from an Iraqi court in response to the murder of a moderate Shiite Cleric that Sadr was suspected of murdering in order to further his own political career and power base. Unfortunately that Sadr was so low on the Iraqi police priority list that they waited a year to execute it, and even then had to have US troops assist them.

Finally...when all is said and done..do you think that Saddam would have tolerated any of the dissent which has occured?...a simple Yes or No would suffice please..no rationalizations necessary..

Occupation by a foreign army is not freedom.

Having your newspapers closed down by an occupation force is not freedom.

Having an "Interim council" and a "constitution" imposed upon you by an occupying force is not freedom.

Its really sad when you make comparisons with Saddam, after all you are supposed to be so much better. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam would tolerate dissent, the US should. Otherwise, they are as bad as he was.

Should the US be compared to Saddam... a "simple yes or no" ...? no rationalizations

This is what happens when the americans elect retards to the most powerful post on planet earth.George W Bush and the rest of his gung ho cabinet ignored the threat posed by Bin Laden and then lunched two foriegn wars one on Afganistan possible justified in the facts of the Taliban habouring Bin Laden and company.The second in Iraq was daddy's
failure to win a war when he had it in the bag and then allow Saddam off the hook.

Freedom is what you bought to Iraq?

The freedom to watch as trigger happy US soldiers gun down women and children? But its ok if somebody nearby attacked the US first, then it only counts as so-called "collateral" damage.

The freedom for the US to impose a ruler upon them? No you can't vote democratically, this man is now your ruler so shut up or we will arrest you for "Crimes Against Iraq".

The freedom for the US to attempt to arrest a religous leader because he disagrees with them? Whoops he got away, better start the spin machine against him.

The freedom to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it and why they are "lucky" to be able to do it?

How the happy free people of Iraq must be praising God that they are so lucky to have US troops colonise thier country!

The arrogance and stupidity of it all.

First off...US troops are not trigger-happy..and they fire upon receiving fire....and the rules of engagement are clearly defined..if you have specific claims of abuse under the Rules of Engagement then I suggest you back it up with proof and a claim to the Pentagon and thru the Dept of Defense. Unlike with Saddam who we know didn't distinguish innocents from combatants..in fact I have it under good authority as I was there for the first Gulf War..that regular Iraqi military surrendered to us solely due to the fact that Saddam had given orders to Republican Guard units behind the regular military to shoot anyone retreating...and on top of that..to shoot their families.

Second...we didn't impose a ruler....we set up a Interim Council made up of every ethnic minority in order to give them all a voice in the governing of their country..unlike under Saddam where the Sunni Iraqis were the only ones of any power and influence.

Third....The arrest order of Sadr came from an Iraqi court in response to the murder of a moderate Shiite Cleric that Sadr was suspected of murdering in order to further his own political career and power base. Unfortunately that Sadr was so low on the Iraqi police priority list that they waited a year to execute it, and even then had to have US troops assist them.

Finally...when all is said and done..do you think that Saddam would have tolerated any of the dissent which has occured?...a simple Yes or No would suffice please..no rationalizations necessary..

Occupation by a foreign army is not freedom.

Having your newspapers closed down by an occupation force is not freedom.

Having an "Interim council" and a "constitution" imposed upon you by an occupying force is not freedom.

Its really sad when you make comparisons with Saddam, after all you are supposed to be so much better. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam would tolerate dissent, the US should. Otherwise, they are as bad as he was.

Should the US be compared to Saddam... a "simple yes or no" ...? no rationalizations

I see you were sidestepping with the best of them SG...It's freedom sure enough when you don't have to worry bout mass graves and rape rooms.

I agree..shutting down the paper was a bad move..but from a tactical point of view I can understand it..they were after all advocating and urging violent attacks on not just Coalition troops but any Iraqi who worked with them...including 4 women who died because they worked in laundry earning money at their new jobs...that laundry was started with the help of US troops and the administration...including Iraqi police who had enlisted in the thousands in order to help bring back stability to their country...

And it is entirely relevant to the issue of freedom on whether or not Saddam would have allowed it..you're great at saying how bad we are in the situation but you constantly leave out that they wouldn't have been able to do it at all under Saddam...is that because you wish to marginalize how things were under Saddam?

The fact that you believe what you are saying is true is very tragic, for you and the people of Iraq.

1. For evidence of collateral damage open a newspaper or watch the news. I assume the US government hasn't started censoring news over there yet?

2. The Interim Council was appointed by the US, not freely elected! And they are not in power, your US Governor is, Bremner is it? The Nazis appointed Quisling to nominally "rule" Norway in WW2 but they retained actual control. Remind you of anything?

3. The second part relates to your third counter, ie the spin machine has started! He may indeed have murdered that other cleric but nobody will believe you because you are tainted by spin and lies. "Iraq has WMD and links to Al Queda". Because of those false claims and lies nobody trusts you.

4. Saddam may not have tolerated any dissent but neither have the US authorities. Speak out against the US and you are accused of "working against Iraq", that is a direct quote from one of your generals! Opinions are respected as long as they agree with US policy!

We could argue back and forth all day. But what would be the point? You cannot convince me and I daresay my arguments will be disregarded by you in the same way that the Iraqis are!

:roll:

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.. Lybia was brokerage by the UK.. and it started long before 9/11. It had every thing to do with the Lockerbee hijacking and they wanted sanctions lifted. Pre-dates 9/11 they finally came to a settlement that all could live with, part of the sanctions being lifted was to give up their WMD.. thank the UK.. the US had little to nothing to do with it. You're going to have to provide another example.

No Steph am not going to have to provide another example: When the US started using its millitary, First in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, Libya suddenly gave up It WMD programs.

*If you believe that Libya did give up the programs, then look at how Iraq gave the inspectors the run around for 10 Years. *

I just can't beleive that the USA, an imperialisic power At least since the civil war, waited so long to try and conquer another Nation.

