Yet Again US A10s Attack Brit Soldiers

[Scott_Fraser]

Heard on the news tonight that once again 2 US Airforce 10 Warthogs attack our troops outside Basra. Whats worse it happened 3 years ago and it has been covered up by both our governments, yet again. The pilots weren't even front line guys, they were National Guard, who had never been in action before.
The same thing happened in the 1st Gulf War when a patrol that I was in was attacked by an A10, and we lost 2 Warriors and 10 guys, it was the only guys that we lost during the campaign. Yet again nothing was done about the American Pilot.
Don't get me wrong, in case I upset my American friends on this forum. The vast majority of your pilots are Top Notch Pilots and I have the utmost respect for them. But you still get the idiots that don't think before they shoot. Our own Airforce is not entirely blameless in this as well, as we all know.
Cheers
Scott

[batgirl]

Ugh that sucks Scott. My uncle Dan was killed OS by American "friendly fire", so I understand a bit how you feel about it.

[anthony]

Yep... I will say that I am not here to upset American soldiers either, but I believe the problems stem more from their training. I have trained with American soldiers many a times, they are undisciplined yahoo's who shoot first, then think. Not a good combination to have in war, hence why Australian soldiers don't go side by side with US soldiers, because we would end up dead as a result. Did you know that most US deaths are caused by their own fire? Fact, not fiction. I believe marines are much better than the general US Army recruitment, with lower self fatality losses. General Army I am referring too, and its not the soldiers fault that they have been trained half arsed and then put into situations they are not capable of controlling, but more the political system making the rules behind it, those who produce the training. Doctrine needs to be changed in the US Army to reflect higher standards of training for the general Army enlistments, because their just too dangerous. This applies across all services where their training is not at the highest level. Then, stupidity could be punished, because it would be a rare event in which such accidents happen, and friendly fire would be a rare occurence.

[anthony]

Gee, funny that... just went out to have a smoke, the news was on... what was the top story? US forces bomb UK forces once again, showing the footage of the attack from 2 years ago and confirmed that more UK soldiers have been killed by US friendly fire than by Iraqies. F*cking cowboys...

[batgirl]

Ugh I don't if you guys get any American news on satellite, but we do here, and Fox News (American) is just SICKENING!!!! My uncle and I watched the BBC News and then we watched Fox News, and there was such a huge difference between the two, covering the same exact story, that you almost thought they were different stories all together!!

My uncle also said that:

There were over 20,000 American friendly fire casualties in WW2;
8,000 American friendly fire casualties in the Vietnam War;
23% of all casualties in the Persian Gulf War were the result of friendly fire;
5 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were killed by American friendly fire in just 1 year.

And in addition, many Iraqi civilians have been killed accidentally by American soldiers, but the American government doesn't keep any statistics on the numbers.

[mac]

Unfortunately, it seems these days that National Guard and Reservist troops are generally sent into harms way more often because the military can (from a somewhat strategic and mostly financial standpoint) absorb their losses easier than Active Duty losses. What our fine politician's (puke) didn't figure is that these troops, when done with their tour(s) in Iraq come back home, they can immediately file with the VA for assistance and this is wearing the country down just as much financially as if Active Duty were sent in the first place. Don't want no one to get any ideas that I am dogging them. I salute those troops though because they are being asked to do a lot more with a lot less these days, and because of this unfortunately, the odds of tragedy happening become increased. IMO, you shouldn't punish someone for a mistake they made that could have been avoided with reasonable training... one weekend a month/two weeks a year for training is not enough.

Also, just want to say... don't forget about Pat Tillman; a man who sacrificed millions $$$ with a lucrative football career to join the US Army Rangers, only to be shot and killed in Afghanistan by his fellow troops... very sad : (

[Jim]

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. And so preventable, with properly trained soldiers.

Jim.

[anthony]

Now I have had complaints about this thread, viewed it over twice now, and see no bias towards any country, being America, but more a political discussion on factual information at hand. For those that want to complain to me about this thread, or another editor, please use the report post button (little bell) in the top right of every post on this forum, discussing your issues with a post in detail. A political discussion is more than acceptable, regardless which country is at fault. All politics are at fault if you ask me, and for those who complain about this thread, just be sure you are complaining about something that is directly biased, or not factual, before doing so, otherwise I will simply reject any editorial requests, as already done.

