<!--QuoteBegin--|Owen|+Dec 6 2003, 11:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|Owen| @ Dec 6 2003, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Dec 6 2003, 11:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Dec 6 2003, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Zig+Dec 6 2003, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Dec 6 2003, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--|Owen|+Dec 6 2003, 09:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|Owen| @ Dec 6 2003, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the reason so many coalition troops die is because of the stupidity of american troops, plain and simple. they shoot first ask questions later, most times at the wrong people (civilians, brits, christian aid, media). now tell me that its just me being short-sighted, but have more coalition and civilians died during conflict because of americans? YES. the BBC's leading war correspondant John Simpson was bombed when out on a scheduled report outside tikrit. the reason he was bombed is because the american ground control was too lazy to give grid co-ordinates so he said "the target is coming up at the crossroads near your locale", the pilot didnt ask for a second confirmation, he bombed using extreme force. little did the ground chief no that there was another crossroad about 800 meters closler <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that's a little biased =\ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 'little' biased? That was the most ignorant thing I've read.
I could just as equally say we shouldn't have helped out the UK in WW2. It was YOUR stupid continent's problem, maybe you ****-warm-beer drinking limeys should've fought a little harder? Need us to bail you out of there, didn't you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> a little harder... it wasnt a question of effort, it was numbers. and no its not biased its the truth. an unfiltered truth because i'm irish. simple known fact, ask any allied (including france from vietnam) troop the one piece of advice they were taught about american troops and they'll say this
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->whatever you do make sure the american batteries arnt behind you, because you might end up with a bullet between your cheeks<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i got nothing against american troops themselves, because the problem lies in training. more time is required to train american troops to proper standards... in the most recent conflict there have been 27 acts of friendly fire on coalition troops. all of which were commited by americans, and were treated by AMERICANS as acts of gross incompetance. one american gunnery sargeant said that he didnt think there was a good soldier among the lot of the ones he'd just trained, because he didnt have proper time to build the structure of a real soldier. one that weighs up odds and chance before acting. one that get all the information before using force.
and for the record racism isnt tolerated on the forums, so i'd change your post... i find limey very offensive <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You call any of this unbiased? Seriously, you arent going to get any point across being this opinionated. Should be obvious by the fact that all youve done is **** everyone off and probably get this thread locked. Step back and think about what you want to say instead of just regurgitating BS that others shouted at you.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Dec 6 2003, 07:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Dec 6 2003, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Don't get this thread locked. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It was YOUR stupid continent's problem, maybe you ****-warm-beer drinking limeys should've fought a little harder? Need us to bail you out of there, didn't you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's this kind of stuff that gets people temp suspended and threads locked, so just count down from 10 and cool it down. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consider why I posted that: He disrespects our entire country, then you tell me I don't have a right to disrespect his? He's whining that it's all our fault war even exists, that we're child rapists and pillagers, yet he's so caught up in how self-centered he is he doesn't realize that if it weren't for the US and Canada, Europe would all be throwing salutes, growing wussy little mustaches, and brushing up on their german (Provided your grandparents weren't nuked to dust by Hitler's A-bomb first).
<!--QuoteBegin--|Owen|+Dec 6 2003, 06:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|Owen| @ Dec 6 2003, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and for the record racism isnt tolerated on the forums, so i'd change your post... i find limey very offensive <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay first, you obviously don't even know what the word 'racist' means, so don't use it... because it's quite silly that a caucasian is racist towards caucasians. Second, I doubt you can even tell me where the word limey came from, and if you did know, you'd laugh at how absurd a nickname it even is.
Then again, I might consider the term 'yank' offensive, apparently that means that almost all of the UK is 'racist' as well. Furthermore, you stopped at nothing, you went out of your way to offend me, my country, every serviceman who fought to keep your country in one piece, yet I highly doubt you'll remove your bigoted post.
(BTW: 'Limey' was a term given to british sailors because when out at sea, vitamin C deficiency caused scurvey. To treat it, they'd make the afflicted sailor suck on a lime)
Well since the tags have totally FUBARD, edit the first paragraph above to read:
Consider why I posted that: He disrespects our entire country, then you tell me I don't have a right to disrespect his? He's whining that it's all our fault war even exists, that we're child rapists and pillagers, yet he's so caught up in how self-centered he is he doesn't realize that if it weren't for the US and Canada, Europe would all be throwing salutes, growing wussy little mustaches, and brushing up on their german (Provided your grandparents weren't nuked to dust by Hitler's A-bomb first). I'm simply showing him that point using the same 'reason' and 'logic' he used to prove a point to me. Then he replies that he can't take it and threatens me with board rules?
