Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Gank on November 07, 2004, 09:17:14 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716
If I was a marine in Fallujah this would have me worried:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11312324%255E1702,00.html
-
"This man has no known ties with Fallujah and they (the US military) don't believe in the first instance that he is headed for Fallujah. They believe that since the captain is a Kurd, he is more likely headed up north and going home," the report said.
"It is significant that he disappeared the morning after he had a full and detailed brief on the full battle plan for the assault on Fallujah."
-
yeah, heard about the stolen battle plans.
Its gonna be a ****ing slaughter. The last offensive back in the summer failed militarily, and it got well over five hundred civilians killed. This time, the resitance is better armed and more numerous. To achieve anything that could possibly be considered a "victory", the US is going to have to push hard, and that means at least several hundred, if not several thousand, innocents wind up in body bags.
Just goes to show: resistance will not be tolerated.
and for those rubbing your jingoist little paws together at the prospect of levelling Fallujah and showing those no-good sand niggers who's boss, try reading one the blogs from Iraq. Imagine is lets say Russia invaded the US and then proceeded to surround Chicago and bomb the **** out of the city, civilians casualties be damned.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#109933562515304582
humanity really disapoints me sometimes.
-
lower your expectations, humanity has always been like this.
As for the boyo going home to Kurdistan, thats laughable, both the yanks and Iraqis are going to be looking for him and his house is the first place they'll look. Best hope he has is hiding out somewhere with somebody who wont sell him out till the show is over and hope nobody remembers about him after.
-
Civilian casualties are a regrettable part of war. But don't think for one second that those bastards in Fallujah give a fig for the civilians. They'll use them for shields in a second. Yes, the civilian casualties will be high. But not because the American/Iraqi forces are not being careful who they shoot.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Civilian casualties are a regrettable part of war. But don't think for one second that those bastards in Fallujah give a fig for the civilians. They'll use them for shields in a second. Yes, the civilian casualties will be high. But not because the American/Iraqi forces are not being careful who they shoot.
If the insurgents don't give a **** about civvie casualties, does that mean we shouldn't either? And it's not about being careful who you shoot, it's about being careful who you bomb...... high explosive warheads in a densely populated city of 300,000 - some of home will not be able to escape, even if allowed (and what of those who want to somehow try to protect their home, ie from looting?), so you're looking at a bloodbath every time the US forces engage, then withdraw for air support to pound the source of incoming fire.
NB: can someone explain how you can be able to bomb enemy 'safehouses' without having ground forces to locate them?
-
Look for the houses that haven't already been bombed. These houses, lacking structural instability, are deemed to be safe and thus they are 'safe houses'.
-
All right Lib, can you even tell me one legitimate reason why the insurgents should not be allowed to keep Fallujah?
Iraq should be governed by Iraqs, even you agree with that. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it safe to assume that the people living in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are, well, Iraqi?
Whats a more legitimate government? An appointed ex CIA asset, who most Iraqis despise, or the people of a city assuming control of their own city, in their own country?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
All right Lib, can you even tell me one legitimate reason why the insurgents should not be allowed to keep Fallujah?
Iraq should be governed by Iraqs, even you agree with that. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it safe to assume that the people living in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are, well, Iraqi?
Whats a more legitimate government? An appointed ex CIA asset, who most Iraqis despise, or the people of a city assuming control of their own city, in their own country?
Government by force of arms is no more democratic or valid than any other unelected form of government, regardless of who that government is.
You can't have any form of fair government - and crucially, elections - when you are allowing people to run around with guns taking control. Remember, the key word here is taking control - I've not seen any evidence of a democratic process in Fallujah that has given these guys legitamacy. In fact, what legitimacy they do have, has probably erupted as a counterpoint to the US bombardments of the city.
-
Well, when you have 130 thosand arms troops occupying your country, I don't much see how you could establish your independence from their rule except by force of arms. Not like you can just ask them to leave.
Ideally, yes, democratic elections (I and do mean democratic, not "democratic") are the most legitimate way to form a government, and I still whole-heartedly support them, but for the time being, when faced with a foreign government that is unelected (and disliked) and a local government that is unelected (but seen as heros), I'll go with the latter.
You can't have any form of fair government - and crucially, elections - when you are allowing people to run around with guns taking control
...uhm, yeah, can't have that.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, when you have 130 thosand arms troops occupying your country, I don't much see how you could establish your independence from their rule except by force of arms. Not like you can just ask them to leave.
Ideally, yes, democratic elections (I and do mean democratic, not "democratic") are the most legitimate way to form a government, and I still whole-heartedly support them, but for the time being, when faced with a foreign government that is unelected (and disliked) and a local government that is unelected (but seen as heros), I'll go with the latter.
...uhm, yeah, can't have that.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Don't think I'm endorsing the current US tactics, etc, but there's simply no way to have a proper election without security. And at present there is no native Iraqi army or security force which is large or well trained enough to do this, so it's down to the coalition troops (becuase you'll need troops in non-US controlled areas to perform this purpose, before you quiblle with the use of 'coalition' there).
The problem is that if you just let people run around with their own private armies or whatever, you'll end up with another pre-post Taliban afghanistan, i.e. run by a group of warlords. It's a question between 'democracy' and chaos, really. At the end of the day, if the UK/Us/etc pulled out, civil war would be certain. As it stands, if they stay in there is the possibility - albiet not the certainty - it can be avoided, if they get the security situation properly controlled and elections held (and ratified by independent observers as legit)
I'm not sure that all, or even many Iraqis would see the insurgents - foreign or otherwise - as 'heroes'. I suspect their primary concern is safety - be it from crossfire or car bombs. And I'd imagine that they'd be pragmatic enough to realise that the insurgency is keeping the Americans in Iraq, rather than driving them away.
