PDA

View Full Version : America Strikes Again


Clem
03-23-2003, 08:13 AM
right i know this will get locked prolly cos of angry replies

but its really pissed me off

america has struck again

theyve shot down 1 of our tornados with a patriot missile

well done

great to be fighting with you :mad:

Rumor
03-23-2003, 08:17 AM
LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British Royal Air Force aircraft returning from a mission in Iraq was possibly shot down by Patriot missiles near the Kuwaiti border, British and U.S. military officials said Sunday.

A senior Pentagon official confirmed to CNN that a Patriot missile probably shot down the RAF plane.

"Evidence is beginning to come to light that one of our aircraft returning from operations over Iraq last night may have been engaged by a U.S. Patriot missile battery," said Capt. Al Lockwood with the British Royal Air Force in Qatar.

"The evidence is begging to appear that this very well may have been a friendly fire incident."

"The crew of the aircraft is missing," a British defense ministry statement said.

he was coming FROM iraqi airspace. the thing about the diff countries is that they don't always tell each other where they are operating and when.

you can't just go off lambasting us because of crap like this. if i'm not mistaken, it could very well have been the other way around, but you have very few missile batteries commited to this. if it weren't for america, you would not have freedom. this is what ticks me off. ungratefull people who can't see that we are protecting THEM, weather they like it or not. did your country get struck by terrorists of husseins breed? no.

Clem
03-23-2003, 08:20 AM
its still a british plane

it has RAF markings on it

i dunno but i dont think iraq has even got ne tornados

Rumor
03-23-2003, 08:25 AM
the markings you speak of are to identify the plane to OTHER aircraft or groundcrews when its on the ground. try seeing them, along with the make and model on a radarscreen why don't you, or even when ur lookin at it from 20,000 feet below. don't forget this is at night. good luck in your spotting.

they would really be safe transmitting their make, model, and country of origin all over the place while flying over enemy territory. this would sure make them harder to spot by the enemy

well i have breakfast to attend to, then a funeral. i'll get back to you later on today (unless i find some more free time this morning)

Clem
03-23-2003, 08:47 AM
well if u desgin systems to hit something moving that fast at that altitude

maybe u should design a system to tell what it is ur shooting:mad:

Luc Solar
03-23-2003, 08:48 AM
Also:

12 wounded and 1 killed because a US elite has thrown granades into 3 tents where fellow soldiers were sleeping.

They said this (black?) ISLAMIC guy had been acting strange lately...

Question: what was this (obivously) religious fanatic doing there in the first place??? :confused:

Clem
03-23-2003, 08:51 AM
i heard there were 3 cases involving brits recently (including the falling helicopter) and theres this case luc is bringing up

and there must be more unreported cases

this worries me .... it worries me greatly

maybe we should paint the british planes glow in the dark green ... we'd be safer with the iraqis seeing us than the americans not seeing us

^_-
03-23-2003, 12:45 PM
thing is. america does not make racial discrimination in the armed forces. get over yourselves.

it is done by both countries.

it is not something either are proud of.


i urge you both to get ALL the facts before you begin to post political propoganda, made up by anyone.

yes we hit our own people sometimes

does saddam care if he kills a few thousand of his people? no, he actively MURDERS them.

El Sitherino
03-23-2003, 01:00 PM
[Edit: Please keep flames to yourself thank you. ]

El Sitherino
03-23-2003, 01:01 PM
oh by the way i have a friend there and he told me about that.

Zodiac
03-23-2003, 01:19 PM
Well.. I don't know if you've read the 'Bombing Iraq' post, but Clem really does have a good point when he addresses the big problem of friendly fire.

=============================================
In 1991's Gulf War, 49% (!!!) of all the casualties on the coalition's side were caused by friendly fire.

The units back then in the deserts of Kuwait were so afraid of getting hit by their own tanks and planes, that they actually didn't care anymore about camouflage and they spanned large robes of fluorizing orange plastic on the top of their vehicles. But even that was no insurance for not getting hit by your own troops.

The only British ground units killed in the Gulf War were the 9 men in Warrior armored combat vehicles, which were fired upon and hit by an American airplane. The pilot mistook them for Iraqi tanks.

Friendly fire, a big euphemism for getting killed by your own troops, has been a big problem since the Vietnam conflict, where 39% of all American casualties were caused by friendly fire. That is a total of 23.000 of the 58.299 men and women who were killed back then.

The first American casualty in Afghanistan was also caused by friendly fire. Stanley Harriman was killed on march 2nd 2002 by his own troops. The US government initially acted like it usually does: by denying the whole 'incident', but the truth came out after Harriman's upset military friends stepped to the media.

The American War Library, a constitution of 'veterans for veterans', has been doing research since 1988 about incidents where American soldiers were killed by friendly fire. New incidents from the past are reported weekly. Shocking is that not all incidents are a real accident.

It is known that American pilots get Dexedrine, also known as "go-for-it-pills", to make them feel less tired. Those pills can influence their ability to judge a tough situation and are most likely the cause of the incident in Iraq in 1994 where two American Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by two American F-15s. 26 men lost their lives that day. It's a weird accident, because every pilot recognizes a Black Hawk helicopter and it is well known that Iraq does not have those kind of choppers.

Over the last decade, billions have been invested in the development of these so called precision bombs. Unfortunately, not much has been done for the recognition of the own troops. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, a well respected British magazin specialized in military issues, the equipment to distinguish the own troops from enemy troops aren't much different than they were in 1991.

Friendly fire has been a problem for all armies, from the UN armies to the Israelian army and the Russian strike force. But the US and the UK are the nations with most losses by friendly fire. Washington has been more open about friendly fire incidents over the last couple of years, but that's only because of the pressure made by the American War Library.

The biggest friendly fire incident occured on Hill 282 in Korea, in 1950. Washington has made the information public that 150 British sholdiers of the 1st of Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders died on that hill, because American commanders didn't believe the hill was already taken by the British.... and although Washington's made it public, London still denies it ever happened....


============================================
]This is a translation of an article in the Algemeen Dagblad, the biggest and one of the most respected newspapers in the Netherlands. This isn't anti-war-propaganda btw, since the majority of the people here in Holland actually support the war and the government itself has chosen to politically support this war. It's just an objective article to remind us that friendly fire has been and still is a problem in current warfare.
source=
http://www.ad.nl/artikelen/NieuwsIrak/1048227685494.html
registration is free

Clem
03-23-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by ^_-
thing is. america does not make racial discrimination in the armed forces. get over yourselves.

it is done by both countries.

it is not something either are proud of.


i urge you both to get ALL the facts before you begin to post political propoganda, made up by anyone.

yes we hit our own people sometimes

does saddam care if he kills a few thousand of his people? no, he actively MURDERS them.

errrr luc wasnt comment on the islamic/black guy ... he was complaining about the fanatic that bombed him and 12 others!!

Zodiac
03-23-2003, 01:27 PM
Don't get me wrong btw, I am pro war. I think disarming Saddam could've been achieved without a war, but this war's necessary to destabalize Saddam's regime to built up a new one. And yes, after this war I'm pro any future wars against other authorative regimes, even with Saudi Arabia although that nation is an ally of the US.

I'm just here to remind everyone that 'friendly fire' is a big problem in current warfare.

El Sitherino
03-23-2003, 01:40 PM
most of those friendly fire casualties weren't accidents either. my uncle was ordered to fire on his fellow soldiers during the gulf war when they were stuck in a mine field.

ET Warrior
03-23-2003, 02:50 PM
And I'm glad to hear you complain to me about what the US soldiers are doing over in the middle east.....because, you know, I have a lot of control over them.....
Yes, friendly fire is a problem, but i'll bet we're not the only country that has this problem, I'm sure that the British will accidentally shoot down a US plane, or shoot some US soldiers, it happens, the entire purpose of camoflage (sp?) is so that NOBODY can detect you. If we could tell that the plane up there was an ally, then so could Iraq.

If the plane WOULD have been Iraq's and we would have let it go because it may have been British, and then a British camp got the crap bombed out of it, you would be all over us for that *sigh* I'm all against this war, but your country chose to join us in our little vendetta, and so your country needs to deal with the consequences.

Clem
03-23-2003, 03:04 PM
ooh now theyve dropped a bomb in turkey!

fortunately it hasnt hit ne1 by the sounds of it

doesnt look good for ur flying rights

and no my country hasnt chosen to join america ... tony blair has

the country is split 50-50 afaik

ET Warrior
03-23-2003, 03:15 PM
And my country is split like, 52 to 48, but you seem to condemn all of us for this war.

Luc Solar
03-23-2003, 03:36 PM
I heard they have some sort of code on all planes. The code is changed every 13 minutes and if you forget to do that...bad stuff might happen.

I have no idea how these codes are used to identify planes, but...who cares.

USA has also fired a few missiles on Iran's ground. Oopsie...?

According to recent polls, only 15% of us Finns think this war is justified. :(

Hekx
03-23-2003, 03:42 PM
I also heard that the ship indentification systems in place for UK and the US maybe incompatible.

It seemed the systems were down a lot longer, so the rocket thought it indentified the target as a missle coming towards the ships location.

Hopefully they'll be less friendly fire incidents this time around. I hope this doesn't turn out to be WWIII.
But I believe Saddam does need to be unarmed.