So you know what? If I truely did offend you (which I doubt, throwing out flames then hiding from retaliation behind board rules while crying for a mod to lock the topic is awfully hypocritical.), then I apologize. But at least I'm man enough to do that, instead of make cheap shots against someone elses country who's stuck by your country's side through just about everything.
As fun as this is to read, let's try and tone it down a bit. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Owen you started it with that incredibly offensive statement, I personally would have said allot more to you then uranium did if you were living just a bit closer to me...or maybe I would let my bat do the talking. I happen to know two vets who have just returned from Iraq, and doubt you would have the courage to let them in on your little opinion if you were to meet them.
Also limey is no more offence then yank, so clam up.
I do have a bad feeling this topic is going to get locked or allot of these posts are going to disappear..
Owen, your first set of statements were pretty ignorant. Maybe you wanted to get your view across in a really affective way? Anyway, not all American soldiers are stupid...
On topic:
Why do Americans think it is a moral obligation to do the things they do?
The number one religion in America is Christianity, right? Combined with "some" ignorance and arrogance-the feeling that our God and our Moral system is right-might influence the decsisions of the government. I guess Americans feel obliged into helping people who are consumed by fear of death and dictators; I guess the government feels it needs to <insert whatever reason> to wage war on a country of dictators.
The thing is, when countries are absorbed by America's influence, they lose somewhat, all that retains of their past, cultural identity. Take for example Japan, slowly and even now it is becoming a place, where if you were to walk around, is dominated by Western Civilization. The telivision shows there are becoming identical to that of Americans; the beauty ideal is prefered of Westerners; young adults are slowly absorbing this, while the old generations are dieing off. I guess, in a way, that America is already dominating the world with its own identity, more specifically, "economy" (I quote, because it is such a touchy topic, which I don't know very well).
If America achieves its goals (whatever they might be), what would the world be like?
A counterfeit of America, quite possibly giving America open ends to resources and whatnot.
Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America?
Quite likely, either that or George Bush.
What is the deal with America?
It is becoming to influential and some people don't like that. They don't like (meaing they conflict) a lot of the ideals and beliefs of Americans and the actions that sometimes turn bad made by the government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the reason so many coalition troops die is because of the stupidity of american troops, plain and simple. they shoot first ask questions later<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> got nothing against american troops themselves, because the problem lies in training. more time is required to train american troops to proper standards... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do I need to point out that you just said "the stupidity of american troops"? Your statement contradicts your last. Both are unfounded. On what bases did you come to the conclusion that more time is required for US troops to "proper" standards?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, it seems that many of the USA soldiers in Iraq hasn't had very profound training. That or they are just getting a tad sloppy/trigger happy because of boredom/fear of new attacks. You can't really debate this when so big proportion of coalition casualties have been friendly fire. What, 50% ff and other half Iraqis doing? Those are not very good statistics. It does make USA soldiers look rather incompetent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to point out that since WWII america has been advancing it's technological capabilities, which has a side effect of making our weapons especially deadly, whilst reducing drastically the amount of casualties on our side. Not as much effort has been put into preventing friendly fire because it's has just recently been recognized as a fairly major problem. Only in 1991 and 2003 have we had engagements where our casualties were SO low that any friendly fire is in the spotlight (whereas in WWII hundreds if not thousands died from friendly fire and they were just statistics).
While some friendly fire incidents are due to incompetence and in fact insubordination (the pilot engaging canadians in afganistan), others are due to simple misidentification. It really IS hard to tell if the guy has a camera on his shoulder of it's an RPG at 300+ meters away. When you hear news reports of people all around you dying in ambushes just like this could be, I don't blame him for being a little jumpy. However, you need to put it into perspective. There were hundreds of reporters there at the height of the conflict, most all with cameras of some type. Several were engaged accidently, and that's terrible- but hundreds were not. Don't make it sound like we're slaughtering reporters left and right and killing anything that moves, because that is far from the truth.
And it's to be expected that most of the friendly fire is from americans- the majority of troops there ARE american. If you see an airplane, it's likely to be american- there is just a higher percentage of US troops there so a higher percentage of friendly fire accidents will involve US troops. When 70+% of aircraft in the sky are british, then you'll find a higher instance of friendly fire by the british for instance.
That being said, we should always explore ways to reduce the amount of friendly fire in combat.