I think the US tactics over Falluja are acting against this aim, because they're destroying any faint glimmer of goodwill left from ousting and capturing Saddam. Armed militias, insurgents, etc will basically prevent any prospect of free elections.
But levelling a city to get them, will do as much damage to chances of a legitimate Iraqi democracy as any insurgent group or groups could do.
EDIT; remember, these insurgents are - or include - the same guys that have been planting car-bombs, massacring police, kidnapping charity workers / ordinary Iraqis, etc. They're not exactly the good guys, even if you omit any consideration of attacks solely on the occupying US forces.
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041108/D867Q8O80.html
-
Oh for ****s sake!
The US has just captured the main hospital in Fallujah, under the pretetense of "liberating it", presumably so that the staff won't have to broadcast the terrible lies and propaganda of the insurgents, like how many civilian casualties there are.
Doctors are being held there at gunpoint, an ambulance that tried to leave was fired upon.
Brilliant ****ing move! Not only is it going to be a slaughter, but now the wounded will be stuck using makeshift clinics in auto mechanic shops and schools, with little to no medical supplies and equipment, and having to deal not only with the bombing, but with urban fighting and snipers as well.
Not only that, but since the hospital is located on the other side of the Euphrates from most of Fallujah, and the US is holding the only two bridges across, the wounded and dying are **** out of luck.
American commanders regarded the reports as inflated, but it was impossible to determine independently how many civilians had been killed. The hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy casualties.
-
The US, who claims they don't count civilian casualties, and that seperates itself from Fallujah with snipers and Humvees, if of course better suited to judge civilian casualties than the doctors who treat the patients and are in contact with other doctors all over Fallujah.
The first target that gets taken is a hospital, so that no one on the outside will find out the human cost of the US's little escapade. Lies, all lies! There are no dead civilians! The evil terrorists and their al Jazeera co-conspiritors are just broadcasting propaganda.
Win the information war, and the rest will follow/
-
And insurgents never ever stowe away in hospitals, schools, and mosks huh rictor...? They never use them to hide? I am sure they had some sort of reasoning behind it.
-
good then, ****ing bomb all the hospitals to ****!
ambulances too. Schools and mosques go next.
all of Fallujah is a "possible terrorist hideout" right buddy?
**** it, nuke the whole city, better safe then sorry.
oh and, just so we're clear, ambulances and hospotals are protected under the Geneva convention, whih the US is now violating.
-
The US forces have taken possession of the hospital, leaving the incursion into the hospital to be carried out by Iraqi soldiers. The hospital, the largest in the city, is located on the western side of the banks of the Euphrates rivers, which separates it from the centre, leaving just small clinics to deal with any local wounded or dead if full-scale fighting erupts. According to Salih al-Isawi, the hospital director, the building had been surrounded and "they are telling us over loud speakers that if we leave the building we will be shot at", reporting that an ambulance that tried to exit the facility was fired upon.
Map of the city, showing hospotal and bridges
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/144/1547/640/fallujah_dg-15sept02-mapped.jpg
-
As for evacuating the wounded, most wounded will be the insurgents. Most have fled, not all, but most. Chances are the wouded that would be evacuated are those that are the cause of the problem.
-
Are you ****ing demented?
300,000 people
3000 insurgents
This is criminal and you know it. No one, and I mean no one, aside from a few fine specimens of jingoist nutjobs such as yourself, is going to justify capturing a hospital and firing on ambulances.
According to your logic, ll of a\Iraq is one big free fire zone, and anyone who gets killed deseres it. Every actrion is justified, cause those willy insurgents could be using, er...schools and, uhm...groceries stores, as cover.
Is there any target that not OK to fire upon?
Face it, your a hypocrite of the worst kind. If this happened in the US, you'de be up in arms.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
As for evacuating the wounded, most wounded will be the insurgents. Most have fled, not all, but most. Chances are the wouded that would be evacuated are those that are the cause of the problem.
Could I have the direct feed to the fighting that you seem to be getting, cause I'm tired of having to rely on the news.
-
...leaving the incursion into the hospital to be carried out by Iraqi soldiers.
If, US forces were running an incursion into the hospital we would be breaking geneva convention. BUT WERE NOT.
I love your fictional charges Rictor. :lol:
AND YES I AM ****ING INSANE
I only posted that news story as an update.
-
At least what needs to be done is being done. This needed to be done quite some time ago.
-
can't possbily allow Iraqis to run Iraq.
no, that would be a crime.
-
"Neither irony or SARCASM is argument."
This is getting boring. I honestly hope they don't use schools and hospitals to hide. I hope civilian casualties are not aweful.
-
no you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't support the taking of hospitals, thus denying injured people the aid they so desperately need, you wouldn't support shooting at ambulances, in clear violation of the Geneva convention and any sort of human decency. You wouldn't support heavy bombing, using 500pb bombs, of a town with several hundred thousand civilians it. You wouldn't support an assult that is likely to get many thousands of innocents killed. You wouldn't support foreceflly keeping non-combatants in a warzone, again in violation of the Geneva convention.
just so we're clear on the matter.
-
what the liberally biased media in the states has said is that most have left the city.
And you right rictor I want all to DIE, DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :drevil:
-
Originally posted by redmenace
As for evacuating the wounded, most wounded will be the insurgents. Most have fled, not all, but most. Chances are the wouded that would be evacuated are those that are the cause of the problem.
Actually, many would probably be unable to leave once the first US artillery shelling / airstrikes began prior to the actual assualt. Some may also have been unable to - i.e. the elderly, sick or very young (and by consequence their family / carers in many cases)
Originally posted by Rictor
can't possbily allow Iraqis to run Iraq.
no, that would be a crime.
These people aren't exactly nice, family friendly insurgents, you know. They're not out to improve social welfare or the transport system - their concern is to take power.
