right i know this will get locked prolly cos of angry replies
but its really pissed me off
america has struck again
theyve shot down 1 of our tornados with a patriot missile
well done
great to be fighting with you :mad:
LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British Royal Air Force aircraft returning from a mission in Iraq was possibly shot down by Patriot missiles near the Kuwaiti border, British and U.S. military officials said Sunday.
A senior Pentagon official confirmed to CNN that a Patriot missile probably shot down the RAF plane.
"Evidence is beginning to come to light that one of our aircraft returning from operations over Iraq last night may have been engaged by a U.S. Patriot missile battery," said Capt. Al Lockwood with the British Royal Air Force in Qatar.
"The evidence is begging to appear that this very well may have been a friendly fire incident."
"The crew of the aircraft is missing," a British defense ministry statement said.
he was coming FROM iraqi airspace. the thing about the diff countries is that they don't always tell each other where they are operating and when.
you can't just go off lambasting us because of crap like this. if i'm not mistaken, it could very well have been the other way around, but you have very few missile batteries commited to this. if it weren't for america, you would not have freedom. this is what ticks me off. ungratefull people who can't see that we are protecting THEM, weather they like it or not. did your country get struck by terrorists of husseins breed? no.
its still a british plane
it has RAF markings on it
i dunno but i dont think iraq has even got ne tornados
the markings you speak of are to identify the plane to OTHER aircraft or groundcrews when its on the ground. try seeing them, along with the make and model on a radarscreen why don't you, or even when ur lookin at it from 20,000 feet below. don't forget this is at night. good luck in your spotting.
they would really be safe transmitting their make, model, and country of origin all over the place while flying over enemy territory. this would sure make them harder to spot by the enemy
well i have breakfast to attend to, then a funeral. i'll get back to you later on today (unless i find some more free time this morning)
well if u desgin systems to hit something moving that fast at that altitude
maybe u should design a system to tell what it is ur shooting:mad:
Also:
12 wounded and 1 killed because a US elite has thrown granades into 3 tents where fellow soldiers were sleeping.
They said this (black?) ISLAMIC guy had been acting strange lately...
Question: what was this (obivously) religious fanatic doing there in the first place??? :confused:
i heard there were 3 cases involving brits recently (including the falling helicopter) and theres this case luc is bringing up
and there must be more unreported cases
this worries me .... it worries me greatly
maybe we should paint the british planes glow in the dark green ... we'd be safer with the iraqis seeing us than the americans not seeing us
thing is. america does not make racial discrimination in the armed forces. get over yourselves.
it is done by both countries.
it is not something either are proud of.
i urge you both to get ALL the facts before you begin to post political propoganda, made up by anyone.
yes we hit our own people sometimes
does saddam care if he kills a few thousand of his people? no, he actively MURDERS them.
[Edit: Please keep flames to yourself thank you. ]
oh by the way i have a friend there and he told me about that.
Well.. I don't know if you've read the 'Bombing Iraq' post, but Clem really does have a good point when he addresses the big problem of friendly fire.
=============================================
In 1991's Gulf War, 49% (!!!) of all the casualties on the coalition's side were caused by friendly fire.
The units back then in the deserts of Kuwait were so afraid of getting hit by their own tanks and planes, that they actually didn't care anymore about camouflage and they spanned large robes of fluorizing orange plastic on the top of their vehicles. But even that was no insurance for not getting hit by your own troops.
The only British ground units killed in the Gulf War were the 9 men in Warrior armored combat vehicles, which were fired upon and hit by an American airplane. The pilot mistook them for Iraqi tanks.
Friendly fire, a big euphemism for getting killed by your own troops, has been a big problem since the Vietnam conflict, where 39% of all American casualties were caused by friendly fire. That is a total of 23.000 of the 58.299 men and women who were killed back then.
The first American casualty in Afghanistan was also caused by friendly fire. Stanley Harriman was killed on march 2nd 2002 by his own troops. The US government initially acted like it usually does: by denying the whole 'incident', but the truth came out after Harriman's upset military friends stepped to the media.
The American War Library, a constitution of 'veterans for veterans', has been doing research since 1988 about incidents where American soldiers were killed by friendly fire. New incidents from the past are reported weekly. Shocking is that not all incidents are a real accident.