Zodiac
03-23-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
If the plane WOULD have been Iraq's and we would have let it go because it may have been British, and then a British camp got the crap bombed out of it, you would be all over us for that *sigh*
Well.. that couldn't happen, since Iraq doesn't have an airforce anymore. The small airforce they possibly had, has been disabled 2 days ago.

Recent news has informed us that most patriots are not manually fired, they are programmed and are working automatically, because the airspace above Iraq's really crowded. The reason it shot down a British airplane is most likely a programming failure....
and everybody's talking about 'smart' bombs? :confused:

Zodiac
03-23-2003, 03:46 PM
lol we all made posts with almost the same general info at almost the same time. :p

C'jais
03-23-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Zodiac
Don't get me wrong btw, I am pro war. I think disarming Saddam could've been achieved without a war, but this war's necessary to destabalize Saddam's regime to built up a new one.

That's not entirely true. USA plans to remove Saddam from power and insert a new "US-friendly" leader in his place. However, it's gonna be destabilized once Saddam is gone - as there's no "Iraqi people" to speak of, he's the only one holding together all the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis together into one nation.

Once this war is over, hell will truly break loose. Who's gonna go grab all that oil? Which terrorist faction is going to assassinate the new leader allied with USA? Who's gonna hate USA more than ever for securing yet another market? It's alright that the US don't expect other nations to assist them in their war, but once it's over, it's suddenly a UN matter to rebuild the havoc they've caused? Way to f*cking go.

And yes, after this war I'm pro any future wars against other authorative regimes, even with Saudi Arabia although that nation is an ally of the US.

And N. Korea, except they have a few thousand guns trained at Seoul, nukes and an inhospitable terrain and mentality towards the US. Once a few nukes start popping on the west coast, hell will erupt.

No really, do you expect USA to go on a crusade and remove every single tyrant? Hell no. This war is so obviously not intended to free the people of Iraq. We've all seen how their intervention succeeded in Chile, Nicuragua etc. Does the US have a right to turn other countries into industrialized clones of themself?

And my country is split like, 52 to 48, but you seem to condemn all of us for this war.

According to pro-war rallies, it's 76% support for the war.

According to recent polls, only 15% of us Finns think this war is justified.

On the other hand, this guy:

http://www.tonyhalme.net/galleriasivut/isot/hyppy.jpg

...just got into the finnish parliament by a landslide victory.

I'll be damned once the world starts caring about what happens in Scandinavia.

griff38
03-23-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Clem
well if u desgin systems to hit something moving that fast at that altitude

maybe u should design a system to tell what it is ur shooting:mad:


Coalition aircraft transmitt a code that other coalition forces should be able to detect, generally reffered to as Identify Friend or Foe. IFF.

And it was an anti balistic Patriot missle that shot down the British Tornado, which the Iraqis do not have.

Clem
03-23-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
And my country is split like, 52 to 48, but you seem to condemn all of us for this war.

dont get me wrong i dont blame the american people ne more than i blame the british people .... i blame our governments!

CagedCrado
03-23-2003, 04:26 PM
Sith that excuse is no good any more, how do you know there wasnt a REASON why they were firing? there most certainly was. Also what proof do you have to show that the commanders knew the troops were friendly? Friendly fire happens in war. Casualties happen in war. Get over it, dont whine. Maybe if the pilot reported in he wouldnve been shot down.

Also nobody cares about scandanavia because your countries have no power.

The US has all of the power, britain has power, and you dont like it, get over it.

C'jais
03-23-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Also nobody cares about scandanavia because your countries have no power.

Not correct.

The little power we have however, have not come into our hands by raping other countries.

The US has all of the power, britain has power, and you dont like it, get over it.

I'm thinking you'd like to see America as the sole nation on earth. All other countries are just "proto-Americans", waiting to be saved, right?

Clem
03-23-2003, 04:35 PM
crado

1 of these days america will piss off china

and i dont wanna be about when that happens

Zodiac
03-23-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
That's not entirely true. USA plans to remove Saddam from power and insert a new "US-friendly" leader in his place. However, it's gonna be destabilized once Saddam is gone - as there's no "Iraqi people" to speak, he's the only one holding together all the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis together into one nation.

Once this war is over, hell will truly break loose. Who's gonna go grab all that oil? Which terrorist faction is going to assassinate the new leader allied with USA? Who's gonna hate USA more than ever for securing yet another market? It's alright that the US don't expect other nations to assist them in their war, but once it's over, it's suddenly a UN matter to rebuild the havoc they've caused? Way to f*cking go.

Good points. It is true that Iraq is divided into several ethnic groups that really don't get along. I'm just a bit more optimistich in the Iraqi situation after the war. I hope it does go without too much trouble.

Of course, I know there's a big chance it won't be that easy and there'll be a lot of problems in rebuilding Iraq :( I'm just crossing my fingers here for a positive outcome... I don't know if I'm being realistic, but I sure hope I am, because the situation after the war could be even worse than the situation before the war. :(



And N. Korea, except they have a few thousand guns trained at Seoul, nukes and an inhospitable terrain and mentality towards the US. Once a few nukes start popping on the west coast, hell will erupt.

No really, do you expect USA to go on a crusade and remove every single tyrant? Hell no.
Hmmm.. it would be really hypocrit to address the humanitary issues surrounding Iraq as a reason to invade Iraq, but not do the same with other countries. I don't think the US and the UK are that hypocrit. Why wouldn't they invade other nations with almost identical evil regimes? Are the Iraqi people more special to 'free' them, and then ignore other nations because they're not special? Of course not. Other nations, like Saudi Arabia or several other countries in Africa, like Congo, have just as evil and corrupt regimes as Iraq. It'd be hypocrit to just stop after Iraq. The biggest reason for going to war would be one big joke if we'd stop.

CagedCrado
03-23-2003, 04:40 PM
China cant invade the united states, atleast not yet.... Id like to see them attempt to invade the united states.... a bunch of boats buringing out in the ocean, a bunch of blown up and shot chinese, itd be an ugly war.

The US didnt 'rape' other countries to get power, we havent gotten any power from 'raping' Isnt scandanavia where the vikings were from? If the US got power from raping other countries, wed control all of europe now, similar to what the soviets did after ww2. Face it, the US isnt that bad, you owe us a LOT for your liberation (billions of dollars for ww2, stopping the USSR, fighting wars while you dont have to) You can dislike war, but dont take your agression out on the US because that is low and pathetic and will only piss people off. People not supporting this war piss me off enough.

And most americans feel the same way. Verbally attacking the US because we dont have our lips on your ass is immature and naive. You dont need to support war but dont attack the US.

The reason we invaded Iraq is because saddam plays games with the UN and US, iand those other dictators will have their day as well.

Luc Solar
03-23-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
On the other hand, this guy:

http://www.tonyhalme.net/galleriasivut/isot/hyppy.jpg
...just got into the finnish parliament by a landslide victory.


Ooof...thanks for bringing that up, C'jais. :o

It seems he has his own website too:

http://www.tonyhalme.net/

LMAO! Check out the site! (click on "SISÄÄN" to enter)

Oh my dear god! We're sooo screwed! :D


I'm really waiting forward for the EU budget negotiations where Tony Halme sits down with Romano Prodi and Jacques Chirac (sp?) and tells 'em how it's gonna be.

Actually he might be able to talk some sense into Mr Bush as well..?


BTW - did you know this guys was robbed in Brazil (?) a while back? Yeah... if I remember correctly, he got his ear cut off. 9 of the robbers had to be carried to the nearby hospital.

He is a bad-ass, that's for sure. :D ....and orders all his drinks as "triples" too. (Happened to be in the same bar with him once.)

Hekx
03-23-2003, 04:47 PM
:lol:
That site's excellent. :D

What a guy. :p

C'jais
03-23-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Zodiac
Of course, I know there's a big chance it won't be that easy and there'll be a lot of problems in rebuilding Iraq :( I'm just crossing my fingers here for a positive outcome...

I'm crossing my fingers too. May this war be swift and decisive. I'm really hoping Bagdad doesn't turn into another "Black Hawk Down" with thousands of civilian casualties. One thing is desert combat, where the US can pummel the enemy with missiles, artillery and similar big guns. City combat is something entirely else. You can't just indiscriminately pound Bagdad, and by the time they're about to fight, they might just have no guided munitions left.

I don't know if I'm being realistic, but I sure hope I am, because the situation after the war could be even worse than the situation before the war. :(

I don't know if I'm right, but that's my point in a nutshell.

The biggest reason for going to war would be one big joke if we'd stop.

Once this war is over, that joke will have been played, and the US will once again look like the greatest tricksters the world have ever seen.

Zodiac
03-23-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Sith that excuse is no good any more, how do you know there wasnt a REASON why they were firing? there most certainly was. Also what proof do you have to show that the commanders knew the troops were friendly? Friendly fire happens in war. Casualties happen in war. Get over it, dont whine. Maybe if the pilot reported in he wouldnve been shot down.