Jim

The Lybia situation came about after months of negotiations with the UK on Lockerbie, and had nothing to do with the US in Iraq.

Cite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

if you have specific claims of abuse under the Rules of Engagement then I suggest you back it up with proof and a claim to the Pentagon and thru the Dept of Defense.
I believe the 'Raqis chose to forego the bureaucratic process and are instead shooting/blowing up the invaders. Presumably, they do not wish to overburden the Pentagon/DoD with extra paperwork :twisted:

"Oh where are kings and empires now,
Of old that went and came?"


I'm glad I was not the only one, by the way, to see the similarity between our gunship response and Israel's.

'I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

If everyone just got the hell out of Iraq and let the UN deal with it then it would be better :?

Yeah, this is a tough thing to do but try it:

Switch places with an Iraqi.

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

Suppose Iraq invaded the US to oust our dictator George W Bush, cause he was supposedly harboring terrorists and building weapons of mass destruction. Plus, they want our oil reserves. At first, this might seem fine. Sure, we don't like Bush much. His military kills lots of people, they run around with absolute power, not much going for him in the popular rule category. But now, Saddam comes in with smart bombs and cruise missles. Attacks at night, trying to hit legitimate targets, kill civilians.

You're asleep with your spouse, your children asleep in the room nextdoor. Suddenly your are waking as your body files from your bed. Stumbling, reeling in the smoke, you cannot find your wife: the ceiling has collapsed on her. Frantic, you try to move the mass of rubble, but the fire is growing and you cannot get to her. Your immeadiate thoughts are your children. Fear unlike any you would have ever thought possible sets in. YOUR children! Panicked, your adrenaline kicks in, moving faster and with more force than any person alive, you run to thier room, ignoring the dangers of fire and smoke. But it is too late for your eldest daughter. Blood flows freely from her head, a piece of sharpnel or something thrown by the explosion has pierced her skull, killing her instantly. A cry of anguish escapes your lips. A greater torment you could never imagine than to see your child dead. Your younger son sits eyes frozen in terror at the unimaginable scene around him, unable to move. It won't be for several hours that he'll say anything at all. Carrying your dead daughter in your arms, tears streaming down your face, you fight free of the burning house, your son clinging to you as you make your way to the street, shouting, screaming for help. But no one will come in time. The sirens are still wailing as the AA guns finally fall silent. The bombers have gone, but thier targets, and a few "incidental" casualties are terminated. Fire crews finally arrive hours later. A crowd of onlookers rush around, shouting and trying to help. Journalists from the international media groups approach various people, recording reactions and filming the fire. One approaches you.

"LOOK! LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE! My wife, my children... we are not terrorists! Why did they die!?!" you scream at the man. He doesn't fully understand your rapid speech in a tongue he hasn't mastered, but he looks at you, tears in his eyes as well. Perhaps he also has a son not unlike your own?

You turn you attentions to your son, all you have left in the world, and try to explain why his mother and sister died this night...

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

Sure this is fiction, but ONLY because it didn't happen in the US. It happened in Iraq. Don't ignore the human side of war. The men, women, and children that invariably die needlessly. I would have traded YEARS of diplomatic efforts for the life of ONE Iraqi child. JUST ONE. How many are you willing to sacrifice? <=== ANSWER THAT

I suspect what many Brits are most pissed off about is that the war in Iraq is now being run by the Campaign to Re-elect the President and has nothing to do with democracy, terrorism or anything else but keeping Dubya's butt in the White House.
Oh, we're also pissed that the American troops continue to display sheer bloody incompetence all the time ... :P

Freedom is what you bought to Iraq?

The freedom to watch as trigger happy US soldiers gun down women and children? But its ok if somebody nearby attacked the US first, then it only counts as so-called "collateral" damage.

The freedom for the US to impose a ruler upon them? No you can't vote democratically, this man is now your ruler so shut up or we will arrest you for "Crimes Against Iraq".

The freedom for the US to attempt to arrest a religous leader because he disagrees with them? Whoops he got away, better start the spin machine against him.

The freedom to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it and why they are "lucky" to be able to do it?

How the happy free people of Iraq must be praising God that they are so lucky to have US troops colonise thier country!

The arrogance and stupidity of it all.

First off...US troops are not trigger-happy..and they fire upon receiving fire....and the rules of engagement are clearly defined..if you have specific claims of abuse under the Rules of Engagement then I suggest you back it up with proof and a claim to the Pentagon and thru the Dept of Defense. Unlike with Saddam who we know didn't distinguish innocents from combatants..in fact I have it under good authority as I was there for the first Gulf War..that regular Iraqi military surrendered to us solely due to the fact that Saddam had given orders to Republican Guard units behind the regular military to shoot anyone retreating...and on top of that..to shoot their families.

Second...we didn't impose a ruler....we set up a Interim Council made up of every ethnic minority in order to give them all a voice in the governing of their country..unlike under Saddam where the Sunni Iraqis were the only ones of any power and influence.

Third....The arrest order of Sadr came from an Iraqi court in response to the murder of a moderate Shiite Cleric that Sadr was suspected of murdering in order to further his own political career and power base. Unfortunately that Sadr was so low on the Iraqi police priority list that they waited a year to execute it, and even then had to have US troops assist them.

Finally...when all is said and done..do you think that Saddam would have tolerated any of the dissent which has occured?...a simple Yes or No would suffice please..no rationalizations necessary..

Occupation by a foreign army is not freedom.

Having your newspapers closed down by an occupation force is not freedom.

Having an "Interim council" and a "constitution" imposed upon you by an occupying force is not freedom.

Its really sad when you make comparisons with Saddam, after all you are supposed to be so much better. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam would tolerate dissent, the US should. Otherwise, they are as bad as he was.

Should the US be compared to Saddam... a "simple yes or no" ...? no rationalizations

I see you were sidestepping with the best of them SG...It's freedom sure enough when you don't have to worry bout mass graves and rape rooms.