If you want any hope of democracy, you can't have armed militias running about the place intimidating the locals. I'm not saying I support the methods being used to try and 'remove' them, but I'm not going to parade them as happy-clappy representatives of the people, because the people have no more choice in the matter than they do with any other leader, be it the US-imposed administation, or Saddam beforehand.
-
oh, may be of interest;
Eyewitness: Taking cover in Falluja (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3993621.stm)
BBC journalist in Fulluja
-
Look, I'm not saying they're Mother Theresa, but if you think about it, they have more right to be there than the US. One is a foreign occupation supported by literally no one, and the other a local resistance at best and an agressive militia at worst, that at least has some support.
When you say that if there are to be fair elections, you can't have armed militants running around, that includes the US. Presumably, the theory is that as long as the whole country is under the rule of a single armed organization, as opposed to several, that will somehow ensure democratic elections? To me, it seems to be a matter of priority. Elections first, then get the US out, or get the US out, then elections? There is talk of "getting the job done", now assuming that job is holding elections (and thats a pretty big assumption), then is it even possible with the US still there? You would say that its impossible with them gone, but is it not equally impossible to hold elections under occupation.
Right now, I'm around where you are aldo, I support establishing peace prior to elections (though it seems reasonable to expect some consessions in return for relinquishing control ) though not of the way in which it is being done: killing a path to legitimacy.
The basic question is, once you throw down your gun and are at their mercy, do you trust the US to act fairly and justly in the interests of democracy? Excuse my cynicism, but I don't.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
oh, may be of interest;
Eyewitness: Taking cover in Falluja (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3993621.stm)
BBC journalist in Fulluja
Looks like they're aiming for the top ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo"), and doing a pretty good job of getting there.
-
Of course, alternately, we could just leave and let whatever happens happen. Suits me fine.
Oh wait, no profit motive..
Then again, assuming lunatic insurgency bullcrap government springs up and decides to make war on the "Infidels", we won't have to exercise any restraint. Big plus.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Look, I'm not saying they're Mother Theresa, but if you think about it, they have more right to be there than the US. One is a foreign occupation supported by literally no one, and the other a local resistance at best and an agressive militia at worst, that at least has some support.
When you say that if there are to be fair elections, you can't have armed militants running around, that includes the US. Presumably, the theory is that as long as the whole country is under the rule of a single armed organization, as opposed to several, that will somehow ensure democratic elections? To me, it seems to be a matter of priority. Elections first, then get the US out, or get the US out, then elections? There is talk of "getting the job done", now assuming that job is holding elections (and thats a pretty big assumption), then is it even possible with the US still there? You would say that its impossible with them gone, but is it not equally impossible to hold elections under occupation.
I think the US at least has international pressure upon it to get some form of democracy.... these insurgents don't have anything. If they win, people expect a theocracy, a dictatorship or simply complete chaos.
I think there is no way whatsoever of holding elections without the US - or at the very least hundreds of thousands of security forces. I'd rather that security force was of some form of Arab coalition - i.e. locally sensitive - but that's not very likely with the quagmire the country has become. Basically, I'm going for the lesser of 2 evils - let the Us stay, but keep the pressure heavily upon them to actually do the right thing and make sure elections are held in Iraq, across Iraq, and freely.
Originally posted by Rictor
Right now, I'm around where you are aldo, I support establishing peace prior to elections (though it seems reasonable to expect some consessions in return for relinquishing control ) though not of the way in which it is being done: killing a path to legitimacy.
The basic question is, once you throw down your gun and are at their mercy, do you trust the US to act fairly and justly in the interests of democracy? Excuse my cynicism, but I don't.
I don't expect the US to act outside their own interests, but I think it can be kept within their interests to have a democratic Iraq. What I would hope - at best - to happen is for a fairly democratic election, but where the parties are all fairly US-dependent. Over time, hopefully that could evolve into a proper democracy. Whereas if the insrugents win, there's nothing else. no hope of democracy, because no-one can put pressure on insurgents to do that, or anything else for Iraq. In short, there is pressure - as I said above - for the US to do something to rebuild Iraq at the least. But not upon the insurgents.
And, on the other side of the coin, the coalition (such as it is) has created an absolute mess out of Iraq. I think they - we (seeing as I am a Brit) - should be duty bound to try and repair that damage, not run away from it. And repairing that, even if simply on a physical level (such as infrastructure), will require somehow removing or reducing the problem of insurgents and terrorists. You just have to look at the UN, the aid agencies pulling out to see the scale of the problem.
-
Ladies, let's get a few cold hard facts established:
If the US leaves this city in "insurgent" hands, they're leaving a base wide open for activists to work from to strike at Allied forces, and the few innocent Iraqis brave enough to oppose the US puppet elections through democratic means.
Now they've attacked they're going to get the worst ass kicking in recent US military history. There is no way for any western army to successfully occupy a city like this, not without years of local knowledge backing them up. Nor are their weapons designed for urban combat - once they're actually fighting street to street, mortars and other AEW are useless (short of risking injuring your own men, or blowing the roof off some random house a few hundred yards away and wasting ammo).
US Casualties will spiral out of control. We'll never know the civilian toll but it will sure as hell be high. The US administration will be dragged through numerous inquests. Black Watch will get hit with a ****storm of "insurgents" escaping and while I have every faith in a Scottish regiment, I know they'll get a murderous casualty toll. There goes Tony Blair.
Alternatively the US withdraws after a moderate amount of casualties and resorts to carpet/heavy bombing. Goodbye Fallujah's population. Goodbye any remaining moral pretext we as westerners may have in Iraq.
Basically, we're ****************ed.
-
Seems accurate enough to me.
-
You forget, they train for urban warfare now. You're basing that assumption on Vietnam. I hate to break it to you, but that was 35 years ago. It's not the same US Military that it was then.