I don't think you see the seriousness of the situation. In current wars there will be casualties yes, but it is horrific to know that a very large percentage of those casualties on allied sides are made by friendly fire! The entire point is that the US and UK government so far hasn't really aknowledged this problem, only pumping billions of dollars into the development of the so called 'smart' bombs, but not into the development of technology to prevent or decrease the increasing problems of friendly fire incidents. The entire irony of this recent incident is that a 'smart' bomb, which was supposed to be 'smart' due to all the billions spent into its development, actually failed and shot down a friendly target.


Also nobody cares about scandanavia because your countries have no power.

The US has all of the power, britain has power, and you dont like it, get over it. [/B]
I can't believe you actually wrote that. You are really referring to a world where the strong countries can do whatever they want to. But that situation would be horrible, because if it really was like that, what would, for example, stop China from invading Taiwan right now, taking the island by force and taking its advantage from the chaos in the middle east? Right now it's the UN's peacekeeping council that's keeping China away from Taiwan. And guess what, Scandinavia is part of that council :). The recent behavior of the US and the UK and those other countries like Spain totally ignored the UN and it's international law and I'm ALL against the way they treated the UN's peacekeeping council. :(

Clem
03-23-2003, 04:56 PM
right ... wanna know why iraq was first?

cos we know they dont have WMD ... otherwise we wouldnt go in so hastily oh and they have lots of oil

n.korea is in a similar situation but we mite piss off china and they might have nukes and they dont have oil afaik

we wont go after israel (who are WORSE than iraq) cos theyre buddies with america .. and they DO have nukes

britain should be going after zimbabwe cos our people are being tortured and killed but theres no oil there either ... and america doesnt wanna do that which seems to dictate our actions nowadays

america should be concentrating on the middle east peace situation

Wacky_Baccy
03-23-2003, 04:59 PM
Posted by C'jais
Not correct.

The little power we have however, have not come into our hands by raping other countries.I'm sure I could find evidence to the contrary somewhere, but it'd take too much effort and there'd be so little of it that I'll concede that point to you :p :D
I'm thinking you'd like to see America as the sole nation on earth. All other countries are just "proto-Americans", waiting to be saved, right? You know, somehow that manages to sound remarkably.. 'religious'.. to me.... *leaves it at that*

Posted by CagedCrado
China cant invade the united states, atleast not yet.... Id like to see them attempt to invade the united states.... a bunch of boats buringing out in the ocean, a bunch of blown up and shot chinese, itd be an ugly war.Why would they bother to invade if it was a war between China and the US? They'd both just use nukes =/

Face it, the US isnt that bad, you owe us a LOT for your liberation (billions of dollars for ww2, stopping the USSR, fighting wars while you dont have to)Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French :)

You can dislike war, but dont take your agression out on the US because that is low and pathetic and will only piss people off.Fair point, but you can't tell people to stop criticising the US if they do so in a civilised manner, without getting aggressive.

The reason we invaded Iraq is because saddam plays games with the UN and US, iand those other dictators will have their day as well.The US has used the UN for its own benefit more than any other country - yes Saddam needs to go, but the way this attempt to remove him has been handled is only going exacerbate problems.
Posted by Luc Solar
I'm really waiting forward for the EU budget negotiations where Tony Halme sits down with Romano Prodi and Jacques Chirac (sp?) and tells 'em how it's gonna be.LOL!

I love it :D

leXX
03-23-2003, 05:02 PM
Buckle your seatbelts Dorothy, this thread is moving to the senate...

C'jais
03-23-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
China cant invade the united states, atleast not yet....

Not yet, no.

However, give them 20 years, a proper government and China will be the greater superpower in the world.

They're 1 billion people dammit - with the right capitalistic government, that population could accomplish that which your nation has only dreamt of.

The US didnt 'rape' other countries to get power we havent gotten any power from 'raping'

Ok, if you say so.

Isnt scandanavia where the vikings were from?

Fair point :D

Yet, that happened over 1000 years ago. Your abusing happened 25 years ago. Subtle difference, I know.

If the US got power from raping other countries, wed control all of europe now, similar to what the soviets did after ww2.

WHAT!?!? :eek:

Face it, the US isnt that bad, you owe us a LOT for your liberation

Please shut up. While it was very generous of you to come to our rescue (even though you didn't gave a sh*t about us until you got attacked yourself), this does not render your country immune to hatred coming from a slightly annoyed UN.

stopping the USSR,

Oh, so you stopped the USSR? That one's new.

I also suspect you think pinko commie bastards are much worse than capitalistic pigs.

You can dislike war, but dont take your agression out on the US because that is low and pathetic and will only piss people off. People not supporting this war piss me off enough.

Of course, whenever we disagree with whatever plan you've made to save a poor country, we're being low and pathetic.

After all, we can't really disagree with your brilliant idea since you saved us in WW2, right?

You dont need to support war but dont attack the US.

But it's okay to attack France and the former Soviet?

The reason we invaded Iraq is because saddam plays games with the UN and US, iand those other dictators will have their day as well.

And Israel does not "play games with the UN" either? They haven't had 30 years to remove their behinds from occupied territory? You haven't vetoed against action towards Israel as the only UN member 38 times?

And when it comes to removing other dictators, please go for Scandinavia's as well. As we all know, every country that doesn't run it hard-line laissez-faire and super-capitalistic is by defination a corrupt regime, right?

Clem
03-23-2003, 05:06 PM
noooooooooooooooooooooo i refuse to have 1 of my threads considered "serious"

"Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French"

wacky u rock :)

CagedCrado
03-23-2003, 05:06 PM
All those little wars were against the soviet union, that means they were good. Aslo the thing with israel is: people in europe are anti semistic (not all of them are, but enough, thats why we made israel to begin with). You dont have the facts because the US actually wants mideast peace, and we believe to arrive at peace we cannot have rouge nations like iraq. Israel is fine, they atleast work with the UN and US for peace. I dont believe the UN is a working entity any more anyway. The entire UN needs to be reworked because:
They cant stop anybody from doing anything without the US
They cant stop even worthless countries like iraq from doing what they want...

anyway thats the situation with the mideast. Taking out saddam hussein will only furtherly stabalize the position.
The US DOES recognize a palestinian nation. Israel doesnt.

The US did stop the soviet union but you became communists anyway... funny world huh? C'jais, you dont speak german right? BTW i dont see the US having overseas territory.... We dont benefit from any of these wars and i just laugh when people think that.

People in europe owe the US for their right to oppose the war. The US used to oppose war before ww1 and ww2 but we learned the hard way that there are wars that need to be fought.

And i will say, i would risk my life to protect this country against communists, terrorists, socialist (for those who think its different from communists), and anybody who opposes because i feel the United States is a great country, a just, and fair country.

PS we should have fought ww2 back in 1933, but thanks to the french and americans ignorance to hitler he grew in power. Same thing is happening in iraq, Saddam has tried atleast 2 times to take over the mideast.

(iran-iraq war, 1991 gulf war)

You entirely mis interpretted my previous post, i was telling you to oppose war but not oppose the US. You cant deny the US is powerful, and that you owe much of your independence to

Renewed ideas of democracy
the cold war
WW2
WW1
Economic advantages
Inventions
etc

The US owes europeans:
Everybody here is from europe for the most part
industrialization
support in wars
being buffers in the cold war
being buffers in wars
and to those that apply support in the new war. (even countries who oppose, but protesters are not thanked in this)

Clem
03-23-2003, 05:10 PM
y cant i argue as well as this

all i can say is

the vikings raped people yes ... but they did it overtly .... its much nicer than the things america does .... also the vikings didnt do it across the whole world

right ... i dunno the exact numbers .... but

iraq has ignored about 15 un thingys over 12 years

israel has ignore over 40 in about 30 yrs!!

but no ... israel is americas buddy ... so we dont do nething about that

Wacky_Baccy
03-23-2003, 05:11 PM
Posted by Clem
right ... wanna know why iraq was first?

cos we know they dont have WMD ... otherwise we wouldnt go in so hastily oh and they have lots of oil

n.korea is in a similar situation but we mite piss off china and they might have nukes and they dont have oil afaikThey do have nukes, and they're maknig more - and their nukes can reach the USA, unlike Saddam's biochemical weaponry, which might get to Israel if it was lucky.

And it's not a war to get hold of Iraq's oil - it's a war to open up that oil, and to make sure it's sold in dollars, rather than in Euros (as it is now in Iraq), so that the US can continue their economic hegemony via the dollar's unique position of being the 'oil currency'.

OPEC as a whole, and specifically Iran, have been seriously considering switching to the Euro for a while now - the US doesn't want that, so a nice US-friendly regime in the region - not to mention a large show of force - is just what they need to discourage OPEC from making that switchover any time soon.

we wont go after israel (who are WORSE than iraq) cos theyre buddies with america .. and they DO have nukesThey're not worse, they're as bad - the Palestinians aren't doing themselves (m)any favours, though... I hope that Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" thing comes off... Although I doubt it will =/

britain should be going after zimbabwe cos our people are being tortured and killed but theres no oil there either ... and america doesnt wanna do that which seems to dictate our actions nowadaysYou have something of a point there... I'll need to think some more about it before addressing it though :p

america should be concentrating on the middle east peace situation Of course they should, but that doesn't mean they will - we did similar things in the past :(

[edit]
Posted by Clem
noooooooooooooooooooooo i refuse to have 1 of my threads considered "serious"

"Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French"

wacky u rock :) Why, thank you, Clem :D

C'jais
03-23-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
All those little wars were against the soviet union, that means they were good.