It is known that American pilots get Dexedrine, also known as "go-for-it-pills", to make them feel less tired. Those pills can influence their ability to judge a tough situation and are most likely the cause of the incident in Iraq in 1994 where two American Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by two American F-15s. 26 men lost their lives that day. It's a weird accident, because every pilot recognizes a Black Hawk helicopter and it is well known that Iraq does not have those kind of choppers.
Over the last decade, billions have been invested in the development of these so called precision bombs. Unfortunately, not much has been done for the recognition of the own troops. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, a well respected British magazin specialized in military issues, the equipment to distinguish the own troops from enemy troops aren't much different than they were in 1991.
Friendly fire has been a problem for all armies, from the UN armies to the Israelian army and the Russian strike force. But the US and the UK are the nations with most losses by friendly fire. Washington has been more open about friendly fire incidents over the last couple of years, but that's only because of the pressure made by the American War Library.
The biggest friendly fire incident occured on Hill 282 in Korea, in 1950. Washington has made the information public that 150 British sholdiers of the 1st of Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders died on that hill, because American commanders didn't believe the hill was already taken by the British.... and although Washington's made it public, London still denies it ever happened....
============================================
]This is a translation of an article in the Algemeen Dagblad, the biggest and one of the most respected newspapers in the Netherlands. This isn't anti-war-propaganda btw, since the majority of the people here in Holland actually support the war and the government itself has chosen to politically support this war. It's just an objective article to remind us that friendly fire has been and still is a problem in current warfare.
source=
http://www.ad.nl/artikelen/NieuwsIrak/1048227685494.html)
registration is free
Originally posted by ^_-
thing is. america does not make racial discrimination in the armed forces. get over yourselves.
it is done by both countries.
it is not something either are proud of.
i urge you both to get ALL the facts before you begin to post political propoganda, made up by anyone.
yes we hit our own people sometimes
does saddam care if he kills a few thousand of his people? no, he actively MURDERS them.
errrr luc wasnt comment on the islamic/black guy ... he was complaining about the fanatic that bombed him and 12 others!!
Don't get me wrong btw, I am pro war. I think disarming Saddam could've been achieved without a war, but this war's necessary to destabalize Saddam's regime to built up a new one. And yes, after this war I'm pro any future wars against other authorative regimes, even with Saudi Arabia although that nation is an ally of the US.
I'm just here to remind everyone that 'friendly fire' is a big problem in current warfare.
most of those friendly fire casualties weren't accidents either. my uncle was ordered to fire on his fellow soldiers during the gulf war when they were stuck in a mine field.
And I'm glad to hear you complain to me about what the US soldiers are doing over in the middle east.....because, you know, I have a lot of control over them.....
Yes, friendly fire is a problem, but i'll bet we're not the only country that has this problem, I'm sure that the British will accidentally shoot down a US plane, or shoot some US soldiers, it happens, the entire purpose of camoflage (sp?) is so that NOBODY can detect you. If we could tell that the plane up there was an ally, then so could Iraq.
If the plane WOULD have been Iraq's and we would have let it go because it may have been British, and then a British camp got the crap bombed out of it, you would be all over us for that *sigh* I'm all against this war, but your country chose to join us in our little vendetta, and so your country needs to deal with the consequences.
ooh now theyve dropped a bomb in turkey!
fortunately it hasnt hit ne1 by the sounds of it
doesnt look good for ur flying rights
and no my country hasnt chosen to join america ... tony blair has
the country is split 50-50 afaik
And my country is split like, 52 to 48, but you seem to condemn all of us for this war.
I heard they have some sort of code on all planes. The code is changed every 13 minutes and if you forget to do that...bad stuff might happen.
I have no idea how these codes are used to identify planes, but...who cares.
USA has also fired a few missiles on Iran's ground. Oopsie...?
According to recent polls, only 15% of us Finns think this war is justified. :(
I also heard that the ship indentification systems in place for UK and the US maybe incompatible.
It seemed the systems were down a lot longer, so the rocket thought it indentified the target as a missle coming towards the ships location.
Hopefully they'll be less friendly fire incidents this time around. I hope this doesn't turn out to be WWIII.
