| Fact: The US started the war. |
US military blows wrong stuff up • Page 2
-
Freek 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoFreek wrote:
Fact: The US started the war.
Windup or do you genuinely not understand my point? -
Freek 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agophAge wrote:
Freek wrote:
Fact: The US started the war.
Windup or do you genuinely not understand my point?
Oh I compleltly get what you are saying, i'm simply saying somethin else.
They were the ones who created the conflict and hence are the more dangerouse party; the agressors. -
Whizzo 44,810 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 20 years agoThe only two countries that provided actual forces during the invasion of Iraq were the US and UK, it's pretty obvious that if the US wasn't going in the UK wouldn't have.
That's not really a coalition is it? It's the World's foremost power and the lapdog Blair conning Parliament into agreeing to provide support. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago@Freek & Whizzo.
So we agree that the US did not shoot more Brits than the Iraqi, then?
Because that is all I really care about - not interested in pseudo-intellectual debates on U.S foreign policy. -
phAge wrote:
Nah I see the point you're making. And I agree that the US army were the ones who basically fought the Iraq war, and so the whole point of this thread is a tenuous way to snipe at the US forces when in fact they did a considerable job given the nasty nature of war. However, not wanting to talk about the fact that if it weren't for the Yanks who started the war in the first place when it was a very important aspect of the whole war, and in turn caused the death of well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, does strike me as odd, frankly.
Need I clarify any further?
-
Whizzo 44,810 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 20 years agophAge wrote:So we agree that the US did not shoot more Brits than the Iraqi, then?
Never said they did, the same can't be said of the first Gulf War IIRC.
/remembers seeing the pictures of Warriors with clear markings and fluorescent sheeting on them after two A-10s strafed their convoy. -
Freek 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agophAge wrote:
Yes, ofcourse we can.
@Freek & Whizzo.
So we agree that the US did not shoot more Brits than the Iraqi, then?
Because that is all I really care about - not interested in pseudo-intellectual debates on U.S foreign policy.
It's not psuedo intellectual at all, a simpel look at who created the violence. You can look at the reasons why they did it all night long and still not agree on it. But the fact of the matter is: they are the reason why people are getting killed, that makes them the more dangerouse party, becuase they are the core reason for anybody there dying, british or iraqy.
We simply have two different reasons for defining who is or isn't the more dangerouse party involved.
Edited by Freek at 23:09:25 09-01-2005 -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoWhizzo wrote:
Never said they did, the same can't be said of the first Gulf War IIRC.
You don´t. According to Pentagon only 35 out of 148 soldiers (24%) killed were due to friendly fire incidents. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoFreek wrote:
Yes, ofcourse we can.
It's not psuedo intellectual at all, a simpel look at who created the violence. You can look at the reasons why they did it all night long and still not agree on it. But the fact of the matter is: they are the reason why people are getting killed, that makes them the more dangerouse party, becuase they are the core reason for anybody there dying, british or iraqy.
I know what you mean - I just got a bit miffed at the seeming inability for people to get my point round these parts.
Yes - it was the US that was the aggressor, but claiming that that was the reason for the dead Europeans is pretty far-fetched and academic.
EDIT: Deleted potential powder-keg...
Edited by phAge at 23:21:58 09-01-2005 -
Whizzo 44,810 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 20 years agoAh well my memory was not quite right, out of 24 UK combat deaths in Gulf War I, the US only killed 9 of my countrymen. Oh well the Iraqis were a bit more effective at killing the enemy than the trigger happy Americans were at killing their allies.
My Grandfather recounts many stories of how the Americans were gung-ho and prepared to shoot everything in sight during the time he spent serving with them in WWII, nothing has changed.
Edited by Whizzo at 23:26:06 09-01-2005 -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago... So basically you agree. Excellent. -
Frankypanky 932 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agophAge wrote:
According to Pentagon only 35 out of 148 soldiers (24%) killed were due to friendly fire incidents.
that's what they want you to believe....
/taps tinfoil hat -
Since when didn't the military (US or otherwise) blow up the wrong stuff. And let's not forget that that in the great scheme of things, it hasn't actually been that long since civilians weren't considered viable targets anyway. -
PhatCat 12 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 17 years agoMetalDog wrote:
The US army is the best equipped army in the world.
The best trained?
Ahahahahahahahahaha!
The U.S army is the best equipped and one of the best trained in the world. Only a fool would want to face them in a conventional war.