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Dec 7 2003, 02:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Dec 7 2003, 02:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why do Americans think it is a moral obligation to do the things they do? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, that's why. If we did something, half the countries of the world are going to complain. If we didn't the other half would. We're treated like everyone elses big brother, now it's to the point where other countries don't have to ask for our help, they just make it really obvious, knowing we have to come along and fix it how we see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Dec 7 2003, 06:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Dec 7 2003, 06:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--kida+Dec 7 2003, 02:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Dec 7 2003, 02:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why do Americans think it is a moral obligation to do the things they do? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, that's why. If we did something, half the countries of the world are going to complain. If we didn't the other half would. We're treated like everyone elses big brother, now it's to the point where other countries don't have to ask for our help, they just make it really obvious, knowing we have to come along and fix it how we see fit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think your being too simplistic in your analysis of this topic. you say "damned if you do, and you're damned if you dont" as if it should be one or the other in every case. you liken the second gulf war to the second world war, which throws everything out of perspective because essentially these were two very different wars. [the key differance being Germany had plans for world dominance, Iraq didnt.]
the point i mean to make, before i get too sidetracked, is that every time should be analysed on an individual basis, , rather than saying [and I paraphrase brutally] "we were right to attack before, we must therefor be right to attack someone else".
its quite possible that America was right to help in WWII, but wrong to attack Iraq.
*edit. I have a stoinking hangover and may be wrong*
and on another point, who said it wouldnt be so bad if the Nazis won <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->! silly boy! it might be bad these days, but at least we dont have our books burnt!
i dont see why you call it ignorant, cuz its very true. all the men in my family have to do service. i lost 2 family members in iraq, both of friendly fire... now tell me that this makes it all alright? that the people britain's prime minister practically felt up because he thought war with iraq was just a good idea. i didnt say that at any point i hated american citizens or servicemen. i said that they were responsible for all friendly fire cases... and they are. its all down to them having the jitters, your telling me that i'm ignorant yet you refuse to believe that america can do know wrong, well you just have. you've proven to me that your single minded towards my views, and that you think that anybody who opposes america is wrong.
Owen makes a good point. It is folly to say Americans are always right. Even if we try to do the right thing, we can never be perfect. In fact, far from perfect for some people like Owen. I can see how there are many people that hate America's guts. Fortunately for us, Owen has the heart to forgive.
I am an American, and I don't feel what we do is always right. Most people are so hyped up in patriotism, we think we are doing the best thing no matter what America does. This is flawed thinking.
Conversely, everybody is a critic for America. If America does something or doesn't do something, there will be people to complain about it. Supposing we hadn't invaded Iraq, do you really think leaving the threats of weapons of mass destruction would have left a warm feeling in the hearts of everyone in the world? I doubt it. You have to realize that anything America does is under watch by billions. It only takes .1% of the world's population to disagree with America's actions before 6 million people rein in protest.
Someone please find where anyone in this thread has ever said that Americans are always right?? Anyone? Please?
Thinking that what we are doing is the best does not mean we will not make mistakes in actually carrying it out... Nor does it mean that we have not accepted and apologized for those mistakes; but making mistakes does not mean we should stop doing what we think is the best.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i dont see why you call it ignorant, cuz its very true. all the men in my family have to do service. i lost 2 family members in iraq, both of friendly fire... now tell me that this makes it all alright? that the people britain's prime minister practically felt up because he thought war with iraq was just a good idea. i didnt say that at any point i hated american citizens or servicemen. i said that they were responsible for all friendly fire cases... and they are. its all down to them having the jitters, your telling me that i'm ignorant yet you refuse to believe that america can do know wrong, well you just have. you've proven to me that your single minded towards my views, and that you think that anybody who opposes america is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They say it's ignorant because you're generalizing the soldiers. What it seems like you're saying is that US soldiers are somehow retarded and take longer to make them on par with other troops.
No one said "well, it's an accident, so it's ok that your family members died" owen. I understand it's easy for you to feel like that is what's happening, but it's not. No one is glad, and anyone here would send their condolances. I'm the first to admit america isn't perfect, so why do you insist on believing that we think we can do no wrong? As othell and hawkeye pointed out, I don't think anyone's said that. However, it does seem that no matter what we say, you seem to have already judged and condemned us silently, even if you're nice about it in the open.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt- I understand you don't "hate" us, even if you do seem to generalize us, but your experience with us seems limited to the point where you feel justified in generalizing them as you do.
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Dec 7 2003, 07:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Dec 7 2003, 07:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Germany had plans for world dominance, Iraq didnt.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How in the world do you know what Saddam had planned? One of the main reasons for going to war with him the first time is because historians saw history repeating it's self. Now sure Saddam wasn't as powerful as Hitler was, but if he was given enough time who knows.
i dont condemn americans... i only condemn the people who dont act as they were trained. there are plenty of american soldiers that do it by the book, and are heros in their own rights, but then there is always a minority that are thinking of time, rather than concequences
But owen, if you really mean that then you are going to have to understand that even when people do exactly as they are trained sometimes accidents still happen.
so if a person is behind the wheel of a car, and they hit sum1 because the person in the car decides not to brake if it saves them time on their journey. the person dies, is it murder, manslaughter, or a complete accident that goes unpunished? its the same thing only happening in a diff situation. do the rules of society still apply? or do we let things go unpunished?