But I believe Saddam does need to be unarmed.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
If the plane WOULD have been Iraq's and we would have let it go because it may have been British, and then a British camp got the crap bombed out of it, you would be all over us for that *sigh*
Well.. that couldn't happen, since Iraq doesn't have an airforce anymore. The small airforce they possibly had, has been disabled 2 days ago.
Recent news has informed us that most patriots are not manually fired, they are programmed and are working automatically, because the airspace above Iraq's really crowded. The reason it shot down a British airplane is most likely a programming failure....
and everybody's talking about 'smart' bombs? :confused:
lol we all made posts with almost the same general info at almost the same time. :p
Originally posted by Zodiac
Don't get me wrong btw, I am pro war. I think disarming Saddam could've been achieved without a war, but this war's necessary to destabalize Saddam's regime to built up a new one.
That's not entirely true. USA plans to remove Saddam from power and insert a new "US-friendly" leader in his place. However, it's gonna be destabilized once Saddam is gone - as there's no "Iraqi people" to speak of, he's the only one holding together all the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis together into one nation.
Once this war is over, hell will truly break loose. Who's gonna go grab all that oil? Which terrorist faction is going to assassinate the new leader allied with USA? Who's gonna hate USA more than ever for securing yet another market? It's alright that the US don't expect other nations to assist them in their war, but once it's over, it's suddenly a UN matter to rebuild the havoc they've caused? Way to f*cking go.
And yes, after this war I'm pro any future wars against other authorative regimes, even with Saudi Arabia although that nation is an ally of the US.
And N. Korea, except they have a few thousand guns trained at Seoul, nukes and an inhospitable terrain and mentality towards the US. Once a few nukes start popping on the west coast, hell will erupt.
No really, do you expect USA to go on a crusade and remove every single tyrant? Hell no. This war is so obviously not intended to free the people of Iraq. We've all seen how their intervention succeeded in Chile, Nicuragua etc. Does the US have a right to turn other countries into industrialized clones of themself?
And my country is split like, 52 to 48, but you seem to condemn all of us for this war.
According to pro-war rallies, it's 76% support for the war.
According to recent polls, only 15% of us Finns think this war is justified.
On the other hand, this guy:
http://www.tonyhalme.net/galleriasivut/isot/hyppy.jpg)
...just got into the finnish parliament by a landslide victory.
I'll be damned once the world starts caring about what happens in Scandinavia.
Originally posted by Clem
well if u desgin systems to hit something moving that fast at that altitude
maybe u should design a system to tell what it is ur shooting:mad:
Coalition aircraft transmitt a code that other coalition forces should be able to detect, generally reffered to as Identify Friend or Foe. IFF.
And it was an anti balistic Patriot missle that shot down the British Tornado, which the Iraqis do not have.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
And my country is split like, 52 to 48, but you seem to condemn all of us for this war.
dont get me wrong i dont blame the american people ne more than i blame the british people .... i blame our governments!
Sith that excuse is no good any more, how do you know there wasnt a REASON why they were firing? there most certainly was. Also what proof do you have to show that the commanders knew the troops were friendly? Friendly fire happens in war. Casualties happen in war. Get over it, dont whine. Maybe if the pilot reported in he wouldnve been shot down.
Also nobody cares about scandanavia because your countries have no power.
The US has all of the power, britain has power, and you dont like it, get over it.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Also nobody cares about scandanavia because your countries have no power.
Not correct.
The little power we have however, have not come into our hands by raping other countries.
The US has all of the power, britain has power, and you dont like it, get over it.
I'm thinking you'd like to see America as the sole nation on earth. All other countries are just "proto-Americans", waiting to be saved, right?
crado
1 of these days america will piss off china
and i dont wanna be about when that happens
Originally posted by C'jais
That's not entirely true. USA plans to remove Saddam from power and insert a new "US-friendly" leader in his place. However, it's gonna be destabilized once Saddam is gone - as there's no "Iraqi people" to speak, he's the only one holding together all the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis together into one nation.
Once this war is over, hell will truly break loose. Who's gonna go grab all that oil? Which terrorist faction is going to assassinate the new leader allied with USA? Who's gonna hate USA more than ever for securing yet another market? It's alright that the US don't expect other nations to assist them in their war, but once it's over, it's suddenly a UN matter to rebuild the havoc they've caused? Way to f*cking go.
