|
BBC I'm sorry but since when did people in totally the wrong house only become "possibly innocent" ? It seems to me this is a lot like saying "we'll we did blow up the wrong place, but because they were Iraqis, and they were in their own home, they might possibly have been terrorists". Once again the US military really trying for the hearts and minds of the population. I think we should blow up the entire current US administration, because they are possibly guilty of war crimes. Edit - forum bug ? I did type in a title in quotes, but it doesn't appear to have recognised it ? Edited by Clive Dunn at 12:06:16 09-01-2005 |
US military blows wrong stuff up
-
Clive_Dunn 4,862 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
NBZ 2,425 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 18 years agoThe more I read about the yank army, the more I hate them. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoBombs come from airplanes. So that would be the air force you're after.
It's war. Ignoring - for the sake of sanity - the reasons for the war, you cannot expect to be involved in a conflict without collateral and accidental deaths. At least the civilians aren't the targets, unlike the other side. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoGotta admit that IŽm pretty sure any other army in the world would cause a LOT more collateral damage than the U.S. -
NBZ 2,425 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 18 years agoBlow the wrong shit up and you MAY have killed innocent civillians?
If you blow shit up, atleast be honest when u fuck up. Its not hard.
Its bad when You mess up. Its worse when you deny it.
Bollocks to Hearts & Minds -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoBunch of fucking wankers!! -
Homer-Simpson 1,543 posts
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
Gotta admit that IŽm pretty sure any other army in the world would cause a LOT more collateral damage than the U.S.
But the Yanks seemed to be more dangerous in the gulf war than what the Iraqis themselves were even though us and the Yanks were on the same sides so somehow I doubt that my friend.
Edited by Homer Simpson at 17:10:38 09-01-2005 -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
Gotta admit that IŽm pretty sure any other army in the world would cause a LOT more collateral damage than the U.S.
But other armies don't go to war as much, do they? -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoHomer Simpson wrote:
phAge wrote:
Gotta admit that IŽm pretty sure any other army in the world would cause a LOT more collateral damage than the U.S.
But the Yanks seemed to be more dangerous in the gulf war than what the Iraqis themselves were even though us and the Yanks were on the same sides so somehow I doubt that my friend.
Edited by Homer Simpson at 17:10:38 09-01-2005
Homer - please - stay out of this if you havenŽt got the foggiest idea what youŽre talking about.
EDIT: And I donŽt mean that in a condescending way - its just that what you said makes absolutely no sense..gif)
@morriss - guess not - and for a lot of reasons. That doesnŽt change the fact that the U.S has one of the most highly trained, best equipped armed forces in the world. IŽd rather go to war with them than the British or Danish army, thats for sure.
Edited by phAge at 19:15:55 09-01-2005 -
Homer-Simpson 1,543 posts
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
Homer - please - stay out of this if you havenŽt got the foggiest idea what youŽre talking about.
Sorry, I didn't word that very well but what I'm trying to say is that the Yanks caused more damage than anyone else during the war with Iraq. I mean, I was sick of seeing headline after headline of the Americans killing our own troops in 'friendly fires', so I'm just saying that I don't agree with you about your comment on any other Armies causing more damage than the American troops. Again, I may have not worded that very well either but can you see what I'm saying? -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoHomer Simpson wrote:
Sorry, I didn't word that very well but what I'm trying to say is that the Yanks caused more damage than anyone else during the war with Iraq. I mean, I was sick of seeing headline after headline of the Americans killing our own troops in 'friendly fires', so I'm just saying that I don't agree with you about your comment on any other Armies causing more damage than the American troops. Again, I may have not worded that very well either but can you see what I'm saying?
Yes - hear what youŽre saying - you are just plain wrong. In the "battle" phase of the 2003 war in Iraq, 137 U.S soldiers were killed, and 32 British - that makes a total of 169. Out of these, 11 were friendly fire incidents. Is it sad - yes. Is it "more than the Iraqi killed" - no. Not by a long shot.