Edited by PhatCat at 09:30:11 10-01-2005 -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoMost threads on this forum after an initial point has been made start to take a new direction. i.e. a point is made, then a counter-point and then the argument opens up and other factors are brought into play.
phAge however, in the case of this discussion, just wants everyone to agree with him, and I think we all do. But so fucking what?
I think when talking about European casualties in an American-made war, it is only natural that a factor of this discussion, as it begins to broaden, is the fact that although European casualties are lower because of a US presence, they would be next to nothing if the US weren't there in the first place. This point is just a natural development of said discussion.
phAge's tantrums about his original point getting lost becuause the conversation takes a new twist are quite pig-headed. Yes phAge, we see your point. You're right, well done. Maybe in your simplistic view of the world where statistics from the internet are the Holy Grail of what's right or wrong, surely even you can look beyond these and try and understand that their are other elements to things and it is only natural that others want to discuss them.
As soon as EG becomes your own private property, then you can start telling people what they can or can't discuss.
Oh, and just for the record:
pseudo // adj. & n.
adj.
1 sham; spurious.
2 insincere.
n. (pl. -os) a pretentious or insincere person.
pseudo- // comb. form (also pseud- before a vowel)
1 supposed or purporting to be but not really so; false; not genuine (pseudo-intellectual; pseudepigrapha).
2 resembling or imitating (often in technical applications) (pseudo-language; pseudo-acid).
[Greek, from pseudes ‘false’, pseudos ‘falsehood’]
I don't see how anything I've said fits into that category. The old addage really is true, "The greatsest complement is an insult from fool."
Edited by morriss at 11:53:19 10-01-2005 -
Treze 332 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 20 years agophAge wrote:
Whizzo wrote:
Never said they did, the same can't be said of the first Gulf War IIRC.
You don´t. According to Pentagon only 35 out of 148 soldiers (24%) killed were due to friendly fire incidents.
Only 24%?
Only 24%?
As in:
More than 50% = BAAAAAD
Less than 50% = GOOD -
Treze wrote:
Yep, thank god for mathematics turning harrowing details into easily digestable numbers that we can all enjoy.
phAge wrote:
Whizzo wrote:
Never said they did, the same can't be said of the first Gulf War IIRC.
You don´t. According to Pentagon only 35 out of 148 soldiers (24%) killed were due to friendly fire incidents.
Only 24%?
Only 24%?
As in:
More than 50% = BAAAAAD
Less than 50% = GOOD
After all, only a small fraction of Asias population were killed by the tsunami, so that's a good thing. -
Treze 332 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 20 years agotengu wrote:
PhatCat wrote:
The U.S army is the best equipped and one of the best trained in the world. Only a fool would want to face them in a conventional war.
Or ally themselves with them it would seem.
British journalists at four o'clock! BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM!
Yeah, exceptional training...
What a shame... They were possibly innocent. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoThe us army is one of the very best trained in the entire world. Also, because of the college credit system, one of the best educated.
So it’s sorta sad that to fulfil some need to bash the US that the armed forces are denigrated by everyone with a grudge. You’d think no other armed forces had ever killed an ally by mistake or ever made an error on the battlefield. I doubt any other armed forces in the world spends so much on technology and training to combat friendly fire as the us does.
Ignore the 2nd Gulf War. How well would the Kosovans have done without US armed forces? Or the peace in the remains of Yugoslavia?
All the calls for the US to stop being the world’s policeman may come to something if any other fucking country (or group of countries) stood up and did the job instead. If the UN had its own force and the tiniest hint of some bollocks then maybe this would happen, but the world seems to prefer to bitch about US imperialism and militarism and then expects the US to fix any struggles that happen in their own backyard. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoWell done morriss, you´ve managed to muddle the point of this thread even further - I salute you.
However, if you would now care to take off you anti-U.S goggles AND read the ENTIRE thread from start to finish, I´d salute you even more.
However, since I´ve got the feeling that you won´t, I´ll sum it up for you. Please feel free to jump in at any time, should I get the proceedings wrong.
1: Clive Dunn makes a post about a U.S bombing of innocent Iraqis.
2: I write that any other army in the world would´ve made far more collateral damage in the Gulf.
3: Homer Simpson writes that the U.S forces were more a hazard to the Brits, than the Iraqis were (i.e. the U.S inflicted more casualties).
4: I *prove* that this is wrong.
5: A small "debate" ensues between me and some people who know pretty much fuck-all about the military capabilities of neiher the U.S, England or Iraq, and who have to resort to stories about their grandfather. Note that we are still talking FACTS here.