Good points. It is true that Iraq is divided into several ethnic groups that really don't get along. I'm just a bit more optimistich in the Iraqi situation after the war. I hope it does go without too much trouble.
Of course, I know there's a big chance it won't be that easy and there'll be a lot of problems in rebuilding Iraq :( I'm just crossing my fingers here for a positive outcome... I don't know if I'm being realistic, but I sure hope I am, because the situation after the war could be even worse than the situation before the war. :(
And N. Korea, except they have a few thousand guns trained at Seoul, nukes and an inhospitable terrain and mentality towards the US. Once a few nukes start popping on the west coast, hell will erupt.
No really, do you expect USA to go on a crusade and remove every single tyrant? Hell no.
Hmmm.. it would be really hypocrit to address the humanitary issues surrounding Iraq as a reason to invade Iraq, but not do the same with other countries. I don't think the US and the UK are that hypocrit. Why wouldn't they invade other nations with almost identical evil regimes? Are the Iraqi people more special to 'free' them, and then ignore other nations because they're not special? Of course not. Other nations, like Saudi Arabia or several other countries in Africa, like Congo, have just as evil and corrupt regimes as Iraq. It'd be hypocrit to just stop after Iraq. The biggest reason for going to war would be one big joke if we'd stop.
China cant invade the united states, atleast not yet.... Id like to see them attempt to invade the united states.... a bunch of boats buringing out in the ocean, a bunch of blown up and shot chinese, itd be an ugly war.
The US didnt 'rape' other countries to get power, we havent gotten any power from 'raping' Isnt scandanavia where the vikings were from? If the US got power from raping other countries, wed control all of europe now, similar to what the soviets did after ww2. Face it, the US isnt that bad, you owe us a LOT for your liberation (billions of dollars for ww2, stopping the USSR, fighting wars while you dont have to) You can dislike war, but dont take your agression out on the US because that is low and pathetic and will only piss people off. People not supporting this war piss me off enough.
And most americans feel the same way. Verbally attacking the US because we dont have our lips on your ass is immature and naive. You dont need to support war but dont attack the US.
The reason we invaded Iraq is because saddam plays games with the UN and US, iand those other dictators will have their day as well.
Originally posted by C'jais
On the other hand, this guy:
http://www.tonyhalme.net/galleriasivut/isot/hyppy.jpg)
...just got into the finnish parliament by a landslide victory.
Ooof...thanks for bringing that up, C'jais. :o
It seems he has his own website too:
http://www.tonyhalme.net/)
LMAO! Check out the site! (click on "SISДДN" to enter)
Oh my dear god! We're sooo screwed! :D
I'm really waiting forward for the EU budget negotiations where Tony Halme sits down with Romano Prodi and Jacques Chirac (sp?) and tells 'em how it's gonna be.
Actually he might be able to talk some sense into Mr Bush as well..?
BTW - did you know this guys was robbed in Brazil (?) a while back? Yeah... if I remember correctly, he got his ear cut off. 9 of the robbers had to be carried to the nearby hospital.
He is a bad-ass, that's for sure. :D ....and orders all his drinks as "triples" too. (Happened to be in the same bar with him once.)
:lol:
That site's excellent. :D
What a guy. :p
Originally posted by Zodiac
Of course, I know there's a big chance it won't be that easy and there'll be a lot of problems in rebuilding Iraq :( I'm just crossing my fingers here for a positive outcome...
I'm crossing my fingers too. May this war be swift and decisive. I'm really hoping Bagdad doesn't turn into another "Black Hawk Down" with thousands of civilian casualties. One thing is desert combat, where the US can pummel the enemy with missiles, artillery and similar big guns. City combat is something entirely else. You can't just indiscriminately pound Bagdad, and by the time they're about to fight, they might just have no guided munitions left.
I don't know if I'm being realistic, but I sure hope I am, because the situation after the war could be even worse than the situation before the war. :(
I don't know if I'm right, but that's my point in a nutshell.
The biggest reason for going to war would be one big joke if we'd stop.
Once this war is over, that joke will have been played, and the US will once again look like the greatest tricksters the world have ever seen.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Sith that excuse is no good any more, how do you know there wasnt a REASON why they were firing? there most certainly was. Also what proof do you have to show that the commanders knew the troops were friendly? Friendly fire happens in war. Casualties happen in war. Get over it, dont whine. Maybe if the pilot reported in he wouldnve been shot down.