Why? Explain your case?

Aslo the thing with israel is: people in europe are anti semistic

All-righty then.

You dont have the facts because the US actually wants mideast peace

Then stop supporting Sharon the Bastard. Stop giving him 3 billions in "aid" each year to buy weapons for. Stop using your veto to prevent the UN from taking action against Israel's atrocities.

and we believe to arrive at peace we cannot have rouge nations like iraq.

And what constitutes a "rogue nation"? If it's breaking UN resolutions, making hostile take-over against neighboring states and having WMDs, then Israel would by all rights be a rogue nation as well.

Israel is fine, they atleast work with the UN and US for peace.

Ok.

I wouldn't call dodging resolutions and sanctions for 30 years, "working [i]with[/i", but hey...

[On the UN] They cant stop anybody from doing anything without the US

Oh, I see. Which is pretty much why the US shouldn't be allowed to veto anything in the UN.

They cant stop even worthless countries like iraq from doing what they want...

Nor can we prevent your country from running their own solo-show here. We can't stop you from bribing, bullying and threatening other members to agree with you, either.

anyway thats the situation with the mideast.

Thanks for the heads-up, Captain America.

CagedCrado
03-23-2003, 05:27 PM
Most of the dollars have been paid back? no they havent, but they were spent for the better good.... so it doesnt matter.

Im just saying that weve spent a lot for the better good of europe with little or no spoils besides the liberation of hummanity.

Anything to fight the soviets was worth it. Different times... back then it was us or them, with the soviets wanting world domination.

The US does not benefit from war usually because we give the countries back to the people, and allow them to rule as we keep the peace. We do many times put in pro US leaders, but the people do appreciate being liberated, this is very evident in iraq.

Europe has benefitted from this war, in economy, security, protesters dont understand this, they dont look at the reasons for the war etc. I doubt many of them have seen what saddam has done.

Oh, and we have provided medical attention to iraqis, civilian and military. Its really a wonderful sight to see people who have gained their freedom.

In france, iraq, kuwait, korea, the philipines, the netherlands, norway, and all other countries we have liberated since the 1940s.

You cant see the looks on those peoples faces and tell me that the US is doing them wrong.

Also look what israel goes through, if people were trying to blow me up, id be fighting them too.

And yes, i am Captain America.

Oh and c'jais, you just proved my point, the UN is NOTHING without the US.

Also its not a solo operation,
40 countries supporting
US, British, Australian, Polish, kuwaiti, turkish, kurdish, and iraqi troops are fighting saddam hussein.
Spanish engineers, porteguese, and italian assistance units.
French anti-chemical/biological specialists (39)
Arab countries of Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan (will be a country someday), Armenia, Kazikstan and other former soviet republics support the war,
Theres lots and lots of support there.....

C'jais
03-23-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Wacky_Baccy
You know, somehow that manages to sound remarkably.. 'religious'.. to me.... *leaves it at that*

Actually, I thought it was more intended to convey the idea that the US see themselves as cultural liberators (imperialists in my eyes).

But as we know, that C'jais dude does speak a lot of innuendo, so who knows? ;)

Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French :)

Easy there, fiesty one! I didn't know you had it in you!

And it's not a war to get hold of Iraq's oil - it's a war to open up that oil, and to make sure it's sold in dollars, rather than in Euros (as it is now in Iraq), so that the US can continue their economic hegemony via the dollar's unique position of being the 'oil currency'.

OPEC as a whole, and specifically Iran, have been seriously considering switching to the Euro for a while now - the US doesn't want that, so a nice US-friendly regime in the region - not to mention a large show of force - is just what they need to discourage OPEC from making that switchover any time soon.

You go girl!

*Worships Wacky for a bit*

CagedCrado
03-23-2003, 05:43 PM
Yes the war is partly for oil, and i support that 100%. It is more so because iraq has weapons of mass destruction, illegal missiles, has failed to comply to cease fire for 12 years, and the people of iraq are horribly mistreated.

If i for some reason must fight in a war for the US, I will be proud to fight for US power, oil, liberation of people, to stop terrorism, or any other reason that will force the US to go to war.

People who die in war are heroes, and all of the soldiers who have died thus far, are heros. You cant deny that.

Clem
03-23-2003, 05:45 PM
"Oh and c'jais, you just proved my point, the UN is NOTHING without the US."

thats not a good thing ... thats a BAD thing ... that means america can do what it wants when it wants ... but others can ... sounds a bit like american worldwide domination ... covert style

"Also its not a solo operation,
40 countries supporting
US, British, Australian, Polish, kuwaiti, turkish, kurdish, and iraqi troops are fighting saddam hussein.
Spanish engineers, porteguese, and italian assistance units.
French anti-chemical/biological specialists (39)
Arab countries of Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan (will be a country someday), Armenia, Kazikstan and other former soviet republics support the war,
Theres lots and lots of support there....."

the uk isnt supporting it .. tony is

god knows y the ozzies are in it

most of the smaller countries are bought

turkey doesnt support the war they only let u fly over (tho that might not last long now u dropped a bomb on them!)

and the other countries understand that they cant stop the war now ... so we better keep america in check

C'jais
03-23-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
The US did stop the soviet union but you became communists anyway...

I wasn't aware of that, seeing as I live in Europe, not China or Cuba.

We dont benefit from any of these wars and i just laugh when people think that.

*slight giggling turns into throatbursting laughter*

The US used to oppose war before ww1 and ww2 but we learned the hard way that there are wars that need to be fought.

That's true. Pacifism is not the way to go. We all saw how pacifism got us nowhere in WW2. Very true.

(iran-iraq war, 1991 gulf war)

You might wanna check up on how he got the weapons for those wars, and how practically got permission from the US to start them.

the cold war

We were being taken over by the soviets during the 70's? Whoah.

CagedCrado
03-23-2003, 05:50 PM
No you werent being taken over by the soviets thanks to the US, instead mongolia, armenia, kazakstan, the ukraine, poland, germany, estonia, latvia, bulgaria, macedonia, yugoslavia, greece, afghanistan, korea, and vietnam were being taken over by the soviets or were supported by soviets... theres more than that too. Oh yeah and finland was too.... thats pretty close to you right?

When i say that europe became communists i mean that they became socialists, which to me is communism....

Yes i know the US supported Iraq in the iran-iraq war, but thats because the iranians were terrorists.

Just another example of fighting the soviets into corruption.

Breton
03-23-2003, 05:58 PM
CagedCrado, you admitted that the war is partly for oil. But USA have no right on that oil. That's like robbing a bank and getting away with it because you have more guns than the police.

About Sovjet wanting world domination: Funny.

C'jais
03-23-2003, 06:06 PM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick - you're writing so much Crado! I find it hard to keep up!

Originally posted by CagedCrado
Im just saying that weve spent a lot for the better good of europe with little or no spoils besides the liberation of hummanity.

Liberation of humanity? Do continue.

Also look what israel goes through, if people were trying to blow me up, id be fighting them too.

They could start by getting the f*ck out of areas they aren't supposed to be in.

Oh and c'jais, you just proved my point, the UN is NOTHING without the US.

Why? The rest of the UN seems to be doing fine with their peace keeping missions.

Also its not a solo operation,
40 countries supporting
US, British, Australian, Polish, kuwaiti, turkish, kurdish, and iraqi troops are fighting saddam hussein.
Spanish engineers, porteguese, and italian assistance units.
French anti-chemical/biological specialists (39)
Arab countries of Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan (will be a country someday), Armenia, Kazikstan and other former soviet republics support the war,
Theres lots and lots of support there.....

You forgot my country. Denmark is sending a submarine and a warship down there. You may stop hating me now.

ZBomber
03-23-2003, 06:21 PM
They could start by getting the f*ck out of areas they aren't supposed to be in.

I may be wrong, but wasn't that their land in the first place? And isn't it their holy land?

Edit - Wow, the thiongs Denmark sent are really gonna make a difference. :rolleyes:

Tyrion
03-23-2003, 07:13 PM
It wasnt thier land,so to speak. The US gave it thier land(abliet, they did live in it before the country was taken by the Romans).

Any,Caged Crado, you speak almost like if civilians are worthless. Like you think that Denmark(or Finland) should be taken over or left to rot because they have no military power,but they still have actual living people,dont they?

And uh,in a way, it IS good that Denmark are only sending a submarine and a warship. The rest of the money they have must be sent to something else,right? I mean, look, at the first initial attack on Iraq, the US sent 36! Tomahawk missles. Each Tomahawk missle is worth roughly a million dollars(that's what CNN said,anyway) so that's 36 million dollars on a small initial attack. You know what that money could do? It could give almost all the schools in,at the very least, the pacific coast, ample supplies and good payment for teachers and better school buildings. My school needs money, it barely has enough to print out needed materials(no paper for school-rooms, only the office has some) but instead it's put to designing and making MOAB.

El Sitherino
03-23-2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Sith that excuse is no good any more, how do you know there wasnt a REASON why they were firing? there most certainly was. Also what proof do you have to show that the commanders knew the troops were friendly? Friendly fire happens in war. Casualties happen in war. Get over it, dont whine. Maybe if the pilot reported in he wouldnve been shot down.

