NationStates Jolt Archive

danish relief workers working on water purification in afghanistan were bombed by US warplanes, destroying their equipment and camp and injuring at least one worker. the danes will now pull out of the country until their security can be assured. ah yes rebuilding a war ravaged nation and winning over the hearts and minds of the world, that's america.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0831-04.htm

lies! the danes are terrorists, they were poisoning the water with their silly un-american purification system, TERRORISMMMMMM!

:rolleyes:

Hey!

We want to share with everybody!

We can't favor the Candians!

[/sarcasm]

Damn it!

I always knew that the Danes where realy part of the Axis of evil.

Any serious responses?

I bet OBL is hiding in Denmark.

Mind not being so biased and tell us that there is no confirmation whether or not the dead were actually insurgents or not? Who gave the order anyway?

Do you have any info about the incident besides the one common dreams article? Even assuming the article is 100% true and unbiased, it says nothing about the Danes - one relief agency, btw, not Danes as in their army - withdrawing.

The US bombers must have been acting under orders from George Bush becuase those Danes were trying to do some good, unless of course your a Republican, in which case they were acting under orders to bomb the Danes from a letter Kerry wrote in Vietnam while fleeing from combat, so 30 years in the future he could use it against Bush for the Presidency.

Face it people, friendly fire/accidental bombings happen in a warzone, which is what that place still is for a large part. You cannot expect it not to happen, Clausewitz' "Friction of War" means even the best laid plans go awry, occasionally this means friendly fire. It does not mean the US is intentionally bombing Rescue/Relief/Humanitarian workers,

Apparentkly what happens is the insurgents drive into town, fire at U.S. positions in a nearby U.S.-friendly village, and drive away before the U.S. warplanes flatten the village that they were using to fire from.

Obviously our leaders in the theatre are not mentally equipped to deal with this kind of "hearts and minds" warfare.

what i think this article reveals is a genuine flaw in the way the us military conducts its low intensity warfare. when the us military come under, or believes it comes under enemy fire it believes it has the right to level everything in sight. if civilians or allies or anyone else are slaughtered inthe crossfire its completely acceptable.

i don't agree, the american military is the most powerful, best trained military in the world, with the most advanced and accurate weapons. it needs to try to hold itself to a higher standard than the half trained militias they are fighting. we understand that these ragtag bands of fighters often don't understand their weapons very well and have little training. its expected that they can't hit the broadside of a barn with their 60s soviet surplus mortars and rpgs, and are therefore as much of a threat to anyone in the area as they are to their intended targets. the us military is much more than that and they should take care that they get better results. not just in enemies killed, but also in noncombatants spared.

Wow, now they think we're bombing our own allies... next they'll say that Bush is planning to take over the world by making chocolate taste bad and dropping it from a wool covered satellite from space that's controlled by an Irishman...

what i think this article reveals is a genuine flaw in the way the us military conducts its low intensity warfare. when the us military come under, or believes it comes under enemy fire it believes it has the right to level everything in sight. if civilians or allies or anyone else are slaughtered inthe crossfire its completely acceptable.

i don't agree, the american military is the most powerful, best trained military in the world, with the most advanced and accurate weapons. it needs to try to hold itself to a higher standard than the half trained militias they are fighting. we understand that these ragtag bands of fighters often don't understand their weapons very well and have little training. its expected that they can't hit the broadside of a barn with their 60s soviet surplus mortars and rpgs, and are therefore are as much of a threat to anyone in the area as they are to their intended targets. the us military is much more than that and they should take care that they get better results than that. not just in enemies killed, but also in noncombatants spared.

That's all well and good, but you think the MEDIA...of all things...would tell you the more peaceful ways America does things like this? Hell no

OMG! Our military should be ashamed! They injured one man, and then got 7 kids to the hospital after a terrorist blew them up with a grenade.

Think people. As usual, the terrorists cause 90% of the civilian casualties. Why? Because they like to blow things up. The only reason these deaths are even blamed on the US is that the Geneva convention places responsibility on the occupying country to uphold law and order. That doesn't mean we can stop every band of idiots with 25 rockets and enough 'nades to blow up a whole school. So we injured one Danish guy. OK, he'll live and have a good story to tell his grandkids. It's not really a big deal. Friendly fire happens. In fact, it happens much less often in this war than it did it WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Good news, we are getting better. So stop bitching about it constantly.

It's the callious and coldhearted attitides we really hate.

OMG! Our military should be ashamed! They injured one man, and then got 7 kids to the hospital after a terrorist blew them up with a grenade.

Think people. As usual, the terrorists cause 90% of the civilian casualties. Why? Because they like to blow things up. The only reason these deaths are even blamed on the US is that the Geneva convention places responsibility on the occupying country to uphold law and order. That doesn't mean we can stop every band of idiots with 25 rockets and enough 'nades to blow up a whole school. So we injured one Danish guy. OK, he'll live and have a good story to tell his grandkids. It's not really a big deal. Friendly fire happens. In fact, it happens much less often in this war than it did it WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Good news, we are getting better. So stop bitching about it constantly.
in a word "no".

only by bitchin' about in constantly is there hope of continual improvement. silence will only encourage an attitude of acceptance for these preventable errors.

As usual, the terrorists cause 90% of the civilian casualties.
Yeah, those terrorists being the United States military.

Assuming that you mean the Iraqi insurgents, (Which, in essence, is an incorrect term. They are not revolting against a government, they are revolting against an occupation.) that is a completely bogus number.