I don't think you see the seriousness of the situation. In current wars there will be casualties yes, but it is horrific to know that a very large percentage of those casualties on allied sides are made by friendly fire! The entire point is that the US and UK government so far hasn't really aknowledged this problem, only pumping billions of dollars into the development of the so called 'smart' bombs, but not into the development of technology to prevent or decrease the increasing problems of friendly fire incidents. The entire irony of this recent incident is that a 'smart' bomb, which was supposed to be 'smart' due to all the billions spent into its development, actually failed and shot down a friendly target.
Also nobody cares about scandanavia because your countries have no power.
The US has all of the power, britain has power, and you dont like it, get over it. [/B]
I can't believe you actually wrote that. You are really referring to a world where the strong countries can do whatever they want to. But that situation would be horrible, because if it really was like that, what would, for example, stop China from invading Taiwan right now, taking the island by force and taking its advantage from the chaos in the middle east? Right now it's the UN's peacekeeping council that's keeping China away from Taiwan. And guess what, Scandinavia is part of that council :). The recent behavior of the US and the UK and those other countries like Spain totally ignored the UN and it's international law and I'm ALL against the way they treated the UN's peacekeeping council. :(
right ... wanna know why iraq was first?
cos we know they dont have WMD ... otherwise we wouldnt go in so hastily oh and they have lots of oil
n.korea is in a similar situation but we mite piss off china and they might have nukes and they dont have oil afaik
we wont go after israel (who are WORSE than iraq) cos theyre buddies with america .. and they DO have nukes
britain should be going after zimbabwe cos our people are being tortured and killed but theres no oil there either ... and america doesnt wanna do that which seems to dictate our actions nowadays
america should be concentrating on the middle east peace situation
Posted by C'jais
Not correct.
The little power we have however, have not come into our hands by raping other countries.I'm sure I could find evidence to the contrary somewhere, but it'd take too much effort and there'd be so little of it that I'll concede that point to you :p :D
I'm thinking you'd like to see America as the sole nation on earth. All other countries are just "proto-Americans", waiting to be saved, right? You know, somehow that manages to sound remarkably.. 'religious'.. to me.... *leaves it at that*
Posted by CagedCrado
China cant invade the united states, atleast not yet.... Id like to see them attempt to invade the united states.... a bunch of boats buringing out in the ocean, a bunch of blown up and shot chinese, itd be an ugly war.Why would they bother to invade if it was a war between China and the US? They'd both just use nukes =/
Face it, the US isnt that bad, you owe us a LOT for your liberation (billions of dollars for ww2, stopping the USSR, fighting wars while you dont have to)Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French :)
You can dislike war, but dont take your agression out on the US because that is low and pathetic and will only piss people off.Fair point, but you can't tell people to stop criticising the US if they do so in a civilised manner, without getting aggressive.
The reason we invaded Iraq is because saddam plays games with the UN and US, iand those other dictators will have their day as well.The US has used the UN for its own benefit more than any other country - yes Saddam needs to go, but the way this attempt to remove him has been handled is only going exacerbate problems.
Posted by Luc Solar
I'm really waiting forward for the EU budget negotiations where Tony Halme sits down with Romano Prodi and Jacques Chirac (sp?) and tells 'em how it's gonna be.LOL!
I love it :D
Buckle your seatbelts Dorothy, this thread is moving to the senate...
Originally posted by CagedCrado
China cant invade the united states, atleast not yet....
Not yet, no.
However, give them 20 years, a proper government and China will be the greater superpower in the world.
They're 1 billion people dammit - with the right capitalistic government, that population could accomplish that which your nation has only dreamt of.
The US didnt 'rape' other countries to get power we havent gotten any power from 'raping'
Ok, if you say so.
Isnt scandanavia where the vikings were from?
Fair point :D
Yet, that happened over 1000 years ago. Your abusing happened 25 years ago. Subtle difference, I know.
If the US got power from raping other countries, wed control all of europe now, similar to what the soviets did after ww2.
WHAT!?!? :eek:
Face it, the US isnt that bad, you owe us a LOT for your liberation
Please shut up. While it was very generous of you to come to our rescue (even though you didn't gave a sh*t about us until you got attacked yourself), this does not render your country immune to hatred coming from a slightly annoyed UN.
stopping the USSR,
Oh, so you stopped the USSR? That one's new.