I agree..shutting down the paper was a bad move..but from a tactical point of view I can understand it..they were after all advocating and urging violent attacks on not just Coalition troops but any Iraqi who worked with them...including 4 women who died because they worked in laundry earning money at their new jobs...that laundry was started with the help of US troops and the administration...including Iraqi police who had enlisted in the thousands in order to help bring back stability to their country...

And it is entirely relevant to the issue of freedom on whether or not Saddam would have allowed it..you're great at saying how bad we are in the situation but you constantly leave out that they wouldn't have been able to do it at all under Saddam...is that because you wish to marginalize how things were under Saddam?

It's quite simple, as you should know...it's freedom when you can make the decisions regarding your life, it's not freedom when you cannot.

Iraqis at present cannot make those decisions.

I am not, and never have been an apologist for Saddam. I do not wish to "marginalise" his actions in any way. It is you who made the comparison in the first instance, I attempted to show that it should be irrelevant. The present war was not fought on the principle of "regime change". It could have been, and would have deserved support if it had. Then again, a war for "regime change" was quite possible after the first Gulf War. But, the issue of Saddam's tyrannical reign is but a smoke-screen used by you and others.

Every action by the US cannot be justified by saying "We're better than Saddam".

The chant from the Iraqi people from day one was "No to Saddam, no to the US". Few listened then, few listen now.

Have not seen your claim about the laundry before. Source please.

And let us avoid the smoke-screens altogether.

This thread is about criticism of the US forces by their allies. Criticism which could well be justified.

Please address that as the topic.

if they would have stood up and said.."Hey..if you want to fire the Americans, fine, do it out of my neighborhood because my children are asleep next door".

If you want your children to wake up again, you'll shut your mouth and quit whining like a dog.

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC
Do not anger the dragon, for you go well with mint sauce

First off...US troops are not trigger-happy..and they fire upon receiving fire......

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh God, that's just TOO damn funny! That'll keep me laughing for days..!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

First off...US troops are not trigger-happy..and they fire upon receiving fire......

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh God, that's just TOO damn funny! That'll keep me lughing for days..!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

And you can back up any claim that they are trigger-happy eh? It's also an insult to ever member of this forum including me that ever wore or continues to wear a uniform....I seem to recall some despicable antics by Canadian troops in Somalia...of British regiments in Northern Ireland, of French units in Algeria and Vietnam..should I refer to those nation's military servicemembers as trigger happy as well?

Bush was being personal.

"Daddy bombed Iraqis! Me too!"

Sure! Please do! Anyone who joins the army is a thug who enjoys killing, or somebody who made an awful mistake with their life and has little or no imagination to get out of it. Either way, you're all bad eggs in my book.

Using a nationalistic or patriotic argument on me is useless my man, i'm far too intellegent to have such thoughts. There's nothing wrong with appreciating where you were born, but patriotism only has one use, and that's on the field of sport, where you can support your team. That's it, it serves no other purpose.

Sure! Please do! Anyone who joins the army is a thug who enjoys killing, or somebody who made an awful mistake with their life and has little or no imagination to get out of it. Either way, you're all bad eggs in my book.

Using a nationalistic or patriotic argument on me is useless my man, i'm far too intellegent to have such thoughts. There's nothing wrong with appreciating where you were born, but patriotism only has one use, and that's on the field of sport, where you can support your team. That's it, it serves no other purpose.

Whew..what generalizations..I have no idea where to begin..Serving in the Marine Corps was one of my greatest experiences...it gave me purpose, focus..I matured faster then youth my age who were civilians who only wanted to party..

And you're not that intelligent if you think that only patriotism works on a sports field.

I never wanted to kill anybody..not my nature to be violent..even with my cultural and historical background...but I did what I had to do in order to come back to my family in one piece...thugs?..some of the most intelligent men I met in my life were Marine Corps and Naval officers and senior Staff Non-Commissioned officers..hardly thugs..

And the imagination thing...I'll just ignore that because frankly it wasn't a mistake I made..

I don't know who pissed in your tea pot..mebbe a soldier roughed you up in a bar..mebbe called you a geek..or fatso...and that gives you carte blance to call all those who wear a uniform thugs...would that include females who work in non-combat related fields?

Whew..what generalizations..I have no idea where to begin..Serving in the Marine Corps was one of my greatest experiences...it gave me purpose, focus..I matured faster then youth my age who were civilians who only wanted to party..



And you're not that intelligent if you think that only patriotism works on a sports field.

I never wanted to kill anybody..not my nature to be violent..even with my cultural and historical background...but I did what I had to do in order to come back to my family in one piece...thugs?..some of the most intelligent men I met in my life were Marine Corps and Naval officers and senior Staff Non-Commissioned officers..hardly thugs..

And the imagination thing...I'll just ignore that because frankly it wasn't a mistake I made..

I don't know who pissed in your tea pot..mebbe a soldier roughed you up in a bar..mebbe called you a geek..or fatso...and that gives you carte blance to call all those who wear a uniform thugs...would that include females who work in non-combat related fields?

No need to be so defensive. I'm certainly not roused by any of your insinuations as to why i might not like the military. Yes of course what i said was a generalisation. So is every other opinion issued on this forum, and that totally includes you. So, a select few who are in the army are not thugs who enjoy hurting others. Happy now?

I know several people in the army, one of whom is very nice, the other two who have problems controlling their drink. If i really wanted to get into this argument it really wouldn't be difficult to find many examples of why the military is bad.

I'm giving my well informed opinions and interpretations of why i don't like the military. I have no beef with anyone in the army, i just cannot respect any of you in your given career.

And you're not that intelligent if you think that only patriotism works on a sports field.


Actually i am. As is everyone else with this opinion. :)

Whew..what generalizations..I have no idea where to begin..

Perhaps by typing in sentances, instead of mutterings.

Serving in the Marine Corps was one of my greatest experiences...it gave me purpose, focus..I matured faster then youth my age who were civilians who only wanted to party..