-
I'm basing my assumption on the fact no amount of training compensates for the fact you're fighting against men who know the territory (very very complex and easily confused territory) better than you do. The heavy weaponry that gives the US it's real advantage is still ineffective in close quarters.
This kind of tactic is based on a "win at all costs" approach. That wins a battle, not a war.
-
Black Hawk Down?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You forget, they train for urban warfare now. You're basing that assumption on Vietnam. I hate to break it to you, but that was 35 years ago. It's not the same US Military that it was then.
Yeah, it's a US military which sinks ever increasing amounts of money into the latest technological marvel......
One fact never changes. It is extremely difficult to attack any enemy who is defending a tightly enclosed urban environment. Any advantages of technology, numbers and maneuverability are eroded by the simple fact of being forced to clear room after room, narrow alley after narrow alley. IIRC, it takes hundreds of troops to properly clear and secure even a small village - this is a large city we're talking about here.
And, of course, political and popular opinion is even more important than 'nam. As part of a supposed war on terror, every civillian casualty inflicted by US troops will bring more pressure upon the political - and thus military - leadership both within and without Iraq.
-
One of the Truth Ministry's better efforts I have to say... :lol:
Edit: Was referring to Black Hawk Down
-
Oh, and let's not forget the difficulties the Israelis still encounter every time they enter the territories - and they have far better local knowledge and experience than the US troops do. (and probably more of a popular mandate)
-
Liby, me and a buddy or two are gona come down to your town and try to kill you, you'll know who we are becase we drive extreemly loud vehicles, and we all wear the same cloths (wich are conspicuosly diferent from everyone else's in the area by design), we'll be doing this about six months from now so feel free to do whatever you want to prepare in the mean time. and you better becase I'm realy freaking rich and I can get get any weapons I want.
who do you think will win?
-
and.. what Aldo said.
-
I'm telling ya. 24 hour warning notice for surrender and departure, then nerve gas the whole joint. Problem solved.
-
just when people forget sbout the last time you sudgested gassing.
-
no, I do believe last time it was nukes. Its so hard to keep tracks of these things, I should start writing them down for future reference.
I just hope someone has the balls to go in and do what the media is supposed to be doing, try to get the truth out despite the media blackout by our dear friends.
Oh well, another day another few thousand dead foreigners.
-
*shrug* It's an option, I never said it was a good one. Nukes would be too messy. No point in irradiating an area you're planning on colonising. But all this is neither here nor there.
It's the new Vietnam and will have the same outcome as the last one. After a lengthy ass kicking and stacks of dead on both sides, we'll leave a nice big mess behind us to be remembered for generations.
However, not my fault. I didn't vote for these people.
-
Then why do you feel it is necessary to support their actions and act as an apologist what are quite clearly criminal actions?
-
see they forgot!
-
say what?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Then why do you feel it is necessary to support their actions and act as an apologist what are quite clearly criminal actions?
Well, obviously those criminal acts (gassing Fallujah, for example), is never going to happen. I simply call the situation out for what it is. Crappy.
I'm not so stupid as to be sold on the concept that this is a 'humanitarian' operation at all. If my government truly wants to deploy US troops for humanitarian causes, they can get their righteous asses down to the Sudan, Rwanda, Sierra-Leone and do some ****ing good instead of this retarded farce.
When I discuss 'extremist' positions I am blatantly ignoring everything going on around the situation.
-
News Update: (Unless already mentioned)
Air support will be comprised of GPS or Laser Guided Bombs, not extremely high-explosive, but enough to level a building. The bomb have a severly low chance of missing at all (we've all seen the videos, those suckers nail their target)
Chances of just randomly dropping bombs like in Berlin in WWII is extremely different.
-
Unfortunately with the way cities are built, it's not the impact of the bombs you have to worry about, but the collapse of the buildings affecting other locations.
-
you know, the MOAB. with a half kilometer total destruction zone, is GPS guided to within half a centemeter of acuracy of it's intended target.
just sort of a random interesting fact like thing I felt like mentioning.
-
As I said, non high-explosive bombs. Nothing to level blocks or anything.
-
Well yes, but this is all assuming that thr actualt targeting info is correct. That it is indeed an insurgents stronghold, and not, say...a residential building. Kind of hard to tell from sattelite photos.
Precision guidance just means that you hit the target that you intended, not that the target you intended is in fact the right target.
-
yeah, were talking about an inteligentce sevice that marked the chinees embasy as a SAM site, 'knew' there was a nation load of WMD that... didn't exsist, lost Usama. need I go on.
and a 500 lb bomb no mater how close it hits it's target is going to cause masive damage. to anything within a fairly large reagon.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
If, US forces were running an incursion into the hospital we would be breaking geneva convention. BUT WERE NOT.
I love your fictional charges Rictor.
No, you're not, you're bombing them flat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm
think that constitutes a breach of the geneva convention, not that it matters, they dont apply to you guys seeing how your the champions of freedom and all that bollox.
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Air support will be comprised of GPS or Laser Guided Bombs, not extremely high-explosive, but enough to level a building. The bomb have a severly low chance of missing at all (we've all seen the videos, those suckers nail their target)
News flash for you mate, in Kosovo over 700 armoured vehicles were claimed killed by US led forces using smart munitions, guess how many wrecks the ground troops found: 2 dozen. If a pilot at a couple of thousand feet up cant tell the difference between a tank and a yugo with a drainpipe sticking out of its windscreen how the **** are they going to be able to tell the difference between an insurgent and some poor pricks running for cover?
Anyways not to piss on your parade but from what I can see the main bombardment is artillery, which is neither gps or laser guided.