I also suspect you think pinko commie bastards are much worse than capitalistic pigs.
You can dislike war, but dont take your agression out on the US because that is low and pathetic and will only piss people off. People not supporting this war piss me off enough.
Of course, whenever we disagree with whatever plan you've made to save a poor country, we're being low and pathetic.
After all, we can't really disagree with your brilliant idea since you saved us in WW2, right?
You dont need to support war but dont attack the US.
But it's okay to attack France and the former Soviet?
The reason we invaded Iraq is because saddam plays games with the UN and US, iand those other dictators will have their day as well.
And Israel does not "play games with the UN" either? They haven't had 30 years to remove their behinds from occupied territory? You haven't vetoed against action towards Israel as the only UN member 38 times?
And when it comes to removing other dictators, please go for Scandinavia's as well. As we all know, every country that doesn't run it hard-line laissez-faire and super-capitalistic is by defination a corrupt regime, right?
noooooooooooooooooooooo i refuse to have 1 of my threads considered "serious"
"Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French"
wacky u rock :)
All those little wars were against the soviet union, that means they were good. Aslo the thing with israel is: people in europe are anti semistic (not all of them are, but enough, thats why we made israel to begin with). You dont have the facts because the US actually wants mideast peace, and we believe to arrive at peace we cannot have rouge nations like iraq. Israel is fine, they atleast work with the UN and US for peace. I dont believe the UN is a working entity any more anyway. The entire UN needs to be reworked because:
They cant stop anybody from doing anything without the US
They cant stop even worthless countries like iraq from doing what they want...
anyway thats the situation with the mideast. Taking out saddam hussein will only furtherly stabalize the position.
The US DOES recognize a palestinian nation. Israel doesnt.
The US did stop the soviet union but you became communists anyway... funny world huh? C'jais, you dont speak german right? BTW i dont see the US having overseas territory.... We dont benefit from any of these wars and i just laugh when people think that.
People in europe owe the US for their right to oppose the war. The US used to oppose war before ww1 and ww2 but we learned the hard way that there are wars that need to be fought.
And i will say, i would risk my life to protect this country against communists, terrorists, socialist (for those who think its different from communists), and anybody who opposes because i feel the United States is a great country, a just, and fair country.
PS we should have fought ww2 back in 1933, but thanks to the french and americans ignorance to hitler he grew in power. Same thing is happening in iraq, Saddam has tried atleast 2 times to take over the mideast.
(iran-iraq war, 1991 gulf war)
You entirely mis interpretted my previous post, i was telling you to oppose war but not oppose the US. You cant deny the US is powerful, and that you owe much of your independence to
Renewed ideas of democracy
the cold war
WW2
WW1
Economic advantages
Inventions
etc
The US owes europeans:
Everybody here is from europe for the most part
industrialization
support in wars
being buffers in the cold war
being buffers in wars
and to those that apply support in the new war. (even countries who oppose, but protesters are not thanked in this)
y cant i argue as well as this
all i can say is
the vikings raped people yes ... but they did it overtly .... its much nicer than the things america does .... also the vikings didnt do it across the whole world
right ... i dunno the exact numbers .... but
iraq has ignored about 15 un thingys over 12 years
israel has ignore over 40 in about 30 yrs!!
but no ... israel is americas buddy ... so we dont do nething about that
Posted by Clem
right ... wanna know why iraq was first?
cos we know they dont have WMD ... otherwise we wouldnt go in so hastily oh and they have lots of oil
n.korea is in a similar situation but we mite piss off china and they might have nukes and they dont have oil afaikThey do have nukes, and they're maknig more - and their nukes can reach the USA, unlike Saddam's biochemical weaponry, which might get to Israel if it was lucky.
And it's not a war to get hold of Iraq's oil - it's a war to open up that oil, and to make sure it's sold in dollars, rather than in Euros (as it is now in Iraq), so that the US can continue their economic hegemony via the dollar's unique position of being the 'oil currency'.