Quite right Salishe! Who on Earth wants to party when you could be out doing a politicians dirty work? All those fools socialising, having fun - what idiots, they could have been shooting!

And you're not that intelligent if you think that only patriotism works on a sports field.

Yeah, it's also useful to pass laws infringing on civil rights without anyone complaining.

I never wanted to kill anybody..not my nature to be violent..

So were you being incrediably stupid or just highly dislexic when you joined the army?

ar·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n. pl. ar·mies

1. A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.

2. The entire military land forces of a country.

3. A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary forces .

..even with my cultural and historical background

Just have to stop you there. It seems your unable to get through a thread without re-iterating to everyone your 'cultural and historical background'. Your a Native American. Woo. Hoo. Your descended from an interesting culture, but that doesn't affect your reasoning. I'm Scottish. That don't mean squat to my argument. Whats with this?

...but I did what I had to do in order to come back to my family in one piece

Bullshit. You did what you were told to do. Anyone could do that with the right amount of fear put into them. See how Saddam made his armies.

Stepping past old Abu Abbas for a second; Saddam openly funded Palestinian suicide bombers http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

and a couple of terrorist training camps
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

were found. Saddam's links to terrorism are well established, just not links to al-Qaeda.

Most Iraqis support the ousting of Saddam. The consternation comes because anti-US sentiment is rife; the fact that Saddam has been lying about the extent of damage that UN sanctions have had (effects he exacerbated by hoarding food in warehouses and letting it rot,) may well be at least in part to blame for this.

Democracy is not a system that magically appears overnight after all of the bad warlords and naughty dictators are done away with, with all of the people routing for the regime change whilst waving flags. The interim council is necessary to maintain any semblance of stability in the region, hence why, at present, leaders are appointed. This is particularly important since the Iraqi factions may well have started expressing their freedom by murdering each other. Given the feuds which existed even prior to Saddam's installment, I'd argue the coalition is performing a surprisingly adequate job. Whether the war was the best way to go about removing Saddam, whether Bush was lying initially or not, has very little baring on whether the coalition should remain in Iraq or how they should go about setting up a new government.

Which is not to say that the anonymous British officer is necessarily wrong, but without a known provenence the source is near useless anyway.

Oh and yes, I bet operation Desert Storm was performed because Clinton loved Bush Senior so much. Blimey.

Oh, and sometimes, every so often, people join a country's army because they wish to protect the people they care for and protect the ideals they believe in. Generalisations about violent natures are gross misjudgements about many people in the military, and indicate a distinct lack of knowledge about the dozens of non-violent positions in any professional army.

Whew..what generalizations..I have no idea where to begin..

Perhaps by typing in sentances, instead of mutterings.

Serving in the Marine Corps was one of my greatest experiences...it gave me purpose, focus..I matured faster then youth my age who were civilians who only wanted to party..

Quite right Salishe! Who on Earth wants to party when you could be out doing a politicians dirty work? All those fools socialising, having fun - what idiots, they could have been shooting!

And you're not that intelligent if you think that only patriotism works on a sports field.

Yeah, it's also useful to pass laws infringing on civil rights without anyone complaining.

I never wanted to kill anybody..not my nature to be violent..

So were you being incrediably stupid or just highly dislexic when you joined the army?

ar·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n. pl. ar·mies

1. A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.

2. The entire military land forces of a country.

3. A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary forces .

..even with my cultural and historical background

Just have to stop you there. It seems your unable to get through a thread without re-iterating to everyone your 'cultural and historical background'. Your a Native American. Woo. Hoo. Your descended from an interesting culture, but that doesn't affect your reasoning. I'm Scottish. That don't mean squat to my argument. Whats with this?

...but I did what I had to do in order to come back to my family in one piece

Bullshit. You did what you were told to do. Anyone could do that with the right amount of fear put into them. See how Saddam made his armies.


If you are to begin your post to me by being critical of my usage of syntax, let me remind you..it's "sentences", not "sentances"...but I digress.

I actually had a great time in the Marines..partied from Puerto Rico to Rota, Spain to Haifa Israel to Senegal to Vietnam..and all while serving my country in whatever capacity the US military saw fit..I didn't always carry a gun...in Vietnam I did..after that I was an ammunition supply tech, a Marine Security Guard assigned to the State Dept for Embassy Duty, and finally ended up my tours with a tour of duty as a Drill Instructor at Parris Island, SC, and partied with a better batch of men I've not seen the like in my dealings with civilians.

So in essense..no..I didn't join to kill..I joined to serve my country and this is where the whole "Indian" thing comes in..to honor my tribe and my clan.

Did they even mention killing when you first signed up?
When I want along they wouldnt shut up about the pay and perks and "Benefits"

Did they even mention killing when you first signed up?
When I want along they wouldnt shut up about the pay and perks and "Benefits"

Of course they mentioned killing..it was 1966..the Marines were increasing their personnel from Okinawa, Japan to the Republic of South Vietnam, there was no doubt in our minds that those of us who enlisted that day at the processing center in Knoxville, TN of where we were headed. Of course..then we were told of Mom, Apple Pie, and Ole Glory.

Did they even mention killing when you first signed up?
When I want along they wouldnt shut up about the pay and perks and "Benefits"

Of course they mentioned killing..it was 1966..the Marines were increasing their personnel from Okinawa, Japan to the Republic of South Vietnam, there was no doubt in our minds that those of us who enlisted that day at the processing center in Knoxville, TN of where we were headed. Of course..then we were told of Mom, Apple Pie, and Ole Glory.

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.. Lybia was brokerage by the UK.. and it started long before 9/11. It had every thing to do with the Lockerbee hijacking and they wanted sanctions lifted. Pre-dates 9/11 they finally came to a settlement that all could live with, part of the sanctions being lifted was to give up their WMD.. thank the UK.. the US had little to nothing to do with it. You're going to have to provide another example.