<!--QuoteBegin--|Owen|+Dec 7 2003, 07:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|Owen| @ Dec 7 2003, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so if a person is behind the wheel of a car, and they hit sum1 because the person in the car decides not to brake if it saves them time on their journey. the person dies, is it murder, manslaughter, or a complete accident that goes unpunished? its the same thing only happening in a diff situation. do the rules of society still apply? or do we let things go unpunished? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Manslaughter: Accidental, unintended behavior causes a death. Murder: Intended behavior causes death.
Your analogy doesn't really make sense. What are you trying to say? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
i'm trying to say that if manslaughter (accident) is a crime, then why did the coalition soldiers who caused friendly fire go free? is it right to justify an act such as this on reasoning: "its war, sh!t happens, get over it". or should the same treatment be applied as in the everyday system: "you killed someone, it may have been an accident but your still going to prison for 5 years". if such things as responsibility for actions goes out the window during war, then we might aswell hope that troops dont disband right and wrong and start deliberatly shooting friendlies.
It isn't that they send so many soldiers to fight in a battlefield, and whenever someone gets shot, they arrest the guy who killed him. No. In war, the people who die are the people who die. Nobody takes responsibility. If a civilian walks on the battlefield and gets shot, again, nobody is arrested or taken away. The battle continues with one more casualty of war.
I never said this was right, this is just the way things are. There are certain guidelines to war. Why guidelines and not rules? Because there are no rules in war. Anything can and has been broken before. The guidelines are:
1. Dont' shoot civilians. 2. Wear dogtags at all times. 3. Don't shoot your allies. 4. Fight until you die.
These are the expected rules of war. During the revolutionary war, it was considered proper to line up and fire uniformly at the enemy. Americans broke that guideline, because they found it was more effective to lay on the ground and shoot.
If war seems hellish, it is because it is hell. I will never under any circumstances fuel or support war in any way in my lifetime. Hatred only fuels war.
<!--QuoteBegin--|Owen|+Dec 7 2003, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|Owen| @ Dec 7 2003, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i'm trying to say that if manslaughter (accident) is a crime, then why did the coalition soldiers who caused friendly fire go free? is it right to justify an act such as this on reasoning: "its war, sh!t happens, get over it". or should the same treatment be applied as in the everyday system: "you killed someone, it may have been an accident but your still going to prison for 5 years". if such things as responsibility for actions goes out the window during war, then we might aswell hope that troops dont disband right and wrong and start deliberatly shooting friendlies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For someone who's whole family is soldiers, and condemns American war practices, your pretty damn naive. There are rules of engagement, and people do lose rank over these incidents, possibly even serve time. Friendly Fire are not war crimes, they are accidents. Secondly, Americans are the only ones making tactical descisions and actually dropping the bombs, Brittian is only there for support and has less than 1/2 the troops in the region. So any blame is conveniently placed upon the soldiers doing all the work.
Every country involved in WWII was making thier own tactics, dropping thier own bombs, and as a result every country involved had multiple FF accidents. Yes there are more incidents than anyone would like to see, but unlike WWII, the battleground is <i>not</i> cut and dry...the line between, soldier and civilian, and freind and enemy are not clearly defined wich results in more accidents...exactly the intent of our current enemy.
<!--QuoteBegin--Parasite+Dec 7 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Parasite @ Dec 7 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--|Owen|+Dec 7 2003, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|Owen| @ Dec 7 2003, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i'm trying to say that if manslaughter (accident) is a crime, then why did the coalition soldiers who caused friendly fire go free? is it right to justify an act such as this on reasoning: "its war, sh!t happens, get over it". or should the same treatment be applied as in the everyday system: "you killed someone, it may have been an accident but your still going to prison for 5 years". if such things as responsibility for actions goes out the window during war, then we might aswell hope that troops dont disband right and wrong and start deliberatly shooting friendlies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For someone who's whole family is soldiers, and condemns American war practices, your pretty damn naive. There are rules of engagement, and people do lose rank over these incidents, possibly even serve time. Friendly Fire are not war crimes, they are accidents. Secondly, Americans are the only ones making tactical descisions and actually dropping the bombs, Brittian is only there for support and has less than 1/2 the troops in the region. So any blame is conveniently placed upon the soldiers doing all the work.
Every country involved in WWII was making thier own tactics, dropping thier own bombs, and as a result every country involved had multiple FF accidents. Yes there are more incidents than anyone would like to see, but unlike WWII, the battleground is <i>not</i> cut and dry...the line between, soldier and civilian, and freind and enemy are not clearly defined wich results in more accidents...exactly the intent of our current enemy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Parasite wins. Owen, you claim your whole family is in the military and two family members are dead to American freindly fire.