Also nobody cares about scandanavia because your countries have no power.

The US has all of the power, britain has power, and you dont like it, get over it. they knew they were friendly. you are an ass i seriously think you have issues they told my uncle to have his troop fire on the friendly troop. it was a U.S. troop and my uncle knew that and he had decided to disobey that order he was almost dishonorably discharge until the leading officer giving that order admited his judgment was hasty but it was also supported by president Bush (Sr.)

El Sitherino
03-23-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Clem
crado

1 of these days america will piss off china

and i dont wanna be about when that happens I hope I'm living in Japan before that happens.

Agen
03-23-2003, 08:14 PM
Honestly, there was other ways of disarming saddam but america had to be contrary and go for the war that everyone knew would happen 2 months before, cos they already decided this war was going to happen well before they poured troops into iraq. After this is over the chances are america & britain will have a hard time trying to clean this up.

El Sitherino
03-23-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by ZBomber
I may be wrong, but wasn't that their land in the first place? And isn't it their holy land?

Edit - Wow, the thiongs Denmark sent are really gonna make a difference. :rolleyes: actually it first belonged to the muslims.

El Sitherino
03-23-2003, 08:37 PM
i kinda hope a nuclear war occurs just so bush realizes hes an ass. I know it sounds mean but damn people are so stupid these days.

Eldritch
03-23-2003, 09:26 PM
I don't want to get into all the politics behind each nation's decision to be involved or not in the war, I just want to state a few points.

1. Do I think that the US is using it's power as leverage to get other countries to contribute? Yes. Is it right? No.

2. Is it apparent that France and Russia sold jamming technology (and other items that Iraq was not supposed to have) during the embargo over the last 12 years? Yes.

3. Is it wrong to go to war over a nation of oppressed people (and more importantly, their oil)? Yes.

4. Was there another way to remove Saddam from Iraq? My answer is no. The US and the UN tried peacefully for 12 years. He's not leaving, except through death. I don't see another alternative, but I'm open to any suggestions.

5. Is it wrong for the US to display partial treatment to Israel? Absolutely. I don't know what's so special about Israel, but I suspect it has something to do with the large amount of Christians in our country. Israel is a holy land after all, not just for Muslims and Jews but for Christians as well. Perhaps that's why.

Zodiac
03-23-2003, 10:21 PM
I think US is so pro-israel, because Bush has a big Jewish lobby behind him.

And I'm pretty embarrased about Crago.. he comes up with really poor arguments and for example thinks of socialists and communists in the same way. :eek: How can you NOT know the difference between socialism and communism. :confused: And if you do know the difference, how can you even think of them in the same way.

He also mentions absurd things that France is ruled by a dictator, this war being supported more than the first Gulf War and that the war protesters are uneducated, misinformed, naive and have no real reason to protest it.
Now I am for this war, but stating that everyone who's against it has no reason and is misinformed is like putting your head up your butt and not wanting to listen to others. People must realize that their are strong arguments from BOTH sides about this war, and in my case it just happens to go pro-war, but that doesn't mean I can't understand why others are against it! Yes I do have mixed feelings about being for this war, but everybody should have mixed feelings, because only the outcome of this war and the upcoming years of future developments in Iraq will prove who was right and who was wrong. Open your mind, be open for ideas of both sides and you will become less ignorant. Stating stuff like that makes him look like the misinformed one. :(

What also bothers me is that he also referred to WW2, where the US (with the help from other countries, like Canada for example), liberated Europe. Now I am for this war, but bringing up the whole "we liberated you thing" is not relevant at all! Should European nations approve everything from the US, just because they were part of the allied forces that set us free in 1945? No of course not! Doing good back then does NOT necessarily mean you're doing the right thing now!!

Poor argumentation like that almost makes me want to change my mind and become against this war. Thank god I've already heard good arguments to know this war is, in my opinion, the best way to get rid of Saddam's regime. I'm sorry Crago, but I think you should do some more research of why people are against this war, because it looks like you've only concentrated on things that are pro-war.

But anyways.. I haven't heard anyone here of how they'd act to get Saddam out of Iraq. How would you do it? In my opinion, this war is the only way to get rid of Saddam's regime...
How would the anti-war people do it? Talk to him about it over breakfast?

Wacky_Baccy
03-23-2003, 10:53 PM
Posted by C'jais
Actually, I thought it was more intended to convey the idea that the US see themselves as cultural liberators (imperialists in my eyes).

But as we know, that C'jais dude does speak a lot of innuendo, so who knows? ;)LOL

I see the things in much the same way - organised religion and the US are just trying to spread their values and perpetuate their hegemony and supremacy... =)

Easy there, fiesty one! I didn't know you had it in you!Well that's hardly surprising since you don't really know much about me at all now, is it? :xp: :D

I shall have to educate you :dev11:

You go girl!Oh, I shall - have no fear :D

*Worships Wacky for a bit*LOL

I think I'll add that to my list of quotes to use one day :xp: :D ;)

Posted by CagedCrado
Most of the dollars have been paid back? no they havent, but they were spent for the better good.... so it doesnt matter.I was speaking form a British perspective, but I'll rephrase what I said - "most of the debt has been repayed"... ;)

Im just saying that weve spent a lot for the better good of europe with little or no spoils besides the liberation of hummanity.Oh really? So preventing a very large fascist bloc emerging over the sea from you (WW2) wasn't in your interests and didn't help you just as much as it did the Europeans?

The US does not benefit from war usually because we give the countries back to the people, and allow them to rule as we keep the peace.Just so long as they don't do anything you don't want them to, yes ;)

We do many times put in pro US leaders, but the people do appreciate being liberated, this is very evident in iraq.Can't really argue with that, except to say that you don't seem to have a particularly good track record in stabilising nations after you've 'liberated' them...

Europe has benefitted from this war, in economy, security, protesters dont understand this, they dont look at the reasons for the war etc. I doubt many of them have seen what saddam has done. Bull.

European economies will not benefit from this war, because all of the reconstruction and oil rights will be (or already have been!) given to US companies, and the contracts that European countries and Russia had with Iraq before will be null and void - a clear detriment to their economies.

As for European security benefitting form the war... How can you say that? Saddam did not pose a threat to any European countries, and this war will only serve to inflame terrorists and encourage them to attack European countries more fervently.

Oh, and we have provided medical attention to iraqis, civilian and military.Any decent human would do that - it's not something special.

Its really a wonderful sight to see people who have gained their freedom.There are many kinds of freedom, and none of us have all of them...

In france, iraq, kuwait, korea, the philipines, the netherlands, norway, and all other countries we have liberated since the 1940s.

You cant see the looks on those peoples faces and tell me that the US is doing them wrong.In removing their oppressors; no. In exploiting them afterwards for the US's sole gain; yes.

Also look what israel goes through, if people were trying to blow me up, id be fighting them too.If people were taking my land and killing my friends and family for no good reason, I'd be fighting them too, although I wouldn't blow myself up, because I believe that is futile and counter-productive.


*goes to reply to all the other posts made since he started this one ages ago and got sidetracked* x.x

ShockV1.89
03-24-2003, 02:14 AM
God, the anti-american sentiment on this board is disgusting... I can understand criticizing american foreign policy. But then flipping out and saying "America is more dangerous than Iraq because they blew up a RAF plane by accident!!!!11 Can they see the markings on the side in their radar in the dark????/" Man, thats a very foolish thing to say...

And then I saw people going on about how America owes France for its independence and existence. Yes, we do. Thank you France. You'll excuse me if I dont kiss your boots, as I wasnt exactly alive back then, and neither were you. I'm not going to kiss up to 300 year old French aristocrats. (and for those of you who will point out the americans yelling about ww2, they shouldnt do that either).

It seems to me that people here are striving to find a reason to bash America, even if it is a stretch. Stop trying so damn hard to find a reason to flame my country! We Americans spend far too much time defending our countries name from angry Europeans (and Canadians) who think they know more about us than we do. I try to brush it off, but I'm simply getting tired of it.

SkinWalker
03-24-2003, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
No you werent being taken over by the soviets thanks to the US, instead mongolia, armenia, kazakstan, the ukraine, poland, germany, estonia, latvia, bulgaria, macedonia, yugoslavia, greece, afghanistan, korea, and vietnam were being taken over by the soviets or were supported by soviets... theres more than that too. Oh yeah and finland was too.... thats pretty close to you right?

Actually, these states were GIVEN to the Soviet Union as part of the agreement that came about during the end of World War II. This was to allow Russia to have a buffer zone that would protect them in the event of another act of aggression by a country such as Germany, which killed about as many Russians as they did Jews until the cold hand of winter gripped them by the bollocks.

So you might say that these countries weren't dominated by the USSR, but rather the "world" governments that chose their fates.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
When i say that europe became communists i mean that they became socialists, which to me is communism....

To very different animals. Unless of course you only acknowledge the few individual characteristics they both share.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
Yes i know the US supported Iraq in the iran-iraq war, but thats because the iranians were terrorists.

And it proved to be a bad investment.