Oh come now.

Granted they were talking to them. No arguement.

With everybody "complaining" about who the US is going to invade next, Momar(sp?) didn't look around and go "oh oh"

He was probably heading down that road but I think Iraq motivated him to end it faster.

Saddam did sponsor terror. While he was linked to 9-11 (by a very tenuous link), he is very unlikely to have been responsible for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,567648,00.html

However, Saddam did aid terror attacks in Israel.

Battle of britian. Was their response inapprpriate?

No.

When attacked, defend.

Totally.

I believe that is what the Iraqi's are trying to do, after all, they were the ones attacked.


Yah. And the war on "terrorism" Justifies quite a bit. Goerge Wahington, after all, was a rebel and terrorist.

To quote Cogitation:

Think about it for a minute.

Jim

Umm Iraq had no terrorists.. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda.. I'm sure I have no idea what you're speaking of. This was a personal thing for Bush, he just slipped it in to the war on terror hoping no one would notice.. Guess what? They did!Note libyas response to our attacking Iraq.

Jim

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.. Lybia was brokerage by the UK.. and it started long before 9/11. It had every thing to do with the Lockerbee hijacking and they wanted sanctions lifted. Pre-dates 9/11 they finally came to a settlement that all could live with, part of the sanctions being lifted was to give up their WMD.. thank the UK.. the US had little to nothing to do with it. You're going to have to provide another example.

Oh come now.

Granted they were talking to them. No arguement.

With everybody "complaining" about who the US is going to invade next, Momar(sp?) didn't look around and go "oh oh"

He was probably heading down that road but I think Iraq motivated him to end it faster.

It may have played a part.. I can't say it didn't. However Lybia had not done any thing for years.. I'm sure he didn't believe he was next on the hit list. Syria and Iran I think have more to worry about. The reality is they were in talks before.. if any one gets credit for this it must go to the people who did it.. the UK. Sure maybe he thought, "well sheet, now would be a good time" but the Americans really had nothing to do with the deal.

Ok....we've managed to veer off-topic..I confess my own part in it, but as has been stated..the British officer refused to identify himself and I have no idea what kind of officer he is..nor do I know under what context he'd make such a remark...is he a lowly Leftenant passed over for promotion and mad at the world?...is he the Commanding Officer of one of their infantry regiments...or a Staff Officer assigned as some Liason and is a REMF..Rear-Echelon-Mother-you get the rest..who has no concept of urban warfare...there simply isn't enough in the article to give me an appropriate level of response to it..

Saddam did sponsor terror. While he was linked to 9-11 (by a very tenuous link), he is very unlikely to have been responsible for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,567648,00.html

However, Saddam did aid terror attacks in Israel.

....And that has what to do with the people who attacked America? America supports Israel, Arab countries support Palestine.. a bit of a difference. Hamas has never done any thing to America.

America has a right to defend herself. America has every right to go after Al-Qaeda. America doesn't have a right to go around the world forcing it's will on every one. Suicide bombings isn't exactly new, it was quite common during WWII.. and I wonder if what Hamas is doing is so evil why the Americans were ok with the French resistance in WWII? Exact same thing.

This has nothing to do with the people who attacked America and that is really the only people America has a right to go after. Bottom line!

Well, given the incredible amount of backroom hijinks going on both in the US and the UK, it is not an inconceivable notion that one of the reasons Blair has been so supportive of the US action in Iraq is to serve as an illustration point to Lybia. Sort of a, "They're mad dogs and I'm not sure how much longer we can keep them chained," kind of thing. Not that this in any way, shape or form validates the bungled Iraq affair.

That's definitely the case, (but it's spelled Lockerbie!)
I think it was a complete mockery though. Sure, we shouldn't need to bomb him, but it's not as if he is a reformed character though. I don't know exactly what we should do, but going on an "all is forgiven" trip to Libya is not on my list. He needs to go (so does Blair, and so, in my opinion, does Bush. It's not like he won the election).

And we perfected urban warfare techniques separate from IDF training thank you very much....but yes our counter-battery fire is excellent in locating the source of firing back...I blame any deaths of civilians on those who place themselves in the midst of a civilian population...if they would have stood up and said.."Hey..if you want to fire the Americans, fine, do it out of my neighborhood because my children are asleep next door".
I'm afraid the peaceful Iraqis don't have much of a choice. The gunmen don't really ask for permission to kick them out of their house so they could use it as a firing position.
At least that's how it works on the territories, to my knowlege.

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

- Samuel P. Huntington

Whew..what generalizations..I have no idea where to begin..

Perhaps by typing in sentances, instead of mutterings.

Serving in the Marine Corps was one of my greatest experiences...it gave me purpose, focus..I matured faster then youth my age who were civilians who only wanted to party..

Quite right Salishe! Who on Earth wants to party when you could be out doing a politicians dirty work? All those fools socialising, having fun - what idiots, they could have been shooting!

And you're not that intelligent if you think that only patriotism works on a sports field.

Yeah, it's also useful to pass laws infringing on civil rights without anyone complaining.

I never wanted to kill anybody..not my nature to be violent..

So were you being incrediably stupid or just highly dislexic when you joined the army?

ar·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n. pl. ar·mies

1. A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.

2. The entire military land forces of a country.

3. A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary forces .

..even with my cultural and historical background

Just have to stop you there. It seems your unable to get through a thread without re-iterating to everyone your 'cultural and historical background'. Your a Native American. Woo. Hoo. Your descended from an interesting culture, but that doesn't affect your reasoning. I'm Scottish. That don't mean squat to my argument. Whats with this?

...but I did what I had to do in order to come back to my family in one piece

Bullshit. You did what you were told to do. Anyone could do that with the right amount of fear put into them. See how Saddam made his armies.

Watch your spelling and grammar and your arguments may command a little more respect. Makes you look less of an illiterate schoolboy.