OPEC as a whole, and specifically Iran, have been seriously considering switching to the Euro for a while now - the US doesn't want that, so a nice US-friendly regime in the region - not to mention a large show of force - is just what they need to discourage OPEC from making that switchover any time soon.
we wont go after israel (who are WORSE than iraq) cos theyre buddies with america .. and they DO have nukesThey're not worse, they're as bad - the Palestinians aren't doing themselves (m)any favours, though... I hope that Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" thing comes off... Although I doubt it will =/
britain should be going after zimbabwe cos our people are being tortured and killed but theres no oil there either ... and america doesnt wanna do that which seems to dictate our actions nowadaysYou have something of a point there... I'll need to think some more about it before addressing it though :p
america should be concentrating on the middle east peace situation Of course they should, but that doesn't mean they will - we did similar things in the past :(
[edit]
Posted by Clem
noooooooooooooooooooooo i refuse to have 1 of my threads considered "serious"
"Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French"
wacky u rock :) Why, thank you, Clem :D
Originally posted by CagedCrado
All those little wars were against the soviet union, that means they were good.
Why? Explain your case?
Aslo the thing with israel is: people in europe are anti semistic
All-righty then.
You dont have the facts because the US actually wants mideast peace
Then stop supporting Sharon the Bastard. Stop giving him 3 billions in "aid" each year to buy weapons for. Stop using your veto to prevent the UN from taking action against Israel's atrocities.
and we believe to arrive at peace we cannot have rouge nations like iraq.
And what constitutes a "rogue nation"? If it's breaking UN resolutions, making hostile take-over against neighboring states and having WMDs, then Israel would by all rights be a rogue nation as well.
Israel is fine, they atleast work with the UN and US for peace.
Ok.
I wouldn't call dodging resolutions and sanctions for 30 years, "working [i]with[/i", but hey...
[On the UN] They cant stop anybody from doing anything without the US
Oh, I see. Which is pretty much why the US shouldn't be allowed to veto anything in the UN.
They cant stop even worthless countries like iraq from doing what they want...
Nor can we prevent your country from running their own solo-show here. We can't stop you from bribing, bullying and threatening other members to agree with you, either.
anyway thats the situation with the mideast.
Thanks for the heads-up, Captain America.
Most of the dollars have been paid back? no they havent, but they were spent for the better good.... so it doesnt matter.
Im just saying that weve spent a lot for the better good of europe with little or no spoils besides the liberation of hummanity.
Anything to fight the soviets was worth it. Different times... back then it was us or them, with the soviets wanting world domination.
The US does not benefit from war usually because we give the countries back to the people, and allow them to rule as we keep the peace. We do many times put in pro US leaders, but the people do appreciate being liberated, this is very evident in iraq.
Europe has benefitted from this war, in economy, security, protesters dont understand this, they dont look at the reasons for the war etc. I doubt many of them have seen what saddam has done.
Oh, and we have provided medical attention to iraqis, civilian and military. Its really a wonderful sight to see people who have gained their freedom.
In france, iraq, kuwait, korea, the philipines, the netherlands, norway, and all other countries we have liberated since the 1940s.
You cant see the looks on those peoples faces and tell me that the US is doing them wrong.
Also look what israel goes through, if people were trying to blow me up, id be fighting them too.
And yes, i am Captain America.
Oh and c'jais, you just proved my point, the UN is NOTHING without the US.
Also its not a solo operation,
40 countries supporting
US, British, Australian, Polish, kuwaiti, turkish, kurdish, and iraqi troops are fighting saddam hussein.
Spanish engineers, porteguese, and italian assistance units.
French anti-chemical/biological specialists (39)
Arab countries of Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan (will be a country someday), Armenia, Kazikstan and other former soviet republics support the war,
Theres lots and lots of support there.....
Originally posted by Wacky_Baccy
You know, somehow that manages to sound remarkably.. 'religious'.. to me.... *leaves it at that*
Actually, I thought it was more intended to convey the idea that the US see themselves as cultural liberators (imperialists in my eyes).
But as we know, that C'jais dude does speak a lot of innuendo, so who knows? ;)
Most of those dollars have been payed back, most (NOT all) of those wars were unnecessary and more to do with the US's own interests than 'liberating' anyone, and I'd just like to remind you that you owe your independence - perhaps your very existence, even - to the good old French :)
Easy there, fiesty one! I didn't know you had it in you!