Wacky_Baccy
03-24-2003, 10:58 AM
Posted by ZBomber
Wow, the things Denmark sent are really gonna make a difference. :rolleyes: He was being sarcastic ;)

Posted by CagedCrado
When i say that europe became communists i mean that they became socialists, which to me is communism...Then you have a very perverse view of socialism and/or communism... I'd wager it to be the latter.

Posted by C'jais
That's true. Pacifism is not the way to go. We all saw how pacifism got us nowhere in WW2. Very true.Agreed. =)

We were being taken over by the soviets during the 70's? Whoah.No, we were being taken over by horrific fashion styles and an abundance of multi-coloured plastic furniture :(



:D
Posted by ShockV1.89
God, the anti-american sentiment on this board is disgusting... I can understand criticizing american foreign policy. But then flipping out and saying "America is more dangerous than Iraq because they blew up a RAF plane by accident!!!!11 Can they see the markings on the side in their radar in the dark????/" Man, thats a very foolish thing to say...That was Clem, and, well, it's just the way he is :p

I'm not saying that America (READ: The American Government/Big Corporations - the people with the real power) is more dangerous than Iraq/Saddam because they blew up an RAF plane - I'm saying they're more dangerous because they have FAR more capability than Iraq has EVER had, and now they have the will and seemingly the intent to use that power for whatever reason suits them and their needs, without adequate foresight or regard to and for the global repercussions.

I know that American peole themselves are mostly like the rest of us - a mix of views, some like mine, some not, and I don't blame the people for what the government does, except when they allow it to continue without speaking out against it for fear of being branded 'unpatriotic' or even a 'traitor'.

And then I saw people going on about how America owes France for its independence and existence. Yes, we do. Thank you France. You'll excuse me if I dont kiss your boots, as I wasnt exactly alive back then, and neither were you. I'm not going to kiss up to 300 year old French aristocrats. (and for those of you who will point out the americans yelling about ww2, they shouldnt do that either).Thank you - that was my point entirely :)

It seems to me that people here are striving to find a reason to bash America, even if it is a stretch. Stop trying so damn hard to find a reason to flame my country!I'll quite merrily bash any country with good reason - I've just picked America first since it's the most interesting to scrutinise at the moment, and there is an abundance of intriguing information to dig up about it (:

The other countries will/already have had their day in the spotlight, and your country will be out of it one day (:

By seemingly appointing yourselves the "world's policeman" however, you will draw extra attention and scrutinisation.

We Americans spend far too much time defending our countries name from angry Europeans (and Canadians) who think they know more about us than we do. I try to brush it off, but I'm simply getting tired of it. But why are the Europeans, Canadians, Arabs, et al angry in the first place? Ever stop to consider that? :(

That, I think, is where the main problem lies...

I am not "Anti-American", but I am anti-"big corporations that exploit weak people and their land" - America has more than its fair share of those - and I am anti-"let's bomb the problem until it goes away instead of solving the problem, after we created it ourselves"


Now I'm off to lunch - I hope there will be more replies to dissect and deconstruct peice-by-piece when I get back :):D

ShadowTemplar
03-24-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
The US does not benefit from war usually because we give the countries back to the people, and allow them to rule as we keep the peace.

Oh, that's strictly so-so. In Chile, Nigaragua, and all over the Middle East you didn't. Skinwalker posted a handy reference in another thread, but a quick trip to any decently-stocked library would also turn up juicy stuff...

Oh, and you need to keep in mind that there are two kinds of Imperialism: Formal and Informal.

Formal Imperialism: Go in, kick butt, install governor, rip off country.

Informal Imperialism: Go in, establish trade dominance, defend trade dominance, rip off country.

Have your guess at which one the US is practising.

ShockV1.89
03-24-2003, 12:29 PM
That was Clem, and, well, it's just the way he is

Well, I dont have to like it, or him, for it... :mad:

I'm fed up with everyone bashing America all the time...

But why are the Europeans, Canadians, Arabs, et al angry in the first place? Ever stop to consider that?

I understand if their reasoning is sound. But what Clem said farther up... man, he's just reaching to find a reason to flame America. It's very insulting. Others do it. There was a thread in another forum in which someone said this ... Just heard on the news US and British troops have secured some Iraqi Oil fields. Ahh, how predictable...

It seems very obvious that this person has abandoned reason and any real thinking in favor of rabid anti-american sentiment...

ShadowTemplar
03-24-2003, 12:40 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CagedCrado
When i say that europe became communists i mean that they became socialists, which to me is communism....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two very different animals. Unless of course you only acknowledge the few individual characteristics they both share.

Not so quite different, methinks. Communism is just a more fanatical version of socialism... But Communism has really been redefined by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao... Not that it would work anyway, even if it had been done 'by the book'.

*puts on flame retardant suit*

Luc Solar
03-24-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
No you werent being taken over by the soviets thanks to the US, instead mongolia, armenia....Oh yeah and finland was too.... thats pretty close to you right?

When i say that europe became communists i mean that they became socialists, which to me is communism....


OMG! That's the biggest load of bs yet, CagedCrado! Well done!

Finland was taken over by Soviet? Oh gee, I must have missed that.. :rolleyes:

Our country of 5 million people fought 2 wars against Russia/The Soviet Union and remained independent. We lost 90.000 men, which is only a fraction of what the Soviets lost even though we had virtually no planes, tanks or artillery....something for you to think about when you talk about "American Heroes".

Europe became communist/socialist?! WTF are you talking about? Are you on drugs? Is there a single FACT to be found anywhere in your ranting?

No, we did NOT become communists. Do you even know where or what Europe is? Please get a clue. :mad:

:disaprove

Clem
03-24-2003, 04:32 PM
"What also bothers me is that he also referred to WW2, where the US (with the help from other countries, like Canada for example), liberated Europe."

ur like forgetting that EUROPE FOUGHT FOR THEIR OWN INDEPENDANCE 2!! ... and ozzies and new zealanders i believe ... and prolly others

and we fought for alot longer than the americans

infact the americans didnt care .... till .... (quelle suprise) their port was bombed and it was IN THEIR INTEREST!

oh and im not anti american ... im anti what u do to the world ... the average american is the same as ne other person ... but the prescence america put out into the world (and what an overbearing prescence)

picture this .... a schoolground situation

america is a bully ... a bully that rescues rich kids who pay them

britain is the bullys tiny friend (they all got 1) who does whatever the bully says to do

iraq .... iraq (or saddam) is that wield little kid who likes to torture insects

the terrorists are a combine of people the bully has beaten up in the past ... and are sabotaging his milk

this infuriates the bully ... who strikes out at the picnic table where the terrorists hang out ... ... they scatter .... the bully being large and slow ... (like me :)) doesnt bother to chase them

instead he decides to attack the wierdo ... who on previous occasion hes given pointy sticks to and stood by and watched him gas hundreds of the ants ... cos the wierdo has orange juice ... and boy does the bully get thru alot of that

infact ... the bully refused to sign a whole treaty on reducing the use of orange juice cos we're running out of oranges

ok i cant be arsed to think of ne more of this ... i think my point is gotten across

altho my view may be simplistic ... its on the whole accurate!

griff38
03-24-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Luc Solar
OMG! That's the biggest load of bs yet, CagedCrado! Well done!

Finland was taken over by Soviet? Oh gee, I must have missed that.. :rolleyes:

Our country of 5 million people fought 2 wars against Russia/The Soviet Union and remained independent. We lost 90.000 men, which is only a fraction of what the Soviets lost even though we had virtually no planes, tanks or artillery....something for you to think about when you talk about "American Heroes".

Europe became communist/socialist?! WTF are you talking about? Are you on drugs? Is there a single FACT to be found anywhere in your ranting?

No, we did NOT become communists. Do you even know where or what Europe is? Please get a clue. :mad:

:disaprove

Some of us here in the States are down right pathetic. Many people here really do believe that BS. "WE SAVED YOU EUROPEANERS FROM HITLER AND RUSSIA!! YOU WEAK LIBRALS OWE US EVERYTHING" a quote from a neighbor.

To anyone who believes that, GET AN EDUCATION.

Dudes, there are bars & pubs in Europe that are older and have more history than the U.S.

Stop embarrasing me.

C'jais
03-24-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
I understand if their reasoning is sound. But what Clem said farther up... man, he's just reaching to find a reason to flame America. It's very insulting. Others do it. There was a thread in another forum in which someone said this ...

It seems very obvious that this person has abandoned reason and any real thinking in favor of rabid anti-american sentiment...

I agree with Shock. Sometimes the anti-American feelings run a wee bit too high in here.

It's not reasonable to shift all the blame on US soldiers who are just doing their duty to the best of their ability.

On the other hand, I can agree with Clem, whose country has so far had 1 casualty in combat. The rest have been mid air collisions, friendly anti-air fire and a news reporter shot. When presented like that, it can get a bit demoralizing.