I'm going to call your bluff.
First, as parasite said, you're apply conventional laws applicable to civilians and making silly statements about how everyone is a murderer in war. And frankly ANYONE with most of the family in Iraq would NEVER make statements like that. Why don't you just go up to your uncle, cousin, what have you's house and throw eggs and call them child killers too?
Secondly, with FAMILY members in the military, you should KNOW the emotional attachment and respect you get for these people. You claim two were killed. Then you turn around and scream insults and disrespect every American who has family in the war like the UK is the only damn country that deserves the bleeding heart sympathy.
I've NEVER EVER seen ANYONE behave like that who has family in the military. Every single damn person I know who does, or knows someone who does, respects them for what they do and feels for all the families of others who have lost their lives in war.
(Fun Fact, Owen: Many of the American / UK friendly fire incidents were caused by wrong-place wrong-time bomb dropping, confusion of targets (that pilot you said that bombed a convoy was never alerted as to what the british tanks looked like. As far as he knew, they weren't Abrams, they were Iraqi tanks), and bad communications. A while back a British tank opened fire on ANOTHER British tank of the exact same model and design. Now whose 'stupid' here?)
BTW: Owen, you're very lucky MonsE hasn't read this yet. He'd flay you open and devour your insides)
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 7 2003, 08:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 7 2003, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That being said, investigations occur after friendly fire incidents and the soldier doing the shooting can very well be charged. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I just quoted this so that |owen| can read it twice, just to make sure he see this. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
"And ye, the TeenAngsters did tremble before The Monse." Book of Natsel, 43:10
I have to agree with Uranium, when I read your posts, they just didn't seem to add up, I see I wasn't the only one to notice.
I think the soldiers who committed a FF kill, should not be punished, it's safe to assume they didn't want to kill a friendly solider, and they have to live with that for the rest of their lives. When you’re out their putting your life on the line, and you see someone coming at you from an unexpected direction, would you wait till he got close? Put yourself in their shoes before you toss mindless insults around.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits.
<!--QuoteBegin--DocterJ+Dec 8 2003, 03:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DocterJ @ Dec 8 2003, 03:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well if your gonna associate each country with a food, Brittish food is best identified as poop <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Parasite+Dec 8 2003, 05:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Parasite @ Dec 8 2003, 05:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DocterJ+Dec 8 2003, 03:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DocterJ @ Dec 8 2003, 03:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well if your gonna associate each country with a food, Brittish food is best identified as poop <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nah, it's gotta be poop pie, since they love anything in pies.
<!--QuoteBegin--Parasite+Dec 8 2003, 12:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Parasite @ Dec 8 2003, 12:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DocterJ+Dec 8 2003, 03:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DocterJ @ Dec 8 2003, 03:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 4 2003, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well if your gonna associate each country with a food, Brittish food is best identified as poop <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Nice
Comments
that's a little biased =\ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A 'little' biased? That was the most ignorant thing I've read.
I could just as equally say we shouldn't have helped out the UK in WW2. It was YOUR stupid continent's problem, maybe you ****-warm-beer drinking limeys should've fought a little harder? Need us to bail you out of there, didn't you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a little harder... it wasnt a question of effort, it was numbers. and no its not biased its the truth. an unfiltered truth because i'm irish. simple known fact, ask any allied (including france from vietnam) troop the one piece of advice they were taught about american troops and they'll say this
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->whatever you do make sure the american batteries arnt behind you, because you might end up with a bullet between your cheeks<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i got nothing against american troops themselves, because the problem lies in training. more time is required to train american troops to proper standards... in the most recent conflict there have been 27 acts of friendly fire on coalition troops. all of which were commited by americans, and were treated by AMERICANS as acts of gross incompetance. one american gunnery sargeant said that he didnt think there was a good soldier among the lot of the ones he'd just trained, because he didnt have proper time to build the structure of a real soldier. one that weighs up odds and chance before acting. one that get all the information before using force.
and for the record racism isnt tolerated on the forums, so i'd change your post... i find limey very offensive <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call any of this unbiased? Seriously, you arent going to get any point across being this opinionated. Should be obvious by the fact that all youve done is **** everyone off and probably get this thread locked. Step back and think about what you want to say instead of just regurgitating BS that others shouted at you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It was YOUR stupid continent's problem, maybe you ****-warm-beer drinking limeys should've fought a little harder? Need us to bail you out of there, didn't you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's this kind of stuff that gets people temp suspended and threads locked, so just count down from 10 and cool it down. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consider why I posted that: He disrespects our entire country, then you tell me I don't have a right to disrespect his? He's whining that it's all our fault war even exists, that we're child rapists and pillagers, yet he's so caught up in how self-centered he is he doesn't realize that if it weren't for the US and Canada, Europe would all be throwing salutes, growing wussy little mustaches, and brushing up on their german (Provided your grandparents weren't nuked to dust by Hitler's A-bomb first).