6: You (and a few others) realize that what has been said earlier (re: the U.S armed forces being more dangerous to their allies than the enemy) is bollocks, and take the easy way out - namely that of changing the object of the "debate" to something that cannot be accurately quantified or measured, thus ensuring that you can just say "well - that is MY opinion".
As you can see I (and I *was* the only person not going along with the slagging of the U.S forces), NEVER said that the Americans weren´t the aggresors in the Gulf, or tried to dispute the fact that if Bush hadn´t started the war, no Europeans would have been hurt - I ONLY stated that when the U.S army is commited (for WHATEVER reason) it is the most powerful and professional in the world. Bar none. So there was absolutely NO reason to draw politics into it.
I am fully aware that I don´t own this forum, and that people can discus whatever they want - and they do.
I am also, however, fully aware when a persons political opinions influence them to a such degree that they are unable to accept even the utterly obvious, and would rather use pretty obvious rhethorical maneouvers to ensure that the not give the opponent an ounce of credit.
Im sorry you had to call me a fool, because I don´t think you are - you just need to accept that not EVERYTHING America does is a mistake.
Edited by phAge at 13:05:11 10-01-2005 -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agophAge wrote:
I am also, however, fully aware when a persons political opinions influence them to a such degree that they are unable to accept even the utterly obvious, and would rather use pretty obvious rhethorical maneouvers to ensure that the not give the opponent an ounce of credit.
Deserves highlighting. Well said and applies to much more then just anti-americanism. -
jrolla 219 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
As you can see I (and I *was* the only person not going along with the slagging of the U.S forces), NEVER said that the Americans weren´t the aggresors in the Gulf, or tried to dispute the fact that if Bush hadn´t started the war, no Europeans would have been hurt - I ONLY stated that when the U.S army is commited (for WHATEVER reason) it is the most powerful and professional in the world. Bar none. So there was absolutely NO reason to draw politics into it.
Edited by phAge at 13:05:11 10-01-2005
wow thanks, no one had realised before that america has the most powerful army in the world.
politics is always is involved in military matters, trying to seperate the two is ridiculous. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agojrolla wrote:
wow thanks, no one had realised before that america has the most powerful army in the world.
politics is always is involved in military matters, trying to seperate the two is ridiculous.
No -it isn´t. When we are talking PURELY about friendly-fire incidents, and their likelihood of happening in the U.S armed forces, versus other countries. There is no political aspect of this, and anyone who claims there is is simply trying to deflect attention from the real topic.
And for the people who reckon they´re being clever with the "oh - so 24% is OK?" type of rhethorics: go read some books about war. Do a little historical research on similar campaigns, and the amount of friendly-fire incidents that took place during them. Please.
Or it might look as if you have no idea what you´re talking about, and are merely enjoying the view from the bandwagon. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
Well done morriss, you´ve managed to muddle the point of this thread even further - I salute you.
However, if you would now care to take off you anti-U.S goggles AND read the ENTIRE thread from start to finish, I´d salute you even more.
However, since I´ve got the feeling that you won´t, I´ll sum it up for you. Please feel free to jump in at any time, should I get the proceedings wrong.
1: Clive Dunn makes a post about a U.S bombing of innocent Iraqis.
2: I write that any other army in the world would´ve made far more collateral damage in the Gulf.
3: Homer Simpson writes that the U.S forces were more a hazard to the Brits, than the Iraqis were (i.e. the U.S inflicted more casualties).
4: I *prove* that this is wrong.
5: A small "debate" ensues between me and some people who know pretty much fuck-all about the military capabilities of neiher the U.S, England or Iraq, and who have to resort to stories about their grandfather. Note that we are still talking FACTS here.
6: You (and a few others) realize that what has been said earlier (re: the U.S armed forces being more dangerous to their allies than the enemy) is bollocks, and take the easy way out - namely that of changing the object of the "debate" to something that cannot be accurately quantified or measured, thus ensuring that you can just say "well - that is MY opinion".
As you can see I (and I *was* the only person not going along with the slagging of the U.S forces), NEVER said that the Americans weren´t the aggresors in the Gulf, or tried to dispute the fact that if Bush hadn´t started the war, no Europeans would have been hurt - I ONLY stated that when the U.S army is commited (for WHATEVER reason) it is the most powerful and professional in the world. Bar none. So there was absolutely NO reason to draw politics into it.
I am fully aware that I don´t own this forum, and that people can discus whatever they want - and they do.
I am also, however, fully aware when a persons political opinions influence them to a such degree that they are unable to accept even the utterly obvious, and would rather use pretty obvious rhethorical maneouvers to ensure that the not give the opponent an ounce of credit.