ZBomber
03-24-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Clem
picture this .... a schoolground situation

america is a bully ... a bully that rescues rich kids who pay them

britain is the bullys tiny friend (they all got 1) who does whatever the bully says to do

iraq .... iraq (or saddam) is that wield little kid who likes to torture insects

the terrorists are a combine of people the bully has beaten up in the past ... and are sabotaging his milk

this infuriates the bully ... who strikes out at the picnic table where the terrorists hang out ... ... they scatter .... the bully being large and slow ... (like me :)) doesnt bother to chase them

instead he decides to attack the wierdo ... who on previous occasion hes given pointy sticks to and stood by and watched him gas hundreds of the ants ... cos the wierdo has orange juice ... and boy does the bully get thru alot of that

infact ... the bully refused to sign a whole treaty on reducing the use of orange juice cos we're running out of oranges

ok i cant be arsed to think of ne more of this ... i think my point is gotten across

altho my view may be simplistic ... its on the whole accurate!

:rofl:
Well put, Clem. :)

ZBomber
03-24-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
CagedCrado, you admitted that the war is partly for oil. But USA have no right on that oil. That's like robbing a bank and getting away with it because you have more guns than the police.

About Sovjet wanting world domination: Funny.

Does Saddam have any right to torture, and rape his people?

'ight, heres one thing I don't get....
Saddam cuts off people's ears for rape, YET, he has rape rooms in his palace. :rolleyes:

Luc Solar
03-25-2003, 04:49 AM
iraq .... iraq (or saddam) is that wield little kid who likes to torture insects

LMAO! Good one!


Does Saddam have any right to torture, and rape his people?

Nope. Nobody likes Saddam. But that's not the problem. The problem is starting a war without the permission of the UN and generally just the fact that the USA thinks they can do whatever the hell they want even though the rest of the world would be against it. "We're big and strong so the rules don't apply to us"

According to 30 or so legal experts the attack on Iraq was against international law.

Bush's goverment (not U people) can not
* brake the rules of international law,
* bomb the crap out of countries just because you don't like it's politics or leader,
* appoint a new US-friendly goverment and consultants all over said country to tell local authorities exactly what choices they must make(=what's in the best interest of the USA)

and still be "the good guys" in the eyes of Europe.

I find it disgusting that I am forced to agree with Putin; "The attack on Iraq was a huge political mistake."

Clem
03-25-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
I agree with Shock. Sometimes the anti-American feelings run a wee bit too high in here.

It's not reasonable to shift all the blame on US soldiers who are just doing their duty to the best of their ability.

On the other hand, I can agree with Clem, whose country has so far had 1 casualty in combat. The rest have been mid air collisions, friendly anti-air fire and a news reporter shot. When presented like that, it can get a bit demoralizing.

5 killed in non accidents afaik ... 2 by iraqis ... 2 by an american patriot missile system 1 by "coalition forces" whilst he was in a truck with TV written all over it

ShockV1.89
03-25-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Clem
5 killed in non accidents afaik ... 2 by iraqis ... 2 by an american patriot missile system 1 by "coalition forces" whilst he was in a truck with TV written all over it

*leaves thread in disgust*

ZBomber
03-25-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Luc Solar
* appoint a new US-friendly goverment and consultants all over said country to tell local authorities exactly what choices they must make(=what's in the best interest of the USA)


Well, I think they would like this kind of government better. I mean, its not like we are ruling it. They can choose however they want to be a leader. Saddam just gets peasent woman off the streets and gives um guns, and makes them help his army. :confused:

daring dueler
03-25-2003, 05:06 PM
i agree that they would like a decmocracy, but my fear is some loyalists who are laying low now, what will they do?

ZBomber
03-25-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by daring dueler
i agree that they would like a decmocracy, but my fear is some loyalists who are laying low now, what will they do?

Bah, lets sabe the citizens and blow up Iraq then :p

daring dueler
03-25-2003, 05:26 PM
good idea, only then france might trey and win a war for once.9btw i am half french lol)

ShockV1.89
03-25-2003, 10:29 PM
*pops back into thread*

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1859110.stm

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2447935

Nobody's perfect.

daring dueler
03-25-2003, 10:37 PM
i think everyone in the world knows that noone is perfect, but in war there is a slim margin for mistake.

ShockV1.89
03-25-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by daring dueler
i think everyone in the world knows that noone is perfect

Not really. My post was mainly directed at Clem, who seems to think that the American army is the most incompetent army in the world, and is more dangerous to its allies than its enemys. I'm simply showing him that the British army, which he holds up as the victims of American clumsiness, is very capable of its own friendly fire incidents. Shall they be branded imbeciles as well?

Clem
03-26-2003, 09:53 AM
i was just about to mention the challenger innocent in the interests of fair coverage

but seeing as uve used it to strike against me personally

ill mention the fact that an american missile/bomb (not sure which) hit a market killing an expected 45 innocent iraqis

and that america is the worst for friendly fire incedents

and at least we shoot our own troops n not urs :xp:

ShockV1.89
03-26-2003, 10:09 AM
I didnt want to start a pissing contest. "You're country did this!" "Oh yeah? Your country did this!" You just seemed to be acting as though the American army was incompetent and dangerous to its allies because of these incidents. I'm just showing you that friendly fire happens. It's part of war, and it happens on all sides.

Also, we've also got many, many more troops and equipment in there than Britain does. Naturally, we're going to have more FF incidents.

Clem
03-26-2003, 10:24 AM
i did notice that ur masses of troops are continuing on to be the heroic savious of baghdad while the brits are left to clear up basra

C'jais
03-26-2003, 10:36 AM
Clem, knock it off.

It's no good yelling at Shock as he obivously can't do anything about what his country's military has done.

Guys, every soldier down there is doing his best, but friendly fire happens. Whining about it on this forum is not going to change it.

I hope this war will be over soon.

Clem
03-26-2003, 11:19 AM
a im not YELLING ... and B. he decided to make it personal not me

and i dont believe ive made it personal

SkinWalker
03-26-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Clem
ill mention the fact that an american missile/bomb (not sure which) hit a market killing an expected 45 innocent iraqis

nobody's sure which it was. (bomb, missile, U.S., Iraqi).

In fact, it would not surprise me to discover that Iraqi gov. officials detonated an explosive device in market square.

I ask myself: what time of day do coalition forces bomb Bagdad? What time of day do most people visit their local market?

I give myself two different answers.

griff38
03-26-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
It's okay... nobody's sure which it was. In fact, it would surprise me to discover that Iraqi gov. officials detonated an explosive device in market square.

I ask myself: what time of day do coalition forces bomb Bagdad? What time of day do most people visit their local market?

I give myself two different answers.


Whats ok?

and you said it would suprise you, don't you mean would not suprise you?

And as far as the logic you imply, that coalition forces do not bomb during market shopping hours, BBC says there was a coalition raid going on when the the market was hit.

Mex
03-26-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Clem
a im not YELLING ... and B. he decided to make it personal not me

and i dont believe ive made it personal

A. Use capital letters please.
B. Use one of . <- Them once in a while.
C. This isnt personal, it's a public forum.

Here is a picture to cheer everyone up. :D
http://www.picturehosting.net/image.php?user=H00tenanny&image=H00tenanny-1048274839.jpg

SkinWalker
03-26-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by griff38
Whats ok?

and you said it would suprise you, don't you mean would not suprise you?

I edited... hopefully to correct my typo and eliminate ambiguity. I was talking on the phone at work and typing at the same time.... My computer multi-tasks better than I.

Originally posted by griff38
And as far as the logic you imply, that coalition forces do not bomb during market shopping hours, BBC says there was a coalition raid going on when the the market was hit.

I was operating under the assumption that the market square was in Bagdad proper. I'm not taking sides on the issue, only attempting to discern the event from information available. I, too, caught BBC/World last night. I was under the impression that coalition raids were "on the outskirts" of Bagdad and targeting Rep. Guard positions.

It is equally possible, with that information, that an errant Hellfire from an AH-64 went off target. Down-range in that type of attack would seem to be the city.

I still do not discount Iraqi involvement. It would seem very plausible to me. Follow me for a sec.:

Saddam is smart. A bad guy, but smart.

He knows from experience that his C^3 (command, control, and communication) will be a primary target and swiftly/severely affected.

In planning for U.S. invasion, he would therefore issue contingincy directives to his commanders in the field and at home. We may have seen evidence of this by the Fedayeen forces pretending to give up then ambushing, irregular forces in civilian clothes, burning oil wells, taped broadcasts (I still haven't figured out the significance of Saddam's two broadcasts: one with thick glasses, one without; both reading a speech. Contacts?), etc.

Disinformation and propaganda must also be a part of this. It was for us. Also, Saddam's commanders in the field seem willing to shoot/mortar civilians, so detonating an explosive device in a crowded square would give the civilians of Bagdad a reason to rally behind Saddam as proof that Americans don't care for them.

Or, maybe it was an errant coalition missile. As we start the fighting in Bagdad's urban terrain, casualties are going to rise exponentially. On both sides. Many civilians will be killed as well. "Shock and Awe" will have an unfortunate meaning as Americans become dismayed at the amount of damage our forces sustain.

I hope that somehow we can avoid going into the city to fight. I hope that Rumsfeld figures out that there are not nearly enough ground troops in place and not near enough air support readily available at this time.

griff38
03-26-2003, 04:32 PM
Touche,

Although I believe this particular incident to be from an errant coalition munition I have to agree it would be in keeping with Sadams tactics to kill civilians with stolen, aquired or faked coalition weapons.
The 1rst thought i had after seeing the intact downed Apache was "that thing still has 6 Hellfire missles on the rack!! They could take 1, detonate it in a civilian area and physical evidence would imply coalition responsibility.