<!--QuoteBegin--|Owen|+Dec 6 2003, 06:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|Owen| @ Dec 6 2003, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and for the record racism isnt tolerated on the forums, so i'd change your post... i find limey very offensive <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay first, you obviously don't even know what the word 'racist' means, so don't use it... because it's quite silly that a caucasian is racist towards caucasians. Second, I doubt you can even tell me where the word limey came from, and if you did know, you'd laugh at how absurd a nickname it even is.
Then again, I might consider the term 'yank' offensive, apparently that means that almost all of the UK is 'racist' as well. Furthermore, you stopped at nothing, you went out of your way to offend me, my country, every serviceman who fought to keep your country in one piece, yet I highly doubt you'll remove your bigoted post.
(BTW: 'Limey' was a term given to british sailors because when out at sea, vitamin C deficiency caused scurvey. To treat it, they'd make the afflicted sailor suck on a lime)
Consider why I posted that: He disrespects our entire country, then you tell me I don't have a right to disrespect his? He's whining that it's all our fault war even exists, that we're child rapists and pillagers, yet he's so caught up in how self-centered he is he doesn't realize that if it weren't for the US and Canada, Europe would all be throwing salutes, growing wussy little mustaches, and brushing up on their german (Provided your grandparents weren't nuked to dust by Hitler's A-bomb first). I'm simply showing him that point using the same 'reason' and 'logic' he used to prove a point to me. Then he replies that he can't take it and threatens me with board rules?
So you know what? If I truely did offend you (which I doubt, throwing out flames then hiding from retaliation behind board rules while crying for a mod to lock the topic is awfully hypocritical.), then I apologize. But at least I'm man enough to do that, instead of make cheap shots against someone elses country who's stuck by your country's side through just about everything.
Owen you started it with that incredibly offensive statement, I personally would have said allot more to you then uranium did if you were living just a bit closer to me...or maybe I would let my bat do the talking. I happen to know two vets who have just returned from Iraq, and doubt you would have the courage to let them in on your little opinion if you were to meet them.
Also limey is no more offence then yank, so clam up.
I do have a bad feeling this topic is going to get locked or allot of these posts are going to disappear..
Owen, your first set of statements were pretty ignorant. Maybe you wanted to get your view across in a really affective way? Anyway, not all American soldiers are stupid...
On topic:
Why do Americans think it is a moral obligation to do the things they do?
The number one religion in America is Christianity, right? Combined with "some" ignorance and arrogance-the feeling that our God and our Moral system is right-might influence the decsisions of the government. I guess Americans feel obliged into helping people who are consumed by fear of death and dictators; I guess the government feels it needs to <insert whatever reason> to wage war on a country of dictators.
The thing is, when countries are absorbed by America's influence, they lose somewhat, all that retains of their past, cultural identity. Take for example Japan, slowly and even now it is becoming a place, where if you were to walk around, is dominated by Western Civilization. The telivision shows there are becoming identical to that of Americans; the beauty ideal is prefered of Westerners; young adults are slowly absorbing this, while the old generations are dieing off. I guess, in a way, that America is already dominating the world with its own identity, more specifically, "economy" (I quote, because it is such a touchy topic, which I don't know very well).
If America achieves its goals (whatever they might be), what would the world be like?
A counterfeit of America, quite possibly giving America open ends to resources and whatnot.
Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America?
Quite likely, either that or George Bush.
What is the deal with America?
It is becoming to influential and some people don't like that. They don't like (meaing they conflict) a lot of the ideals and beliefs of Americans and the actions that sometimes turn bad made by the government.
Thats my two unknowledgeful cents.
You're wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> got nothing against american troops themselves, because the problem lies in training. more time is required to train american troops to proper standards... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do I need to point out that you just said "the stupidity of american troops"? Your statement contradicts your last. Both are unfounded. On what bases did you come to the conclusion that more time is required for US troops to "proper" standards?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, it seems that many of the USA soldiers in Iraq hasn't had very profound training. That or they are just getting a tad sloppy/trigger happy because of boredom/fear of new attacks. You can't really debate this when so big proportion of coalition casualties have been friendly fire. What, 50% ff and other half Iraqis doing? Those are not very good statistics. It does make USA soldiers look rather incompetent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to point out that since WWII america has been advancing it's technological capabilities, which has a side effect of making our weapons especially deadly, whilst reducing drastically the amount of casualties on our side. Not as much effort has been put into preventing friendly fire because it's has just recently been recognized as a fairly major problem. Only in 1991 and 2003 have we had engagements where our casualties were SO low that any friendly fire is in the spotlight (whereas in WWII hundreds if not thousands died from friendly fire and they were just statistics).