Im sorry you had to call me a fool, because I don´t think you are - you just need to accept that not EVERYTHING America does is a mistake.
Edited by phAge at 13:05:11 10-01-2005
It is funny how you emplore me to read the thread fully when I have already stated that I agree with you. I have already stated that you cant agrue with facts, and that your point is irrefuteable. What more do you want man!? I for one, dont actually care what your 'initial' point was, I'd moved on by that point. Even though I HAD READ IT!
You make not think I'm a fool, but you must admit calling someone a pseudo-intellectual just because you won't accept that the discussion is moving on from, 'your' initial point, regardless if everyone has understood it or not, is foolish.
You cannot EVER seperarte ANY talk of military action without POLITICS being involoved in some way. Whether 'you' are talking politics or not, doesn't mean it doesn't hold a place within the context of the discussion. I just put it in there.
Furthermore, if you think for one minute that I'm completely blinded by anti-U.S. propaganda, and cannot see the facts for what they are, then you obviously 'do' think I'm a fool - which is fine by me.
Edited by morriss at 14:01:45 10-01-2005 -
Clive_Dunn 4,862 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years agoThe thread wasn't a cheap attempt to bash some American soldiers for dropping a bomb on the wrong house. It was an attempt to point out that I considered it a sad day that a US military spokesmen can attempt to claim a house only contains "possibly innocent" ( and therefore possibly guilty ) people.
As someone else said earlier hearts and minds are probably the most important thing the US needs to win, and sadly it seems they are further away than ever from winning them. With statements like these I find it hard to believe the US can ever truely win the war on terror.
In my opinion of course. -
phAge wrote:
Well I wasn't going along the lines of "oh - so 24% is OK?", I was going along the lines that 136 people have been killed and you're using a statistic that a fraction of those were caused by friendly fire to prove a point, when in fact I was looking at the number of 136 fatalities and thinking "what a fucking waste of life".
And for the people who reckon they´re being clever with the "oh - so 24% is OK?" type of rhethorics: go read some books about war. Do a little historical research on similar campaigns, and the amount of friendly-fire incidents that took place during them. Please.
Or it might look as if you have no idea what you´re talking about, and are merely enjoying the view from the bandwagon. -
jrolla 219 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
jrolla wrote:
wow thanks, no one had realised before that america has the most powerful army in the world.
politics is always is involved in military matters, trying to seperate the two is ridiculous.
No -it isn´t. When we are talking PURELY about friendly-fire incidents, and their likelihood of happening in the U.S armed forces, versus other countries. There is no political aspect of this, and anyone who claims there is is simply trying to deflect attention from the real topic.
And for the people who reckon they´re being clever with the "oh - so 24% is OK?" type of rhethorics: go read some books about war. Do a little historical research on similar campaigns, and the amount of friendly-fire incidents that took place during them. Please.
Or it might look as if you have no idea what you´re talking about, and are merely enjoying the view from the bandwagon.
ok statistics:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/WBG.htm
"In the Gulf War, friendly fire accounted for twenty-four percent of battle deaths. Statistically, this is a higher rate than any other major conflict fought by the U.S. in this century."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030318-friendlyfire01.htm
"A total of 35 of the 148 U.S. combat deaths in the Persian Gulf War resulted from what the military now calls "fratricide." A further 78 U.S. soldiers were wounded by their brethren"
http://slate.msn.com/id/2064055/ - pentagons woeful policy on fraticide
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm - the Friendly Fire Notebook run by the American War Library, stats are far higher than the offical ones
the US can clearly then be argued to have, at the very least, an extreme tendency towards fraticide. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoMorriss. The discussion did NOT "move on". There were NO-ONE who contested that the U.S were the aggressors, and indirectly to blame for the Coalition casualties. We all agree on this - it is a fact.
There were, however, people who were using this to support the argument that the U.S killed more people in the 3rd Gulf war than the Iraqis did. A ridiculous notion, and a cheap cop-out from a discussion that was ONLY about the skill and ability of the U.S armed foeces.
This is what I meant by "pseudo-intellectual": that a debate that could´ve been ended by a few people saying "ah - I guess you´re right - even though I hate to see our boys killed by the Americans, I acceptthat this is the stuff that happens in war, and that the U.S forces are the best in the world at avoiding it". This didn´t happen.
Instead people tried to save face by saying "yeah well - if we hadnt BEEN there in the first place, no-one would have been killed - so I´m still right".
If you can´t see how this is twisting the discussion in order to (unfairly) bash the U.S military, and avoiding admitting that they were wrong, they you ARE blinded by your political opinions. -
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.