But my personal fear is that recently aquired GPS jamming gear in the hands of the Iraqis will be used to "dirty" the flight path of incoming munitions. If an object moving near the speed of sound has it's flight path altered even slightly, this could put it off target by several feet or several miles.

It's clear the Iraqis have placed heavy weapons in or around civilian areas. Altering bomb & missle flight paths only slightly could leave the weapon intact and kill civilians.
Not to mention leaving alot of heavy artillary that could seriously hurt our people.

daring dueler
03-26-2003, 04:46 PM
i do agree with shock, nomatter what casulties of freindly fire and innocents happen in war, and we try our best to prevent them. you cant blame us if our fire hits our own planes or men, i dont see this as rittish and american when i say us i mean both.

Clem
03-26-2003, 05:10 PM
this is purely info not slagging or nething (y i feel the need to say this ... god knows)

america admitted to be bombing subburbs of baghdad at the time the market exploded

daring dueler
03-26-2003, 05:16 PM
no, they are saying we didnt target there, but that a bomb either from iraq or a miss fire did land on the outskirts of the town, but all the bombs we have been dropping are gps guided. so they beleive it was an iraqi anti-airforce gun.

SkinWalker
03-26-2003, 05:28 PM
Or, as Griff pointed out, the GPS jamming gear that Russia alledgedly provided may have interfered with a GPS guided missile from coalition forces.

Clem
03-26-2003, 05:30 PM
hmmm and gps guiding can never go wrong

much like with "friendly fire" ... things CAN ALWAYS go wrong

Zodiac
03-26-2003, 07:16 PM
During the Gulf War a total of 88.500 tons of precision guided bombs were dropped on Iraq and Kuwait. The precision was dissapointing, of the precision guided bombs, only 1 out of 4 bombs actually hit their target. One day 8 cruise missiles had to be launched to destroy one target. Another example is that 1460 attacks had to be launched to destroy one Iraqi scud missile site, because all the previous attempts failed.

In 1998, not much was improved. During attacks on Iraq, the USA fired 415 cruise missiles towards 79 Iraqi targets. Cost: over 500 million euroes (501 million dollars). 70% of all those missiles failed to hit their targets.

In 1999, during air attacks on Serbia, there still wasn't a lot of improvement. According to a secret document of the British ministery of Defense, the British Air Force only had a hit-ratio of 40%. Misses ended up eventually 100 kilometers away from their initial targets, even in the Bulgarian capital Sofia.

Of course, the missiles used today are more advanced, but considering a 40% hit ratio just four years ago, we can only be sceptical of how 'precise' current smart bombs are.

source: http://archief.www.ad.nl/artikel?SORT=date&ED=ola&PRD=2y&SEC=buitenland&SO=%2A&FDOC=25
registration is free.

Reborn Outcast
03-26-2003, 07:50 PM
Ok well this is my first post in this thread so sorry if this has already been said...

Clem: Airplanes have STRICT flying manuver codes and signals to show that they are in fact a US or British pilot and not an Iraqi who has stolen the plane. This being said, Patriot missle men have orders to shoot down any plane that doesn't do the code or its backup in the correct manner I believe. Also, do you honestly think that they have 25 mins. to converse on what they are going to do? No, its either seconds or a minute which is NOT alot of time. Also, do you really expect that ONE single Patriot group to be able to know that British planes would be coming from INSIDE Iraq when they didn't leave from that airbase that the Patriots are stashed at? No.

It was EVERYONES fault. Sheesh...

Also, you have the scrambling gear that the Iraqi's have aquired.


I could also say the same about the British... "A stupid British fool decided to screw up in a helicopter today, cause the deaths of Americans."

Have I said that?

daring dueler
03-26-2003, 09:45 PM
percision guided bombs and gps bombs are totally different, percision are usually laser guided, and can go wrong, but gps has a .1 or somthin failure rate, i do beleive it was iraq , or a gps bomb that iraqis used the equipment against, the only civilian death was oin a bus on a bridge they were destroying.

Zodiac
03-26-2003, 10:16 PM
percision guided bombs and gps bombs are totally different
That is incorrect. GPS bombs fall under the category of Precision guided bombs. They are not two different things.

"Precision guided" is a term for all the different kinds of techniques used to guide the bombs. Precision guided bombs are: bombs that are guided by lasers, radar, satellites (GPS) or video cameras. That's what Pentagon officials have said.

And some people have mentioned the so called jamming equipment of Iraq as a possible excuse for the misfires. But I don't think we should really consider that, because of this:

"The Iraqi regime apparently has tried to acquire equipment to try to jam the satellites that guide the JDAMs, U.S. officials say. But Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said Monday the devices don't work well and are not considered a threat."

sources=
- http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1834769
- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/guidebomb011009.html

daring dueler
03-26-2003, 10:26 PM
i may be wrong, i thought thats what the history channel said, o well, all i know is that the failure rate of gps is around .1 and for laser like 30% so thats what i at leasr know

ioshee
03-27-2003, 12:16 PM
I think a better title for this thread would have been “The Empire Strikes Back”

But don’t worry, Darth Bush has already force choked those responsible for this mistake.

Clem
03-27-2003, 03:18 PM
ive been at work (at a company that makes helicopters :D ) so i dont know whats happened today

the british plane was doing everything right ... it is an automated system but someone should have overridden it! ... also if u read the thread outcast we have long since left this incedent behind

on the subject of GPS bombs ... if u suspect the iraqis can jam them

DONT DROP THEM!!

ok point 1 percent inncauracy that means 1 in a thousand

how many u sent in? ... hundreds ... so 1 coulda missed

daring dueler
03-27-2003, 05:03 PM
well yes its possible, but we werent bombing around that town at the time, and even if it was a mis placed bomb, these things happen in war, plus it could be properganda.

Reborn Outcast
03-27-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Clem
also if u read the thread outcast we have long since left this incedent behind

Yes I know but I'm not partial to reading 98 posts. :D

Zodiac
03-27-2003, 07:50 PM
I'm just wondering how daringdueler came up with the .1 failure rate of GPS guided bombs. I'm just curious, because I couldn't find it anywhere and I'm really interested since I'm actually using the successes and failures of precision guided bombs from 1991 to 2000 for a concept for school (and I need actualy stats for it :( ).

I've looked everywhere, and this article was the closest I got: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-102401mistake.story called 'High-Tech U.S. Bombs Are Precise but Not Perfect' with the last sentence being:

"In the real world, this stuff (referring to GPS guided bombs - Zod) works fairly well most of the time, but not perfectly well all of the time," said John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a research organization in Virginia."

The article explains how Laser-guided bombs are actually more precise than GPS guided bombs if Laser-guided-bombs are launched in the best conditions (clear weather, flying at 500mph and at low to medium altitude). It also explains how easily Laser-guided-bombs can misfire if the conditions aren't perfect. And in most scenarios, the conditions aren't perfect at all, resulting in dramatic misfire-ratios seen throughout the last decade.

Now the newer GPS-guided bombs are more reliable than the laser guided ones, but it's still not known how high its failure rate is. I hope for the best, but if an expert says they work fairly well most of the time, then I'm a bit pessimistic towards the .1 failure rate..

daring dueler
03-27-2003, 10:31 PM
i said about .1 ofcourse its gonna be abit higher but my point was, there is hardly any, although i do think i heard on the histiry channel, maybe madern marvels that it was somthin like that, if youd like i will look, becuase i debate in school too and i wouldnt mind knowing axact, and just to add, gps guided missels hit within 1 meter of the intented area, pretty damn good eh?

ShockV1.89
03-28-2003, 12:11 AM
Saw on the news the other day (I forget what channel, I think MSNBC) that, thus far, only 6 out of about 1000 GPS guided missiles have not gone where they intended them to go.

Pretty good so far.

SkinWalker
03-28-2003, 01:17 PM
It only takes one of those six to destroy an apartment building with several families. Still, they're a better idea than unguided artillery that relies on an artilleryman's math skills.

I mention it only because even the smallest chance of error becomes important when you start fighting in a densly populated urban environment such as Bagdad.

Clem
03-28-2003, 06:18 PM
im not sure who said it

but the kids of the people u kill ... are gonna hate u and us and the world

they are gonna become terrorists most likely ... this ... this is y we have to be VERY careful

1 bomb going wrong can easily kill a hundred people

thats alot more terrorists out there

think about it

and ive mentioned my view on the news and the media in general ... both sides of the atlantic ... and around the world

daring dueler
03-28-2003, 09:17 PM
skinwalker, when we are in baghdad on the ground fight, in urban areas, do you really think they will be droping bombs?

SkinWalker
03-28-2003, 09:45 PM
No... we'll be launching them from shoulder-fired weapons and mortars. There may need to be air support called in as well for pinned down troops. Definately artillery will be called in for enemy mortar, machine-gun and RPG positions.

If you think the ground troops will go in with just M-16s and SAWs, better think again.

Throughout history, battles for cities have been the most costly in lives: friendly, enemy AND collateral. Most successful city objectives result in the leveling of the city itself.

It will have to be done... I don't see any way around it if we are to achieve our objectives, but it won't be nice, clean or pretty.