»

[GadgetMaster]

[smithy]

Karlos wrote:
You forget that seemingly in Smithy's view of the situation, these sorts of things simply never happened. No matter what you have read/heard/seen, this did not happen, it is quote "Rediculous".

Didn't say that.

Just as the demolition of entire swathes of the town did not happen. Just as there was absolutely nobody there by the time the troops rolled in other than terrorist types begging for a bullet.

Didn't say that.

The poor, old, weak and those with nowhere else to go when ordered out simply do not exist and therefore could not have been there in order to be indiscriminately killed.

Didn't say that.

Strike!

No matter what you have read/heard/seen, this did not happen

Your argument about Fallujah is based on watching some tanks blow up a few houses. Now, if you were the evil US Army and you woke up one day wanting to commit a few murders, would you take the BBC along for a ride? The US targetted houses that were known to be terrorist houses.

Just as the demolition of entire swathes of the town did not happen. Just as there was absolutely nobody there by the time the troops rolled in other than terrorist types begging for a bullet.

If you want to prove your point why not cite a recent article or find some aerial photographs instead quoting the number of hits you get back when you search on Google for "Fallujah" and "destruction". I could search for "Karlos can't cite" and I'd get back 389 results, but it'd be much more conclusive to look at your post I'm replying to.

I'd not even have bothered replying because you change your opinions between posts so it's quite difficult, but here you've mis-quoted me, quoted me out of context, and included this cheap shot:

"Rediculous"

Where, in the middle of you suggesting that I'm talking stupid, you are inferring I can't spell everyday words and must be a half-wit, but I did spell it right in the first place. What's it like in the gutter?

[jkirk]

Glaucus wrote:

Sure they do. Just for starters look up friendly fire & four dead Canadians in Afghanistan. That went to trial, and the only reason it got that far is because Canadians aren't Afghans.

- Mike

as unfortunate as that incident was it was not criminal neglect but instead a case of mistaken identity/lack of communication/etc on one or both sides.

i have a little insight into the military. i served during the first iraqi war. after two years i had enough of the military and got out on an early out program. now you are trying to apply logic and common sense to an organization that don't know the meaning of those two words. i am also willing to bet that other countries have the same problems. now this is not just the military this stretches all the way up to the white house. when you take this into account you will realize that it is a wonder things like this don't happen more often. this has nothing to do with an agenda they try to do right but are screwed from the get go. to tell you just how bad it is we used to have a saying in the air force. "if it makes sense don't do it." to these people building a 5 milion dollar hospital that would never be used makes sense to keep the base from being closed. then declaring they went over budget and send retirees to civilian doctors(without compensation)to get congress to bump up their budget for next year.

now inherently war is a nasty buisness. things go wrong even with the best of intentions. but that combined with how screwed up they are to begin with and you start to see why these things happen.

despite what i just said i do believe in general they are doing one heck of a job. it ain't perfect but how can it be with the leadership we have at the moment.

[Glaucus]

as unfortunate as that incident was it was not criminal neglect but instead a case of mistaken identity/lack of communication/etc on one or both sides.

One should know whom one kills. The pilot saw a bunch of shooting and decided to lob a bomb their way. It could have been American soldeirs, it could have been an Afghan wedding party, but he assumed it was enemy fire and "returned" fire. He was never authorized to fire, even though he did report it back to his flight controller.

You say you served in the Gulf War. A good buddy of mine served with the Canadian military in the Gulf War too. Would it surprise you if the general consensus amongst Canadian troops who've served along side American troops is that US troops are somewhat "trigger happy"? When the four Canadians were bombed in Afghanistan many Canadian veterans expressed this very viewpoint on national television. You may not have seen that on Fox News, but you would on the CBC.

To give you a different perspective, when it was discovered that a member of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia murdered a local teen (which was initially covered up by the higher-ups) many more heads rolled back home. In fact, we disbanded the entire regiment (many former members are now part of the elite JTF2). We don't just shrug our shoulders and say "war is hell".

- Mike

[jkirk]

One should know whom one kills. The pilot saw a bunch of shooting and decided to lob a bomb their way. It could have been American soldeirs, it could have been an Afghan wedding party, but he assumed it was enemy fire and "returned" fire. He was never authorized to fire, even though he did report it back to his flight controller.

lofty ideals to be sure. and i would love that to be the case. but speaking of me personally as much as i hate war and combat if i was in a town/aircraft whatever and i thought someone was shooting at me. i would then have two options

1 run and hope i can get away(if you are not under orders to hold a position)
2 shoot in the general direction and hope you hit the gunman

now when it comes to wartime decisions if you second guess everything you are dead. life and death is a razors edge.

now if i knew i was not in danger then i would be able to take my time and be sure of my target. but of course you don't have that luxury often.

You say you served in the Gulf War. A good buddy of mine served with the Canadian military in the Gulf War too. Would it surprise you if the general consensus amongst Canadian troops who've served along side American troops is that US troops are somewhat "trigger happy"? When the four Canadians were bombed in Afghanistan many Canadian veterans expressed this very viewpoint on national television. You may not have seen that on Fox News, but you would on the CBC.

nothing suprises me. and yes it may be a fair assessment. i even said as much in my previous post.