While some friendly fire incidents are due to incompetence and in fact insubordination (the pilot engaging canadians in afganistan), others are due to simple misidentification. It really IS hard to tell if the guy has a camera on his shoulder of it's an RPG at 300+ meters away. When you hear news reports of people all around you dying in ambushes just like this could be, I don't blame him for being a little jumpy. However, you need to put it into perspective. There were hundreds of reporters there at the height of the conflict, most all with cameras of some type. Several were engaged accidently, and that's terrible- but hundreds were not. Don't make it sound like we're slaughtering reporters left and right and killing anything that moves, because that is far from the truth.
And it's to be expected that most of the friendly fire is from americans- the majority of troops there ARE american. If you see an airplane, it's likely to be american- there is just a higher percentage of US troops there so a higher percentage of friendly fire accidents will involve US troops. When 70+% of aircraft in the sky are british, then you'll find a higher instance of friendly fire by the british for instance.
That being said, we should always explore ways to reduce the amount of friendly fire in combat.
You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, that's why. If we did something, half the countries of the world are going to complain. If we didn't the other half would. We're treated like everyone elses big brother, now it's to the point where other countries don't have to ask for our help, they just make it really obvious, knowing we have to come along and fix it how we see fit.
You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, that's why. If we did something, half the countries of the world are going to complain. If we didn't the other half would. We're treated like everyone elses big brother, now it's to the point where other countries don't have to ask for our help, they just make it really obvious, knowing we have to come along and fix it how we see fit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think your being too simplistic in your analysis of this topic.
you say "damned if you do, and you're damned if you dont" as if it should be one or the other in every case.
you liken the second gulf war to the second world war, which throws everything out of perspective because essentially these were two very different wars.
[the key differance being Germany had plans for world dominance, Iraq didnt.]
the point i mean to make, before i get too sidetracked, is that every time should be analysed on an individual basis, , rather than saying [and I paraphrase brutally] "we were right to attack before, we must therefor be right to attack someone else".
its quite possible that America was right to help in WWII, but wrong to attack Iraq.
*edit. I have a stoinking hangover and may be wrong*
and on another point, who said it wouldnt be so bad if the Nazis won <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->! silly boy!
it might be bad these days, but at least we dont have our books burnt!
Owen makes a good point. It is folly to say Americans are always right. Even if we try to do the right thing, we can never be perfect. In fact, far from perfect for some people like Owen. I can see how there are many people that hate America's guts. Fortunately for us, Owen has the heart to forgive.
I am an American, and I don't feel what we do is always right. Most people are so hyped up in patriotism, we think we are doing the best thing no matter what America does. This is flawed thinking.
Conversely, everybody is a critic for America. If America does something or doesn't do something, there will be people to complain about it. Supposing we hadn't invaded Iraq, do you really think leaving the threats of weapons of mass destruction would have left a warm feeling in the hearts of everyone in the world? I doubt it. You have to realize that anything America does is under watch by billions. It only takes .1% of the world's population to disagree with America's actions before 6 million people rein in protest.
It's a double-edged sword.
Thinking that what we are doing is the best does not mean we will not make mistakes in actually carrying it out... Nor does it mean that we have not accepted and apologized for those mistakes; but making mistakes does not mean we should stop doing what we think is the best.
They say it's ignorant because you're generalizing the soldiers. What it seems like you're saying is that US soldiers are somehow retarded and take longer to make them on par with other troops.
No one said "well, it's an accident, so it's ok that your family members died" owen. I understand it's easy for you to feel like that is what's happening, but it's not. No one is glad, and anyone here would send their condolances. I'm the first to admit america isn't perfect, so why do you insist on believing that we think we can do no wrong? As othell and hawkeye pointed out, I don't think anyone's said that. However, it does seem that no matter what we say, you seem to have already judged and condemned us silently, even if you're nice about it in the open.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt- I understand you don't "hate" us, even if you do seem to generalize us, but your experience with us seems limited to the point where you feel justified in generalizing them as you do.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How in the world do you know what Saddam had planned? One of the main reasons for going to war with him the first time is because historians saw history repeating it's self. Now sure Saddam wasn't as powerful as Hitler was, but if he was given enough time who knows.
Manslaughter: Accidental, unintended behavior causes a death.
Murder: Intended behavior causes death.