"Shock and Awe" anyone?

ah yes rebuilding a war ravaged nation and winning over the hearts and minds of the world, that's america.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0831-04.htm
ah, yes spewing snide remarks about the country responsible for your nations continued existence, that pathetic.

Yeah, those terrorists being the United States military.

Assuming that you mean the Iraqi insurgents, (Which, in essence, is an incorrect term. They are not revolting against a government, they are revolting against an occupation.) that is a completely bogus number.

"Shock and Awe" anyone?
Shock and Awe was in Iraq, not Afghanistan. So if you're going to include that, yeah, you should also include the Iraqi insurgents.

ah, yes spewing snide remarks about the country responsible for your nations continued existence, that pathetic.

my nation's continued existence? i don't recall ever claiming to be a national of any country, but i suppose a careful reading of my posts would reveal a high likelihood that my snide comments are actually directed toward my own nation.

Shock and Awe was in Iraq, not Afghanistan. So if you're going to include that, yeah, you should also include the Iraqi insurgents.

Yes, but I reiterate, the so-called insurgents in Iraq are not technically insurgents.

Anyway, the majority of terrorism in Iraq was funded by Reagan when he paid them millions to get rid of the poppy feilds.

And speaking to the Afghanistan of today, most attacks are against military targets, attacks against military targets are not "terrorism."

Yes, but I reiterate, the so-called insurgents in Iraq are not technically insurgents.

Anyway, the majority of terrorism in Iraq was funded by Reagan when he paid them millions to get rid of the poppy feilds.

And speaking to the Afghanistan of today, most attacks are against military targets, attacks against military targets are not "terrorism."
I think your getting Iraq and Afghanistan confused. There are none (or are a very small amount) of poppy fields in Iraq, they're mostly in Afghanistan - where, when Reagan was president, the pressing concern wasn't poppy eradication, it was pushing back the Soviets.

my nation's continued existence? i don't recall ever claiming to be a national of any country, but i suppose a careful reading of my posts would reveal a high likelihood that my snide comments are actually directed toward my own nation.
Whatever dirtpit spawned you, it owes its continued existence to the United States of America, and if you are a United States citizen, then you are a sad little needy person who needs to run home and ask mommy and daddy to tell you they love you.

I think your getting Iraq and Afghanistan confused.
Ah, no, I appologize. I see that I put "Iraq" instead of Afghanistan. Purely accidental, I'll be more careful in the future. Anyway,

There are none (or are a very small amount) of poppy fields in Iraq, they're mostly in Afghanistan - where, when Reagan was president, the pressing concern wasn't poppy eradication, it was pushing back the Soviets.
Reagan did indeed pay a lot to drive the Soviets out, but he also paid (or had the tax payers pay) huge sums of money for removing poppy fields. Just among the many reasons why national debt was so high.

ah, yes spewing snide remarks about the country responsible for your nations continued existence, that pathetic.
*stomps foot* I hate being left out of the loop! So where do the Red Guard Revisionists hail from?
You gotta admit, though, that that whole exit strategy thing looks pretty bleak by now, even to a poster in the US...
BTW, I hope the Dane is going to be ok. All the ones I know are wonderful people.

Whatever dirtpit spawned you, it owes its continued existence to the United States of America, and if you are a United States citizen, then you are a sad little needy person who needs to run home and ask mommy and daddy to tell you they love you.


now you're just flaming...

fires ignore cannons at friends of bill being careful not to inadvertantly ignore any innocent bystanders. :gundge:

Whatever dirtpit spawned you, it owes its continued existence to the United States of America, and if you are a United States citizen, then you are a sad little needy person who needs to run home and ask mommy and daddy to tell you they love you.

Who owns anything to the United States of America? Whatever we have, we owe it to the empovrished third world nations that create our products and drive our economy.

Yeah, those terrorists being the United States military.

Assuming that you mean the Iraqi insurgents, (Which, in essence, is an incorrect term. They are not revolting against a government, they are revolting against an occupation.) that is a completely bogus number.

"Shock and Awe" anyone?

Why would you assume he means the iraqi insurgents when the article was obviously about Afghanistan?

Whatever dirtpit spawned you, it owes its continued existence to the United States of America, and if you are a United States citizen, then you are a sad little needy person who needs to run home and ask mommy and daddy to tell you they love you.

...and the United States of America owes its continued existence to: France.

Whatever dirtpit spawned you, it owes its continued existence to the United States of America, and if you are a United States citizen, then you are a sad little needy person who needs to run home and ask mommy and daddy to tell you they love you.


Frankly, it takes courage to stand up for your country, but it takes more to be able to recognize and point out its faults, man. By recognizing the faults in the system it allows for us to fix them so don't insult someone for pointing it out, you nationalistic judging ass. and secondly there are countries that don't owe their existence to the US. Actually many owe their existence to the British and French empires when they were still in existence. no offense meant, but WW2 was the last war the US actually faught that was beneficial for almost all other countries. Most of the other battles were for the US's benefit. Yeah, some countries do owe their continued existence to the United States, but that does not mean you can go out and spout your greatness and judge others that you don't know. and before you come on these forums, maybe you should try and get your facts straight first!

Canadians, Danes. We should all pull out of Afghanistan. Waste of taxpayers money.

If the US military had truely been indescriminate in its bombing there wouldn't be a village left. The very fact that only seven people were injured rather than the entire town killed shows the military's care.
The same argument holds in Iraq. Do you really think Fallujah or Sadr City or Najaf would still be standing if the US military wasn't careful?