And it's not a war to get hold of Iraq's oil - it's a war to open up that oil, and to make sure it's sold in dollars, rather than in Euros (as it is now in Iraq), so that the US can continue their economic hegemony via the dollar's unique position of being the 'oil currency'.
OPEC as a whole, and specifically Iran, have been seriously considering switching to the Euro for a while now - the US doesn't want that, so a nice US-friendly regime in the region - not to mention a large show of force - is just what they need to discourage OPEC from making that switchover any time soon.
You go girl!
*Worships Wacky for a bit*
Yes the war is partly for oil, and i support that 100%. It is more so because iraq has weapons of mass destruction, illegal missiles, has failed to comply to cease fire for 12 years, and the people of iraq are horribly mistreated.
If i for some reason must fight in a war for the US, I will be proud to fight for US power, oil, liberation of people, to stop terrorism, or any other reason that will force the US to go to war.
People who die in war are heroes, and all of the soldiers who have died thus far, are heros. You cant deny that.
"Oh and c'jais, you just proved my point, the UN is NOTHING without the US."
thats not a good thing ... thats a BAD thing ... that means america can do what it wants when it wants ... but others can ... sounds a bit like american worldwide domination ... covert style
"Also its not a solo operation,
40 countries supporting
US, British, Australian, Polish, kuwaiti, turkish, kurdish, and iraqi troops are fighting saddam hussein.
Spanish engineers, porteguese, and italian assistance units.
French anti-chemical/biological specialists (39)
Arab countries of Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan (will be a country someday), Armenia, Kazikstan and other former soviet republics support the war,
Theres lots and lots of support there....."
the uk isnt supporting it .. tony is
god knows y the ozzies are in it
most of the smaller countries are bought
turkey doesnt support the war they only let u fly over (tho that might not last long now u dropped a bomb on them!)
and the other countries understand that they cant stop the war now ... so we better keep america in check
Originally posted by CagedCrado
The US did stop the soviet union but you became communists anyway...
I wasn't aware of that, seeing as I live in Europe, not China or Cuba.
We dont benefit from any of these wars and i just laugh when people think that.
*slight giggling turns into throatbursting laughter*
The US used to oppose war before ww1 and ww2 but we learned the hard way that there are wars that need to be fought.
That's true. Pacifism is not the way to go. We all saw how pacifism got us nowhere in WW2. Very true.
(iran-iraq war, 1991 gulf war)
You might wanna check up on how he got the weapons for those wars, and how practically got permission from the US to start them.
the cold war
We were being taken over by the soviets during the 70's? Whoah.
No you werent being taken over by the soviets thanks to the US, instead mongolia, armenia, kazakstan, the ukraine, poland, germany, estonia, latvia, bulgaria, macedonia, yugoslavia, greece, afghanistan, korea, and vietnam were being taken over by the soviets or were supported by soviets... theres more than that too. Oh yeah and finland was too.... thats pretty close to you right?
When i say that europe became communists i mean that they became socialists, which to me is communism....
Yes i know the US supported Iraq in the iran-iraq war, but thats because the iranians were terrorists.
Just another example of fighting the soviets into corruption.
CagedCrado, you admitted that the war is partly for oil. But USA have no right on that oil. That's like robbing a bank and getting away with it because you have more guns than the police.
About Sovjet wanting world domination: Funny.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick - you're writing so much Crado! I find it hard to keep up!
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Im just saying that weve spent a lot for the better good of europe with little or no spoils besides the liberation of hummanity.
Liberation of humanity? Do continue.
Also look what israel goes through, if people were trying to blow me up, id be fighting them too.
They could start by getting the f*ck out of areas they aren't supposed to be in.
Oh and c'jais, you just proved my point, the UN is NOTHING without the US.
Why? The rest of the UN seems to be doing fine with their peace keeping missions.
Also its not a solo operation,
40 countries supporting
US, British, Australian, Polish, kuwaiti, turkish, kurdish, and iraqi troops are fighting saddam hussein.
Spanish engineers, porteguese, and italian assistance units.
French anti-chemical/biological specialists (39)
Arab countries of Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan (will be a country someday), Armenia, Kazikstan and other former soviet republics support the war,
Theres lots and lots of support there.....
You forgot my country. Denmark is sending a submarine and a warship down there. You may stop hating me now.