-
"they dont apply to you guys seeing how your the champions of freedom and all that bollox."
more like, they dont apply to us becase no one is willing to enforce them. do you want to get a gun and stop us? then quit *****ing, you are just as inefectual as the UN.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, were talking about an inteligentce sevice that marked the chinees embasy as a SAM site, 'knew' there was a nation load of WMD that... didn't exsist, lost Usama. need I go on.
Allegedly the Embassy was broadcasting Serb military traffic, probably in return for something from the F117 the serbs shot down.
Originally posted by Bobboau
more like, they dont apply to us becase no one is willing to enforce them. do you want to get a gun and stop us? then quit *****ing, you are just as inefectual as the UN.
Actually the belgians are. As for getting a gun and stopping yis meself, if it was a viable option I'd have set about it with great enthusiasm a long time ago, sadly it aint.
-
isn't that the Norwegians? where its legal to try any head of state for war crimes, even if they are still in power. Or am I thinking of something else?
-
No its Belgium.
-
Originally posted by Gank
News flash for you mate, in Kosovo over 700 armoured vehicles were claimed killed by US led forces using smart munitions, guess how many wrecks the ground troops found: 2 dozen. If a pilot at a couple of thousand feet up cant tell the difference between a tank and a yugo with a drainpipe sticking out of its windscreen how the **** are they going to be able to tell the difference between an insurgent and some poor pricks running for cover?
Anyways not to piss on your parade but from what I can see the main bombardment is artillery, which is neither gps or laser guided.
To be fair, at least in Kosovo they had the (tenuous) excuse that the bombers were restricted to high-altitude, low-accuracy bombing because the US were scared of casualties from Yugoslav AA. There's not even the excuse in this case.
Originally posted by Gank
Actually the belgians are.
if only... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3116975.stm)
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3989639.stm
The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/09/wirq109.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/09/ixnewstop.htm
"Yeah," he yelled. "Battle Damage Assessment - nothing. Building's gone. I got my kills, I'm coming down. I just love my job."
...
Lt Jack Farley, a US Marines officer, sauntered over to compare notes with the Phantoms. "You guys get to do all the fun stuff," he said. "It's like a video game. We've taken small arms fire here all day. It just sounds like popcorn going off."
-
SATAN HAS A FACE????
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
To be fair, at least in Kosovo they had the (tenuous) excuse that the bombers were restricted to high-altitude, low-accuracy bombing because the US were scared of casualties from Yugoslav AA. There's not even the excuse in this case.
Well those 4,000 shoulder launched SAMs the US recently announced were unaccounted for in Iraq might constitute an excuse for not flying too low. Anyways this video should give an idea of the US's targeting in Fallujah
http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/10/week_2/07_iraq.html
-
US military responds to Fallujah video
Iraq
Published: 07-Oct-2004
By: Alex Thomson
It's an incident which seems to epitomise the brutal nature of modern urban warfare.
An American fighter pilot using the most advanced and lethal technology to attack a group of Iraqis in a street in Fallujah all caught on the aircraft's own camera and shown on Channel 4 News earlier this week.
Now the Pentagon has given us their version of the precise circumstances of the attack - as seen in the images shown.
F16 : “I got numerous individuals on the road. Do you want me to take those out?”
Reply: “Take ‘em out”
We showed cockpit video of an American F16 jet bombing a crowd of people on a street in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. We now know the date - Saturday April 10th.
F16 : “Ten seconds”
Reply: “Roger”
Overnight, this programme received from Baghdad the official US military version of what happened.
It says US Marines were pinned down by fighting somewhere towards the bottom of this wide, empty street.
F16 : “Aw, dude”
A ground commander saw this crowd come out along the road and fire at the Marines.
That commander had already asked an F16 pilot overhead to target a building from where insurgents had fired.
So when the crowd appeared and the pilot asked what to do, the ground commander knew the pilot was looking at the same hostile crowd as he was and could give the order to bomb them immediately.
"As the F-16 aimed on the building, the pilot saw a group of people come running out of the building, around the corner, and towards the Marine unit under fire. When the pilot queried about the group, the JTAC cleared him to engage...those were the people shooting at the Marines"
Lt Col Steven Boylan, Director, Combined Press Information Center, Baghdad
That's what happened, he says, to the best of our knowledge. The trouble is, the available evidence doesn’t show this.
When you look at the video, the pilot didn’t see people coming out of the building.
He couldn't have done - his monitor only shows a crowd emerging onto the main road from a side street.
Late this afternoon the Pentagon e-mailed saying both pilot and ground controller did see what was going on before this brief video clip.
But there's a bigger problem. Since when do urban fighters run in a crowd whilst firing, in an open area with no cover?
The US military is asking the world to believe that is just what happened here.
We've shown this video to two leading defence experts in London - neither accepts that this crowd is behaving as an offensive military force.
Those who were in Fallujah at the time say if insurgents had behaved like this it would be an act of mass suicide.
"They know themselves they have simple weapons. So actually they use these by hiding in places, fighting or firing behind walls and trying to stand between the houses. They never ever put themselves in front of the Americans because they know that the Americans have big military forces"
Dr Salem Ismael, Doctors for Iraqi Society
When we asked the US military in Baghdad if they could explain this, Lt Col Boylan emailed:
"I cannot give any explanation...we see people making what we would consider to be tactical errors all the time"
From the Pentagon to Baghdad the US military say they're trying to get us interviews, radio traffic or documents to back up their story.
This photo was taken outside Fallujah at the time - people fleeing the city to escape the fighting.
And Iraqis in Fallujah tell us that crowd on Julan Steet that day were innocent civilians. They too are searching for their proof.
Since most will watch the video and not read...
-
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=618132§ion=news
I'd be careful using headlines like that if I were them...
-
People act surprised when they find out war is pretty bloody.
-
No they get pissed off when it's fought on a false premise.