To give you a different perspective, when it was discovered that a member of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia murdered a local teen (which was initially covered up by the higher-ups) many more heads rolled back home. In fact, we disbanded the entire regiment (many former members are now part of the elite JTF2). We don't just shrug our shoulders and say "war is hell".

something like that would depend on the circumstances. was it on purpose? was it mistaken identity? did he freak out from the pressure? was it an accident? Etc Etc Etc. never pass judgement without knowing the circumstances. i don't know if that was the case here. i can't say what his motivation may have been. but i do believe disbanding a regiment was overkill. probably to quell public outcry more than serving justice. if they felt theperson was unfit for wartime duty then reassign him.

now on the other hand in war you don't want the berzerkers fighting but you don't want people unwilling to shoot either.

[Karlos]

smithy wrote:

I'd not even have bothered replying because you change your opinions between posts so it's quite difficult, but here you've mis-quoted me, quoted me out of context, and included this cheap shot:

Where, in the middle of you suggesting that I'm talking stupid, you are inferring I can't spell everyday words and must be a half-wit, but I did spell it right in the first place.

No Smithy, that's just me in too much of a rush whilst working on about 5 other things to notice I'd misspelled the word (always did have a blind spot with ou/u). I apologise for that. As it goes, there really is no need to take such things to heart so badly. It's too easy to let a difference of opinion over some issue equate into a personal opinion of someone.

My opinions have not changed from post to post, although my wording might have been off. So with no wish to drag this flaming on any further, let's just say we disagree totally on the following issues:

1) the political justification and motives for the invasion
2) the future implications set by this precident
3) the general portrayal of the present situation
4) the implications for the future of the country and its people
5) the impact this will have on other similar regimes
6) the professional conduct of the occupying forces in many controversial incidents/situations that have been reported

We agree on these issues:

1) Saddam was an evil dictator
2) Toppling Saddam will be beneficial for Iraqi people in the long term

What's it like in the gutter?

Hell, don't hold back

The fact is, I don't know you and you don't know me, so let's not continue to conduct this at a personal level.

[PMC]

I know I'll get flamed from some of our US posters here for saying this, but US forces have (and have had since WW2) a reputation for being "trigger happy". Indeed, more British soldiers were killed in 1991 by American fire than Iraqi fire. One case involved an A10 shooting up a British armoured vehicle, emblazoned on the sides with the Union Flag and in broad daylight!

Other British commanders have reported American pilots not bothering to identify their target and simply opening up at anything they don't like the look of.

Indeed, in northern Germany during April 1945 a Russian general complained to his US counterpart that US fighters often attacked Russian aircraft, to which the American retorted "you guys have attacked our planes too". The Russian simply stated that the offending Soviet airmen were shot upon their return to base.

[cecilia]

I know I'll get flamed from some of our US posters here for saying this, but US forces have (and have had since WW2) a reputation for being "trigger happy".

there's some US police officers who seem to have a similar reputation.

[GadgetMaster]

@Smithy

What's it like in the gutter?

After the way this discussion started it seems a little sad that you see fit to drag it down to this level :roll:

[smithy]

Karlos wrote:
The fact is, I don't know you and you don't know me, so let's not continue to conduct this at a personal level.

Sorry dude, no personal offence meant. It's easy to get carried away in such discussions. 8-)

[Karlos]

smithy wrote:

Sorry dude, no personal offence meant. It's easy to get carried away in such discussions. 8-)

Can I get an Amen? :-D

Likewise. Whilst we may disagree strongly over the issue, it is good that people will discuss it at least, regardless of the view. Many people today are far too keen to just be told what to think rather than do it for themselves.

It's funny for me to think there was a time when I signed up and entered the military of my own free will. Now at 39, while "serving my country" has a certain appeal, I have no interest whatsoever in signing up to fight a war that I have zero agreement with.

The men and women who are over there following orders and doing their job have my utmost respect. I just don't feel that I have it in me any more to blindly follow the orders of people who don't have my best interest at heart in exchange for a paltry paycheck.

I guess with age comes a bit of wisdom. Maybe, maybe not.

Wayne

[Wilse]

It's funny for me to think there was a time when I signed up and entered the military of my own free will.

Almost did so myself. Girlfriend of the time talked me out of it - thank fek!

I have no interest whatsoever in signing up to fight a war that I have zero agreement with.

Indeed. This whole embarrassing fiasco in Iraq firmly stamped all over the romantic and frankly naive ideas I had of the British military: Will only be used when absolutely neccessary being the main one.
In a way it's been a fortunate wake up call though - I'll never blindly trust the government again, over matters of war or anything else.

[metalman]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

If you believe in the "war", go fight it.

metalman wrote:

you can sign up here Fluffy.... no age limit, no pay, but you have the promise of 72 virgins upon your demise.


Consider Al Qaeda...
al Qaeda has "vacant positions" for video production and editing statements, footage and international media coverage about terrorists

The type of video production and editing work terrorists are seeking

Join the jihad, eh?

Canadians join Iraq insurgency