Also, had not the U.S- sorry "Coalition" airforce secured total air supremacy, and the U.S army killed virtually every Iraq tank, APC and artillery piece in the desert, IŽm pretty sure the rest of the Coalition wouldŽve needed A LOT more bodybags than they did.
You know the old saying "He who works a lot makes many mistakes - he who works less makes fewer mistakes"?
That applies perfectly to this discussion.
Edited by phAge at 20:21:49 09-01-2005 -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge = BGiE. Great copy and paste job there phAge! -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoNot at all. This should be blindingly obvious to everyone. Besides, I get off on writing words like "air supremacy", "tank" and "APC".
Makes me feel 'ard. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agomorriss wrote:
phAge = BGiE. Great copy and paste job there phAge!
Why can't you see past the rhetoric and understand some of the realities? -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
Not at all. This should be blindingly obvious to everyone. Besides, I get off on writing words like "air supremacy", "tank" and "APC".
Makes me feel 'ard.
-
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoKhanivor wrote:
morriss wrote:
phAge = BGiE. Great copy and paste job there phAge!
Why can't you see past the rhetoric and understand some of the realities?
err, I can. Just winding my mate phAge up, if it's ok with you....? -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoSure. Go right ahead. Didn't mean to get in your way. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
Homer Simpson wrote:
Sorry, I didn't word that very well but what I'm trying to say is that the Yanks caused more damage than anyone else during the war with Iraq. I mean, I was sick of seeing headline after headline of the Americans killing our own troops in 'friendly fires', so I'm just saying that I don't agree with you about your comment on any other Armies causing more damage than the American troops. Again, I may have not worded that very well either but can you see what I'm saying?
Yes - hear what youŽre saying - you are just plain wrong. In the "battle" phase of the 2003 war in Iraq, 137 U.S soldiers were killed, and 32 British - that makes a total of 169. Out of these, 11 were friendly fire incidents. Is it sad - yes. Is it "more than the Iraqi killed" - no. Not by a long shot.
Also, had not the U.S- sorry "Coalition" airforce secured total air supremacy, and the U.S army killed virtually every Iraq tank, APC and artillery piece in the desert, IŽm pretty sure the rest of the Coalition wouldŽve needed A LOT more bodybags than they did.
You know the old saying "He who works a lot makes many mistakes - he who works less makes fewer mistakes"?
That applies perfectly to this discussion.
Edited by phAge at 20:21:49 09-01-2005
Ok, so seriously now. Why then, do they 'work' so effing much? Stop policing the effing world!! That's my main problem. But facts, are facts, phAge and I can't dispute them! -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agomorriss wrote:
Ok, so seriously now. Why then, do they 'work' so effing much? Stop policing the effing world!! That's my main problem. But facts, are facts, phAge and I can't dispute them!
The "why" is politics, which we have debated many (many!) times. That is not the issue here. The issue is that if the U.S had not been the main force behind the invasion of Iraq, thousands of European mothers would be burying their sons and daughters, instead of less than 50. -
MikeD 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years agoThousands?
Now you're exaggerating. -
NBZ 2,425 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 18 years agophAge wrote:
morriss wrote:
Ok, so seriously now. Why then, do they 'work' so effing much? Stop policing the effing world!! That's my main problem. But facts, are facts, phAge and I can't dispute them!
The "why" is politics, which we have debated many (many!) times. That is not the issue here. The issue is that if the U.S had not been the main force behind the invasion of Iraq, thousands of European mothers would be burying their sons and daughters, instead of less than 50.
If the US was not been involved, Britain would not have had the balls ot go to war.
Thus less european mothers would have been burying their sons (and daughters I think). -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoNBZ wrote:
phAge wrote:
morriss wrote:
Ok, so seriously now. Why then, do they 'work' so effing much? Stop policing the effing world!! That's my main problem. But facts, are facts, phAge and I can't dispute them!
The "why" is politics, which we have debated many (many!) times. That is not the issue here. The issue is that if the U.S had not been the main force behind the invasion of Iraq, thousands of European mothers would be burying their sons and daughters, instead of less than 50.