[q]
Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before
Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before
My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars
D'you wear a black armband
When they shot the man
Who said "Peace could last forever"
And in my first memories
They shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So I never fell for Vietnam
We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom
When it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin'
For their promised land
And
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more
My hands are tied
For all I've seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
'Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars
"We practice selective annihilation of mayors
And government officials
For example to create a vacuum
Then we fill that vacuum
As popular war advances
Peace is closer" **
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
And I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
I don't need one more war
I don't need one more war
Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway
[/q]
It carries more power with a Guns N' Roses riff playing behind it.
-
Funny thing though, all the complaining in the world isn't going to stop it. Not by a long shot.
-
Lets think about something else, it could be worse.
We could be blindly bombing targets from a B-17 with little accuracy, and causing mass damage around the target. I didn't see everyone complaining that in order to hit 1 target we sent 20 bombers all loaded down with tons of bombs that would, at least, miss by a few yards, and some bombs may venture off even further.
We dont want to run a political war here. If we do that, we become weak, and when we become weak it takes longer to get the job done. War is war. People get caught in the crossfire, people die, war sucks, its bloody, and its the last resort in anyone's arsenal. However, we do what we have to do to get it done, and once its done then its done. The suffering gets to end until someone else decides to take up arms again.
War sucks, but deal with it.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Lets think about something else, it could be worse.
We could be blindly bombing targets from a B-17 with little accuracy, and causing mass damage around the target. I didn't see everyone complaining that in order to hit 1 target we sent 20 bombers all loaded down with tons of bombs that would, at least, miss by a few yards, and some bombs may venture off even further.
We dont want to run a political war here. If we do that, we become weak, and when we become weak it takes longer to get the job done. War is war. People get caught in the crossfire, people die, war sucks, its bloody, and its the last resort in anyone's arsenal. However, we do what we have to do to get it done, and once its done then its done. The suffering gets to end until someone else decides to take up arms again.
War sucks, but deal with it.
All wars are political. They are started, dictated and eventually ended by politicians. And when your avowed aim is a 'war against terror', it can;t get more political. Because a war on terror, a war for 'hearts and minds', cannot be won through military force.
And this - Fallujah, Iraq, et al - was not a last resort. The last resort comes when there is a clear, immenent threat of a danger which is proportionate to the effect of the war or action. There was no such threat, be it from Iraq pre-war, or Fallujah at the present.
'It could be worse' is no way to run or decide anything. The way to run anything, is to ask 'how could it be done better?'
-
Then let me remind you, aldo, there is no better way to run a war. It is "do what needs to be done to win at the most effective way" and it means thinking on your feet. You play as you go, and you cant change what you have done.
When I say political war, I mean like Vietnam, where the government told you where to bomb, when to do it, and with how many planes, and you couldnt let the generals take charge. In WWII, they just said "Here's a couple hundred thousand troops, go kill some Nazi's and report in."
Now that war has become more effective, more controlled, and less courageous, people want to ***** about the other things.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Then let me remind you, aldo, there is no better way to run a war. It is "do what needs to be done to win at the most effective way" and it means thinking on your feet. You play as you go, and you cant change what you have done.
When I say political war, I mean like Vietnam, where the government told you where to bomb, when to do it, and with how many planes, and you couldnt let the generals take charge. In WWII, they just said "Here's a couple hundred thousand troops, go kill some Nazi's and report in."
Now that war has become more effective, more controlled, and less courageous, people want to ***** about the other things.
In WW2, it was a total war. In case you didn't notice, the Axis wanted to conquer all of Europe, invaded Africa, and had a masterplan for genocide. Defeat would have meant, literally, the end of european civillisation into god knows what else. And it was fought at a time when technology only allowed mass bombings, flattening cities, et al.
Vietnam is a very close parallel to Iraq - it was fighting a non-conventional enemy, and ended because of apalling pictures of civillian casualties. But Iraq is even more 'political' than 'nam ever was; there is no enemy 'power' being engaged to justify it, just a rag tag army and now a rag tag bunch of rebels and terrorists.
There is no 'great battle versus evil' that can be won by this war - everyone with an ounce of sense can see that the supposed war on terrorism can't be won with the military, and sure as hell not by attacking Iraq.
So you do what - flatten Fallujah, maybe kill a few thousand rebels. And the lasting consequence is what? 250,000 people left homeless, an ever more furious Arab world (and more people joining the insurgency or supporting terrorism), and elections which lose their credibility with every day the violence continues. And the insurgency doesn;t end, it just shifts. We've already seen the attacks in Kirkuk and Baghdad; guerillas don't fight for territory.
This is not even a war, it's an occupation. You can't win an occupation by flattening the resistance - it didn't even work for the Nazis, and they went to horrific lengths (mass executions, burning entire towns) to silence resistance.
You may say there is more cause to resist Nazi occupation than American - which is fair - but Iraqis switch on their TV (those that have power and whose Tv wasn't looted from them), and see thousands of innocent civillians being pounded by US occupying forces, mosques being stormed, hospitals bombed, etc - and what do they think of their liberators?
-
TinCan, its funny how those who say things like "war in tough, deal with it" and "people gettng caught in a crossfire is inevitable" and "war sucks, but it needs to be done" have never actually experienced a war.
The US has no idea, no idea whatsoever what war means, because the US people have never been under attack, at least not in the past 200 or so years. Thats why you're such warmongers, because you have no idea in the world about the suffering it causes. You think that a few thousand soldiers dying is bad? How about a few hundred thousand civilians, defenceless innocents whonever chose to be there, unlike soldiers. How about a generation of infants, traumatized by things no child should experience. How about whole cities reduced to rubble, and snipers roaming the streets.