Regards,

TNE

Suicide bombings isn't exactly new, it was quite common during WWII..
Against strictly military targets


and I wonder if what Hamas is doing is so evil why the Americans were ok with the French resistance in WWII? Exact same thing.
Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Actually they did... :?

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

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

- Samuel P. Huntington

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

- Samuel P. Huntington

Hmmm, this is an interesting quote, but it seems almost Western-centric in it's world view. Almost as if it's implying that non-Western cultures would be completely pacifist if it weren't for Western thuggery.

Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Actually they did... :?

Did they? I don't recall. To my knowlege, they were mostly doing spying and sabotage for the Allies, and occasionally attacked German soldiers and officials stationed in France as part of the occupation force and administration. The Resistance slaughtering German civilians at random? I'd like to see proof of that.

We wouldn't have to solve these problems now if we hadn't caused most of them. Kicking the palestinians out of their own country, training Osama, selling Saddam weapons, of all kinds, and just generally imposing ourselves on everybody. That said, most of the old colonies have turned out alright, Australia, Canada, India, Hong Kong. Lots of the African and middle Eastern colonies descended to violence, and civil war, but the commonwealth should try and solve that, it's obvious us Western nation don't care.

Kinda off topic... but I just want to say to Salishe... Thanks for serving our country, and you have an ally here.


~THE Peña

America has a right to defend herself.

And her allies.

Suicide bombings isn't exactly new, it was quite common during WWII.. and I wonder if what Hamas is doing is so evil why the Americans were ok with the French resistance in WWII? Exact same thing.

The difference, of course, being that Palestinians consistently attack innocent civilian targets with their bombings, which is the genuine problem with Palestinian tactics, as opposed to the fact that they're suicide bombers. And the American administration during World War 2 is rather different than the contemporary one; different administrations, different policies.

Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Actually they did... :?

Did they? I don't recall. To my knowlege, they were mostly doing spying and sabotage for the Allies, and occasionally attacked German soldiers and officials stationed in France as part of the occupation force and administration. The Resistance slaughtering German civilians at random? I'd like to see proof of that.

Not exactly.. what they did was when a German officer or their ilk would go into a coffee shop or a pub etc.. they would blow the whole thing. Killing all the civilians in the place as well. They never actually went to Germany that I'm aware of, in fact I can say that with some certainty. But they did target civilian targets. Not unlike what Hamas does, they will target a civilian target and kill numbers of innocent Israeli's to get at one solider.. and even per chance that they might hit some one important. Well, the French Resistance employed the same tactics.

The way I see it, We arent being to hard on the Iraqi's. If we went Saddam extremes, the whole country would be one smoking, glowing gassed ridden mess. So what if a few civvies get killed. If they werent turnin g the other way when those so called freedom fighters started shooting at Americans, then they wouldnt get caught in the cross fire when we shoot back. They need to take the self initiative to police their own or we can do it for them. I support Bush because he is alot nicer then I would be to any country.

The way I see it, We arent being to hard on the Iraqi's. If we went Saddam extremes, the whole country would be one smoking, glowing gassed ridden mess. So what if a few civvies get killed. If they werent turnin g the other way when those so called freedom fighters started shooting at Americans, then they wouldnt get caught in the cross fire when we shoot back. They need to take the self initiative to police their own or we can do it for them. I support Bush because he is alot nicer then I would be to any country.

Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Actually they did... :?

Did they? I don't recall. To my knowlege, they were mostly doing spying and sabotage for the Allies, and occasionally attacked German soldiers and officials stationed in France as part of the occupation force and administration. The Resistance slaughtering German civilians at random? I'd like to see proof of that.

Not exactly.. what they did was when a German officer or their ilk would go into a coffee shop or a pub etc.. they would blow the whole thing. Killing all the civilians in the place as well. They never actually went to Germany that I'm aware of, in fact I can say that with some certainty. But they did target civilian targets. Not unlike what Hamas does, they will target a civilian target and kill numbers of innocent Israeli's to get at one solider.. and even per chance that they might hit some one important. Well, the French Resistance employed the same tactics.

Ehh nope nope nope!

Security guards are different from the IDF. The pizza bombing, the disco bombing, and many of the bus attacks didn't have any military targets on/in them.

The Bombers seem to be going after large kill ratio vs getting a soldier.

The way I see it, We arent being to hard on the Iraqi's. If we went Saddam extremes, the whole country would be one smoking, glowing gassed ridden mess. So what if a few civvies get killed. If they werent turnin g the other way when those so called freedom fighters started shooting at Americans, then they wouldnt get caught in the cross fire when we shoot back. They need to take the self initiative to police their own or we can do it for them. I support Bush because he is alot nicer then I would be to any country.

"So what if a few civvies get killed?" Hmm, I guess one might say the same thing about the whole 9/11 incident.

This, sir, is an appalling attitude.

Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Actually they did... :?

Did they? I don't recall. To my knowlege, they were mostly doing spying and sabotage for the Allies, and occasionally attacked German soldiers and officials stationed in France as part of the occupation force and administration. The Resistance slaughtering German civilians at random? I'd like to see proof of that.

Not exactly.. what they did was when a German officer or their ilk would go into a coffee shop or a pub etc.. they would blow the whole thing. Killing all the civilians in the place as well. They never actually went to Germany that I'm aware of, in fact I can say that with some certainty. But they did target civilian targets. Not unlike what Hamas does, they will target a civilian target and kill numbers of innocent Israeli's to get at one solider.. and even per chance that they might hit some one important. Well, the French Resistance employed the same tactics.
No they did not. Quite a stretch from blowing up an enemy officer while killing a bunch of bystanders to, suppose, blowing up a disco full of teens under 18 (the Dolphinarium massacre, in case you want to look it up, or attacking guests at a birthday party of a 12 year old girl. And do you really believe that by blowing up a bus Hamas hopes to kill a few soldiers rather than inflict maximum civilian fatalities?
Or do you, perhaps, agree with the twisted rationalization some Muslim clerics ascribe to it- that "every enemy child grows up to be a soldier, therefore they are all worthy of death"?