If the US was not been involved, Britain would not have had the balls ot go to war.
Thus less european mothers would have been burying their sons (and daughters I think).
Or none. That 'is' the point of this discussion. Because the US go to war, Europeans die. If they didn't, then 'our' death rate would be a lot less. So I don't think you can completely distinguish between the two! -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago@Mike: No. Read this, and youŽll see that the Iraqi armed forces were definitely not to be taken lightly. It is a rather long docment, but shows quite clearly that without the overwhelming US land and air forces, the Coalition would have had a VERY tough ride.
@morriss: FFS - we are NOT discussing politics here - the thing that sparked this was not the booooooooooooooooring debate about US foreign policy, but the fact that Homer et al claimed that the US forces were more of a threat to other Coalition forces, than the Iraqi army. Which is clearly BS.
So, if youŽll kindly take your propaganda elsewhere - IŽm sure BGiE would be more than happy to indulge you...
Edited by phAge at 22:12:57 09-01-2005 -
NBZ 2,425 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 18 years agoNot Exactly connected But... Time Magazines Person Of the year 2004
FFS!
Edited by NBZ at 22:35:44 09-01-2005 -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
@Mike: No. Read this, and youŽll see that the Iraqi armed forces were definitely not to be taken lightly. It is a rather long docment, but shows quite clearly that without the overwhelming US land and air forces, the Coalition would have had a VERY tough ride.
@morriss: FFS - we are NOT discussing politics here - the thing that sparked this was not the booooooooooooooooring debate about US foreign policy, but the fact that Homer et al claimed that the US forces were more of a threat to other Coalition forces, than the Iraqi army. Which is clearly BS.
So, if youŽll kindly take your propaganda elsewhere - IŽm sure BGiE would be more than happy to indulge you...
Edited by phAge at 22:12:57 09-01-2005
So you don't think that the U.S. army being a threat to the Coalition has nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy? Weird. -
Freek 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agoNBZ wrote:
Not Exactly connected But... Time Magazines Person Of the year 2004
FFS!
Edited by NBZ at 22:35:44 09-01-2005
I don't see what's wrong with that. They give that award to the person who has the most influence on the world in that particualr year. Not becuase they think he is "teh bestest".
Adolf Hitler won it in 1938.
Edited by Freek at 22:43:36 09-01-2005 -
phAge wrote:
I've completely forgotten what point you're trying to make (and tbh it sounds as if you have as well) but it was the US who pushed for war in the first place, every other country (with the possible exception of the UK, who in the end were badgered into going along with Bush in any case) felt that the weapons inspectors should go in before any action was taken, and with good cause since we have failed to find any WMDs at all.
@Mike: No. Read this, and youŽll see that the Iraqi armed forces were definitely not to be taken lightly. It is a rather long docment, but shows quite clearly that without the overwhelming US land and air forces, the Coalition would have had a VERY tough ride. -
MetalDog 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoThe US army is the best equipped army in the world.
The best trained?
Ahahahahahahahahaha! -
cubbymoore wrote:
I've completely forgotten what point you're trying to make...
Obviously. Let me help you then:
Homer Simpson wrote
But the Yanks seemed to be more dangerous in the gulf war than what the Iraqis themselves were...
THIS is what I responded to - purely based on the FACT that the Iraqis killed A LOT more Coalition soldies than were hit by U.S friendly fire, and that a Coalition without the U.S would have been in deep shit, militarily speaking.
IŽm not talking about "oh - but if the U.S hadnŽt been there, we wouldnŽt have gone to war" - and morriss KNOWS this very well - he just gets off on discussing politics and slagging off the U.S every chance he gets, even if he has to talk bollocks to do so.
FACT - when the Coalition (for whatever reason) decided to go to war, it NEEDED the U.S forces - badly.
FACT - without the U.S contingent, the rest of the Coalition would have lost WAY more soldiers than was the case.
Need I clarify any further?
Edited by phAge at 22:53:20 09-01-2005
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