You have no idea about war, and thankfully neither do I. But don't you dare talk about war, and talk about concepts you can't even begin to imagine. Until you've had your country invaded, the population terrorized, your cites burned, your family shot down in the streets, your kids living under cnstant bombardment, you have no right.
-
Originally posted by 01010
SATAN HAS A FACE????
Not once the glorious leader Dubya has SMOTE HIM with the armies of the wo...America! Yee-haw!
etc.
-
The Hollow Men
TS Eliot
Mistah Kurtz - he dead.
A penny for the Guy!
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpieces filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rat's feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar.
Shape without form, shade without color,
Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us - if at all - not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.
Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer-
Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom.
III
This is the dead land
This is the cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.
IV
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdom.
In the last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
V
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but with a whimper.
-
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!-An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
TinCan, its funny how those who say things like "war in tough, deal with it" and "people gettng caught in a crossfire is inevitable" and "war sucks, but it needs to be done" have never actually experienced a war.
The US has no idea, no idea whatsoever what war means, because the US people have never been under attack, at least not in the past 200 or so years. Thats why you're such warmongers, because you have no idea in the world about the suffering it causes. You think that a few thousand soldiers dying is bad? How about a few hundred thousand civilians, defenceless innocents whonever chose to be there, unlike soldiers. How about a generation of infants, traumatized by things no child should experience. How about whole cities reduced to rubble, and snipers roaming the streets.
You have no idea about war, and thankfully neither do I. But don't you dare talk about war, and talk about concepts you can't even begin to imagine. Until you've had your country invaded, the population terrorized, your cites burned, your family shot down in the streets, your kids living under cnstant bombardment, you have no right.
Not under attack in the past 200 years? America hasnt even EXISTED for the full 200 years. Our primary attack that started us was back in WWII when the Japs invaded Pear Harbor. Thats an attack. It may not be in the mainland, but its an attack nonetheless. Second, we have 9/11. We are talking extemely populated cities having planes flown into the World[/I] Trade Center. Thats an attack. Its a terrorist attack, but its still an attack.
So, we decided we've had enough. We go out, and make a checklist of things to be done. Lets see, kill Al Quida in Afghanistan, check. Eliminate terrorists in Iraq? In progress. They dont necessarily have to be Al Quida to be targets. Hint the name, "war on terror" and not "War on Al Quida" or "War on Weapons of Mass Destruction". No, its "War on Terror" (terror being short for Terrorist, in case the children forgot)
But we have seen real war. We have seen the year-long Gulf War (Im speaking of when I was alive) and the headlines it brought to news:
"Sadaam invades Kuwait"
We went it, took them out, and forced them back to their country in March 3, 1991. After that we got Clinton chucking missles at Iraq. (not really a war, but an attack)
So, when I say get over it, I mean people are GOING to die. There isnt a way to stop that, especially since its war. If you expect no one to get hurt during war time, you are ignorant. **** happens, and there is nothing we can do to stop the bullets from flying by sitting at our computer debating about it. The end.
-
Lets see, kill Al Quida in Afghanistan, check.
No, no check. The campaign in Afghanistan did not eliminate Al Quaeda, or the Taliban for that matter, especially after our attention was redirected to Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had no intention of finishing Afghanistan if they didn't have to.
So, when I say get over it, I mean people are GOING to die. There isnt a way to stop that, especially since its war. If you expect no one to get hurt during war time, you are ignorant. **** happens, and there is nothing we can do to stop the bullets from flying by sitting at our computer debating about it. The end.
But you're missing the point. War only happens because someone wants it to happen. And the only way that people can be so casually accepting of the most horrific, nightmarish, self-shattering phenomenon of human existence is if they themselves have not experienced it. Thus, it is a vicious cycle.
**** didn't just "happen;" America wanted this bloodshed. Nobody brought Iraq to us.
-
how about this you tard, don't start a war?
lets see: Pearl Harbour was an attack on a military base not even on the mainland. Soldiers died. Thats not what I was reffering to.
9/11 was miniscule by normal standards.
In the past 150 years, has the US:
-been occupied?
-had a war waged on its soil?
-had its cities bombed?
-had foreign soldiers acting offensively on American soil?
-had its civilian population suffer the ravages of war?
no? Then you don't know what war is. Until you have had you CIVILIAN population suffer, and not something as small (forgive my harshness, but by world standards it was small as 9/11, you will be more than ready to inflict that same suffering on a foreign population. Soldiers are armed, soldiers can defend themselves and soldiers choose to be o the battlefield. Cry me a river, until the US people have suffered at the hands of a foreign aggressor, you have no right to casually dismiss the death and suffering of innocent milllions.
To put it another way, the US has always, or as close to always as is meaningful, been the agressor, never the victim, thats why you can't even begin to imagine what the victims of US agression are feeling, you simply have no conception. If the US went through for 1 month what the Iraqis have been going through for over a year and a half, you would know anger like you didn't even know existed.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Not under attack in the past 200 years? America hasnt even EXISTED for the full 200 years. Our primary attack that started us was back in WWII when the Japs invaded Pear Harbor. Thats an attack. It may not be in the mainland, but its an attack nonetheless. Second, we have 9/11. We are talking extemely populated cities having planes flown into the World[/I] Trade Center. Thats an attack. Its a terrorist attack, but its still an attack.
So, we decided we've had enough. We go out, and make a checklist of things to be done. Lets see, kill Al Quida in Afghanistan, check. Eliminate terrorists in Iraq? In progress. They dont necessarily have to be Al Quida to be targets. Hint the name, "war on terror" and not "War on Al Quida" or "War on Weapons of Mass Destruction". No, its "War on Terror" (terror being short for Terrorist, in case the children forgot)
But we have seen real war. We have seen the year-long Gulf War (Im speaking of when I was alive) and the headlines it brought to news:
"Sadaam invades Kuwait"
We went it, took them out, and forced them back to their country in March 3, 1991. After that we got Clinton chucking missles at Iraq. (not really a war, but an attack)
So, when I say get over it, I mean people are GOING to die. There isnt a way to stop that, especially since its war. If you expect no one to get hurt during war time, you are ignorant. **** happens, and there is nothing we can do to stop the bullets from flying by sitting at our computer debating about it. The end.