This is where I'm going to leave this discussion.. but not before I say this. We always believe that the tactics employed by the side we are on are in some way excusable and we can always seem to rationalize them as just in our minds. Where as even at times legal tactics from the other side are seen as horrible if they one up our side. We (the west) have not always followed the rules and have committed tons of crimes against human rights and war crimes in other countries. But, it's us. So it some how makes it ok. After all we are protecting in our minds some how our way of life. So any thing goes. We tell ourselves that our armies and politicians don't sink to the levels as the other side. The reality is they do. They have and they still continue to. We all want *our* side to win and be just. We don't want to think that perhaps we have resorted to the tactics of the other side. That some how the other side is evil and wrong. Yet, the other side feels the exact same way about us. To truly be unbiased you must realize this. Other wise you're living in a fantasy. If you think only the "other" side lies and kills innocent people you're wrong.

I enjoy my western style life that I was born into. In fact I think myself quite lucky. However, I have never I don't think been so naive to believe we have not done and do some rather evil things of our own in the name of that we hold dear. Just remember that. The other side feels the same way. Perhaps they're just more honest about it.

I'm done. /end rant.

This is where I'm going to leave this discussion.. but not before I say this. We always believe that the tactics employed by the side we are on are in some way excusable and we can always seem to rationalize them as just in our minds. Where as even at times legal tactics from the other side are seen as horrible if they one up our side. We (the west) have not always followed the rules and have committed tons of crimes against human rights and war crimes in other countries. But, it's us. So it some how makes it ok. After all we are protecting in our minds some how our way of life. So any thing goes. We tell ourselves that our armies and politicians don't sink to the levels as the other side. The reality is they do. They have and they still continue to. We all want *our* side to win and be just. We don't want to think that perhaps we have resorted to the tactics of the other side. That some how the other side is evil and wrong. Yet, the other side feels the exact same way about us. To truly be unbiased you must realize this. Other wise you're living in a fantasy. If you think only the "other" side lies and kills innocent people you're wrong.

I enjoy my western style life that I was born into. In fact I think myself quite lucky. However, I have never I don't think been so naive to believe we have not done and do some rather evil things of our own in the name of that we hold dear. Just remember that. The other side feels the same way. Perhaps they're just more honest about it.

I'm done. /end rant.

:?

Ah Womblingdon? Is this a "You obviously don't get it so I am not going to discuss it further?

:? :? :? :? :? :?: :?:
-----
Sorry hit the wrong key.

Ahm Steph

That seems to be an oversimplification of the whole process.

You said Suicide bombings is not new and was evident in WWII. By that I am guessing you mean the Kamikazi which is hardly the same. The Kamikazi was a warrior going to end his life trying to kill other warriors. The suicide bombers usually target non-warriors.

To simply suggest that "we" can't "judge" because we used similar or other bad tactics is well wrong.

Such though of acceptance would only lead to worst things. It is easy to judge past events. However, that ability is where we are supposed to "learn" and become better people.

Maybe the Muslim world has many problems because they can't accept the past and move on. They still get very upset over the Crusades even though they were 800 years ago. A rather simplistic statement I know because a people can't be defined so simply.

"To truly be unbiased you must realize this. Other wise you're living in a fantasy. If you think only the "other" side lies and kills innocent people you're wrong."

But there is the intent of the actions that must be weighed. If US soldiers go in and simply mow down anybody they see. Women, Childern, people trying to surrender. Then they must be punished.

The fact that civilians die in a major firefight does not justify the suicide bomber looking around for the greatest amount of noncombatants to kill.

A trained soldier of any nation will usually try to minimalise civilian causalties.

"I enjoy my western style life that I was born into. In fact I think myself quite lucky. However, I have never I don't think been so naive to believe we have not done and do some rather evil things of our own in the name of that we hold dear."

I knew you Canadians were evil! :P

"Just remember that. The other side feels the same way. Perhaps they're just more honest about it."

Nahhh it's a differnce between were life is heavily valued in lands were life is cheap.

Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Actually they did... :?

Did they? I don't recall. To my knowlege, they were mostly doing spying and sabotage for the Allies, and occasionally attacked German soldiers and officials stationed in France as part of the occupation force and administration. The Resistance slaughtering German civilians at random? I'd like to see proof of that.

Not exactly.. what they did was when a German officer or their ilk would go into a coffee shop or a pub etc.. they would blow the whole thing. Killing all the civilians in the place as well. They never actually went to Germany that I'm aware of, in fact I can say that with some certainty. But they did target civilian targets. Not unlike what Hamas does, they will target a civilian target and kill numbers of innocent Israeli's to get at one solider.. and even per chance that they might hit some one important. Well, the French Resistance employed the same tactics.

Dude, you just pointed out that the French occasionally targetted German officers in places where they knew there would be civilian casualties. You then pointed out that Hamas consistently and deliberately targets civilians, and then claimed they were the same tactics.

There's rather a large disparagy between the two. The former aims at taking out military targets, the latter aims at innocent people.

No, it's not, especially since Womblingdon didn't say it.
Anyway, it's fairly certifiable fact.
Just consider, as a loose example, submarine tactics in WW1 and 2
An enemy submarine attack was cowardly, yet an allied u-boat attack was a brave move by brave soldiers. It's the same thing, but because it was our side, it's ok. It's a loose analogy, but it seems compatable.

First off...US troops are not trigger-happy..and they fire upon receiving fire......

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh God, that's just TOO damn funny! That'll keep me lughing for days..!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

And you can back up any claim that they are trigger-happy eh? It's also an insult to ever member of this forum including me that ever wore or continues to wear a uniform....I seem to recall some despicable antics by Canadian troops in Somalia...of British regiments in Northern Ireland, of French units in Algeria and Vietnam..should I refer to those nation's military servicemembers as trigger happy as well?