Your analogy doesn't really make sense. What are you trying to say? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
It isn't that they send so many soldiers to fight in a battlefield, and whenever someone gets shot, they arrest the guy who killed him. No. In war, the people who die are the people who die. Nobody takes responsibility. If a civilian walks on the battlefield and gets shot, again, nobody is arrested or taken away. The battle continues with one more casualty of war.
I never said this was right, this is just the way things are. There are certain guidelines to war. Why guidelines and not rules? Because there are no rules in war. Anything can and has been broken before. The guidelines are:
1. Dont' shoot civilians.
2. Wear dogtags at all times.
3. Don't shoot your allies.
4. Fight until you die.
These are the expected rules of war. During the revolutionary war, it was considered proper to line up and fire uniformly at the enemy. Americans broke that guideline, because they found it was more effective to lay on the ground and shoot.
If war seems hellish, it is because it is hell. I will never under any circumstances fuel or support war in any way in my lifetime. Hatred only fuels war.
For someone who's whole family is soldiers, and condemns American war practices, your pretty damn naive. There are rules of engagement, and people do lose rank over these incidents, possibly even serve time. Friendly Fire are not war crimes, they are accidents. Secondly, Americans are the only ones making tactical descisions and actually dropping the bombs, Brittian is only there for support and has less than 1/2 the troops in the region. So any blame is conveniently placed upon the soldiers doing all the work.
Every country involved in WWII was making thier own tactics, dropping thier own bombs, and as a result every country involved had multiple FF accidents. Yes there are more incidents than anyone would like to see, but unlike WWII, the battleground is <i>not</i> cut and dry...the line between, soldier and civilian, and freind and enemy are not clearly defined wich results in more accidents...exactly the intent of our current enemy.
For someone who's whole family is soldiers, and condemns American war practices, your pretty damn naive. There are rules of engagement, and people do lose rank over these incidents, possibly even serve time. Friendly Fire are not war crimes, they are accidents. Secondly, Americans are the only ones making tactical descisions and actually dropping the bombs, Brittian is only there for support and has less than 1/2 the troops in the region. So any blame is conveniently placed upon the soldiers doing all the work.
Every country involved in WWII was making thier own tactics, dropping thier own bombs, and as a result every country involved had multiple FF accidents. Yes there are more incidents than anyone would like to see, but unlike WWII, the battleground is <i>not</i> cut and dry...the line between, soldier and civilian, and freind and enemy are not clearly defined wich results in more accidents...exactly the intent of our current enemy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Parasite wins. Owen, you claim your whole family is in the military and two family members are dead to American freindly fire.
I'm going to call your bluff.
First, as parasite said, you're apply conventional laws applicable to civilians and making silly statements about how everyone is a murderer in war. And frankly ANYONE with most of the family in Iraq would NEVER make statements like that. Why don't you just go up to your uncle, cousin, what have you's house and throw eggs and call them child killers too?
Secondly, with FAMILY members in the military, you should KNOW the emotional attachment and respect you get for these people. You claim two were killed. Then you turn around and scream insults and disrespect every American who has family in the war like the UK is the only damn country that deserves the bleeding heart sympathy.
I've NEVER EVER seen ANYONE behave like that who has family in the military. Every single damn person I know who does, or knows someone who does, respects them for what they do and feels for all the families of others who have lost their lives in war.
(Fun Fact, Owen: Many of the American / UK friendly fire incidents were caused by wrong-place wrong-time bomb dropping, confusion of targets (that pilot you said that bombed a convoy was never alerted as to what the british tanks looked like. As far as he knew, they weren't Abrams, they were Iraqi tanks), and bad communications. A while back a British tank opened fire on ANOTHER British tank of the exact same model and design. Now whose 'stupid' here?)
BTW: Owen, you're very lucky MonsE hasn't read this yet. He'd flay you open and devour your insides)
I just quoted this so that |owen| can read it twice, just to make sure he see this. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
"And ye, the TeenAngsters did tremble before The Monse."
Book of Natsel, 43:10
I think the soldiers who committed a FF kill, should not be punished, it's safe to assume they didn't want to kill a friendly solider, and they have to live with that for the rest of their lives. When you’re out their putting your life on the line, and you see someone coming at you from an unexpected direction, would you wait till he got close? Put yourself in their shoes before you toss mindless insults around.
Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits.
Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if your gonna associate each country with a food, Brittish food is best identified as poop <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if your gonna associate each country with a food, Brittish food is best identified as poop <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, it's gotta be poop pie, since they love anything in pies.
Is McDonalds the trademark mascot of America?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats pretty funny cause in my flash movie i have the americans as mcdonalds too. The french are wine glasses and the brits are, well, the brits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if your gonna associate each country with a food, Brittish food is best identified as poop <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Nice
VODKA....
and us brits would prob have to be "Orange sherbet"