The US has not endured an invasion of its territory in, ever (did Mexico invade in the 19th C?). Or a continued threat from a hostile force - the Japanese knew that an attack on Pearl Harbour could only buy them a years grace at most, they never threatened the US mainland. There has never been a prolonged beseiging of a US population centre, ala Stalingrad, the Blitz, Sarajevo, Fallujah, etc. So you've not seen real war, you've seen the semi-skimmed, diluted TV version. Very few of use here will have, if any.
We've not cowered in bunkers listening to bullets whiz overhead. We've not been scared to cross the street lest we be shot. We've not been shelled, or been bombed, or been run over by a tank. We've not seen streets and battlefields strewn with decomposing bodies, torn literally to pieces by high-calibre bullets. We've not seen our best friend, or children, or colleague, have their limbs blown off by an errant RPG or bomb.
You - we - have seen nothing of war.
So...al Queda in Afghanistan. Sod all found. No hidden bunkers, no Osama bin Ladin, very few actual identified Al-Queda fighters captured (many were foreign fighters fighting for the Islamic revolution, not international terrorism; and some were basically scooped up and passed over by the Northern Alliance in exchange for US cash rewards without any real evidence). Bomber Tora Bora (in particular) on NA intel, found nothing but old arms dumps and a few 'alleged' terrorists (handed over by the NA - again they got a nice payoff for this)
Iraq... no terrorists. Well-offhand- one group that was fighing Saddam (who were, IIRC, attacked), and another who were fighting Iran . the US signed a non-aggression treaty with the latter, so they basiclaly gave terrorists a safe haven in Iraq.
And, of course, the US attracted them to it. Firstly, they might as well have painted a bullseye on the army sent in. And they removed the government and replaced it with an unpopular but weaker one (security wise) - perfect conditions if you wanted to have an Islamic revolution. So the war on / with Iraq has actually brought the terrorists, not removed them.
So we end up with Fallujah, and the al-Sadr uprisings. Attacks on mosques, during Ramadan. The breeding of martyrs. The upholding of the terrorist call to end the "American crusade against Islam". And the Us, the coalition, just hands the terrorists a great big piece of propaganda for their cause.
Anyone with an iota of sense can realise you can't fight a 'war on terror'. Terrorists don't fight wars - they hide in our cities, amongst us, and target military targets. Think about it - it's terrorism. It isn't exactly terrifying to see a man with an AK47 stand up to a M1A1, is it? Assuming this horrible great Al-Queda network even exists in the quasi-military way we're told, that it's anything less than a loose affiliation of independent groups with shared aims and financiers.
Because, after all, the first time 'Al-queda''s operational structure was defined was when it was required to convict Bin Ladin (of the Nairobi bombings, in a March 2001 trial) under anti-mob laws - and where a criminal 'organisation' was required.
And, yeah, people die in war. That's exactly why it is the very, very, very last resort; and the worst option. But, hey, this isn't a war, anyways. It's an occupation.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But you're missing the point. War only happens because someone wants it to happen. And the only way that people can be so casually accepting of the most horrific, nightmarish, self-shattering phenomenon of human existence is if they themselves have not experienced it. Thus, it is a vicious cycle.
**** didn't just "happen;" America wanted this bloodshed. Nobody brought Iraq to us.
No Ford, you're forgetting, everything that America does, it does with reluctance and a heavy heart. It didn't want to wipe out the natives, that sort of just happened. It wasn't trying to dominate Latin America, the duty was thrust upon it. It didn't want to establish and empire, it needed to be done and no one else would do it.
They didn't choose to invade Iraq, the call of duty beckoned and a reluctant yet brave nation answered.
The story of America: its a tough job, and there are tons of perks, but by God somene has to do it. Its just destiny, manifesting itself, none of it is intentional and therefore no one is accountable.
-
I hate sarcasm.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Not under attack in the past 200 years? America hasnt even EXISTED for the full 200 years.
*Feels the need to point and laugh at this statement*
Originally posted by aldo_14
The US has not endured an invasion of its territory in, ever (did Mexico invade in the 19th C?).
Actually the Canadians (and Brits) invaded them in 1812 and burnt the White House down but they don't like to talk about that :lol:
-
Then why am I fully aware that the White House was burned during the war of 1812? (The reinvasion fo the Brits. They made a game out of it, actually. ;7 )
As for the 200 years bit, ah crap ya got me. Declaration signed in July 4, 1776. I keep thinking back to the 1800's.... ;)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Then why am I fully aware that the White House was burned during the war of 1812?
Just cause you're aware doesn't mean that your entire population is. I hear americans boast about how they won the war of independance against Britain all the time as if it was the last time the two nations clashed. I don't hear any of them mention the fact that the last war between both nations was actually a draw.
-
I'm glad we have other countries around to remind us of our history. ;)
-
Probably because a majority of the population of America has some disregard for history. I myself love history, as it is a time to look back on ourselves and what we were generations ago. Im sure you guys can back me up when I say World War II is my all-time favorite history subject. I've read books at will on the subject, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and now am on "KGB: The Inside Story" where halfway in we learn of Stalin's alliance with Germany and how it was broken and what Stalin was so paranoid about. (He didnt open fire on the germans until they were 50 miles into Russia. 12 hours after the Red Army had to retreat, they decided "fine, start shooting")
I know a lot of the population is ignortant, and I cant help that fact, but there are some of us who arent so missinformed.