Wait...Why should everyone be walking on eggshells around "anyone in the US military", you keep repeating this idiotic mantra.

Is "I've held a big gun in my hands raa raaaaa" all you've got?

Steph, the French resistance did not blow up German civilians in restaurants and pubs, and did not blow up buses in Berlin or Frankfurt. Do you really believe that it is the "exact same thing" as what Hamas does?

Actually they did... :?

Did they? I don't recall. To my knowlege, they were mostly doing spying and sabotage for the Allies, and occasionally attacked German soldiers and officials stationed in France as part of the occupation force and administration. The Resistance slaughtering German civilians at random? I'd like to see proof of that.

Not exactly.. what they did was when a German officer or their ilk would go into a coffee shop or a pub etc.. they would blow the whole thing. Killing all the civilians in the place as well. They never actually went to Germany that I'm aware of, in fact I can say that with some certainty. But they did target civilian targets. Not unlike what Hamas does, they will target a civilian target and kill numbers of innocent Israeli's to get at one solider.. and even per chance that they might hit some one important. Well, the French Resistance employed the same tactics.

Dude,.

Dude, he's a she! :wink:

No, it's not, especially since Womblingdon didn't say it.
Anyway, it's fairly certifiable fact.
Just consider, as a loose example, submarine tactics in WW1 and 2
An enemy submarine attack was cowardly, yet an allied u-boat attack was a brave move by brave soldiers. It's the same thing, but because it was our side, it's ok. It's a loose analogy, but it seems compatable.


Ahh but did they scream cowardice when a cargo ship or a war ship was sunk?

Wasn't that claim usually made when a civilian ship(ww1) went down.

Never mind the fact the Lusitania was transporting ammo but that is a different story.....

Freedom is what you bought to Iraq?

The freedom to watch as trigger happy US soldiers gun down women and children? But its ok if somebody nearby attacked the US first, then it only counts as so-called "collateral" damage.

The freedom for the US to impose a ruler upon them? No you can't vote democratically, this man is now your ruler so shut up or we will arrest you for "Crimes Against Iraq".

The freedom for the US to attempt to arrest a religous leader because he disagrees with them? Whoops he got away, better start the spin machine against him.

The freedom to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it and why they are "lucky" to be able to do it?

How the happy free people of Iraq must be praising God that they are so lucky to have US troops colonise thier country!

The arrogance and stupidity of it all.

Have you ever served in any armed service? Ever been in combat? No? Shut up then. You have ZERO clue what it is like in a combat situtation, whether you are Iraqi, American, British, Polish or Kurd; the final result is that inevitably you will make a mistake and some innocent individual will die. You see shapes moving behind windows, you take a chance? Fire first? No? Moments later it could be you or one of your fellows biting the dust.

The ruling Iraqi Council wasn't elected by the people, but its had a wide range of freedoms and so have the Iraqi people. They've had the freedom to express their frustrations through mass protests...so long as they don't shoot at anyone its fine. Al-Sadr is simply a young cleric going for a power grab, and the rest of the established theological structure disagreed with him.

There are more newspapers available for individuals to read in Iraq. However, when they profess and promote a violent doctrine they are closed down. Why would this be any different from the West?

Fact is the U.S. Marines do fight differently from the other branches and other world forces. They shoot first, act first and overall keep the momentum of any offensive. Their job is to spearhead any advance and they do it better than anyone else in the U.S. Army. You can find trigger-happy soldiers in ANY Army of any country. The Brits have a substantially easier time in Basra then the U.S. has in the Sunni areas.

I wonder what would be people's reaction to Poland's Grom unit which uses far more violent tactics then the Marines in order to complete missions. :?

Fact is the U.S. Marines do fight differently from the other branches and other world forces. They shoot first, act first and overall keep the momentum of any offensive. Their job is to spearhead any advance and they do it better than anyone else in the U.S. Army.

Shame on you! The U.S. Marines are not in the U.S. Army. If they were, they wouldn't be Marines, but soldiers.

To common men, and soldiers like me, the difference may be pure semantics, but not to a Marine. :roll:

Our tactics are light compared to what the Brits did their 100 years ago, and what the French did 50 years ago in Algeria.

Our tactics are light compared to what the Brits did their 100 years ago, and what the French did 50 years ago in Algeria.

Civilised nations don't behave that way anymore, so it's an irrelevant example. There's this thing called progress.

Our tactics are light compared to what the Brits did their 100 years ago, and what the French did 50 years ago in Algeria.

Civilised nations don't behave that way anymore, so it's an irrelevant example. There's this thing called progress.

That claim is invalid until war is invalid.

Thank you for saying there is a difference. We Marines are always willing to make it clear that there is. No offense to the Army or any other branch, its just a trait we have. Like killing any Dang thang that may be a n enemy.

Fact is the U.S. Marines do fight differently from the other branches and other world forces. They shoot first, act first and overall keep the momentum of any offensive. Their job is to spearhead any advance and they do it better than anyone else in the U.S. Army.

Shame on you! The U.S. Marines are not in the U.S. Army. If they were, they wouldn't be Marines, but soldiers.

To common men, and soldiers like me, the difference may be pure semantics, but not to a Marine. :roll:

Yes. Pretty much all enemy u-boat attacks were regarded as cowardly, whether it was against a warship, or a civilian transport.
Allied attacks were always brave and heroic, whether it was military or not.

More info

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/11/wtact11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/11/ixnewstop.html

Is the current insurgency any surprise when Bremners first act as head of Iraq was to fire 400000 soldiers of the Iraqi army, but allow them to keep their weapons?!

The Brits wanted to keep the army, as it was calculated that they would come on-side, but washingtons Neo-con policy was not to employ anyone with links to the Ba'ath party (any civil servant)

The result was 400,000 men who are suddenly unemployed and have guns- and when it became apparent that the occupation no longer had anything to do with Saddam (a year has passed) Well...