Now, back to the thread. I totally agree with the above, in that the political nature of sending troops into war that DO NOT have the requisite experience in order to perform in combat effectively, including safely, should not be their. It IS NOT the soldiers fault, it is higher than that, training level, military command level, political level, not the soldier level. Soldiers don't train themselves, then decide to go to war, knowing or not whether they have enough skills to make effective decisions and actions under fire or within hostile situations. Effective training takes care of these things, and the US Army has a lot to answer for from the basic level soldiers they train and employ to fight, compared to marines and higher level, which are much higher disciplined and strategic awareness for battle, compared to just regular US Army. Not a dig, but a fact, in that one Australian Army soldier is worth approximately 10+ regular US Army soldiers in battle. I believe the UK is the same for level of training, not sure about Canada. I know that Malaysian troops are also highly undisciplined, as I have trained extensively with them, as I have the US and British.

Now if you look at the politics of war, this means the US political arena are sending inadequate troops into war to makeup numbers, knowing they don't have the skills in order to fight an enemy that have been fighting in war for centuries. If you want my opinion, any soldier less than a US Marine sent into any war zone is as good as sending a person into be murdered. Strong words, but I have the experience and training with many countries to know this is very true.

[waynes]

I just wish that as a nation, the US (us) could get out of being looked to as the worlds policeman. It seems politically that if we dont go, we are the bad guy. If we do go we are the bad guy. Then we end up involving ourselves in someone elses bussiness and dragging our allies into it with us, making a big mess. Why do we always have to be the ones to clean up some one elses mess? I dont mean to sound isolationist, but when do we stop? Damn! When are people going to stand up for themselves against tyrany? We can't shove democracy down the worlds throat, when they don't understand or want it!
Uh oh..... I'm ranting.... I'll shut up now.....

Wayne
PS The afgans needed their ass kicked. Don't hit us lest you want hit back... Hard.

[anthony]

A very good point wayne... and I totally agree with you. It is like East Timor from 99 and still present day. People got upset because the PM wouldn't send troops in to sort out civil unrest, bloodshed and so forth that went on until East Timor itself actually asked for help. I think it was a good move on his part, even though thousands where masacred, it is not our responsibility in this region to go and sort out others problems, especially if we haven't been asked. Sure, if a country asks for help, for troops to come in and restore order, but do that and get out, not hang around; or hand things over to the UN near immediately, and if the UN don't want involvment, then that is a good sign that the country should not be their any longer either, order restored now get out and go home. Same problem happened here, people jumped up and down for so many deployments to send troops in, but because of the sheer time it takes to not only restore order, but allow a country to stabalize, most civilians don't understand the consequences of deploying a military force, they think their police that can fight a war or something, not understanding that when you deploy a military into anything, it means total control, total shutdown of everything and anything to ensure that military control the environment, so that it can stabilize, but then what do you do when a country doesn't want you their anymore... you pull out as we did with East Timor, then 12 months later troops were back in their, because they couldn't maintain law and order, stability. They whinge, they piss and moan, then they cry for help. The same with Australian civilians, piss and moan that the military isn't helping some other country, then when they are and the costs start adding up, or someone dies, they piss and moan wanting troops home. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. I think the US issue was not based on actual law and order issues though, but instead they invaded a country, and where not asked. That is an act of war, and a mighty big one at that. I guess that is why its such a contentious issue surrounding Iraq??? The political US bullshit their population into approving an invasion because of terrorism, yet years later admit blatantly to the same public that terrorism had nothing to do with it, and the very people they used as an excuse to invade a country are not the one's at fault for the terrorist activity. What, do they think the public just forgot? Do they think their public changed?

I was reading the business section of The Age newspaper today, reading that China will now become the new political power of the world, because America has lost it, they are 30 trillian dollars (some ridiculous amount) in foreign debt because of political stupidity. The US political structure have bankrupt their own country... hell, this is why the US has now made the third world adoption list, trying to shift abandoned children out of their own country because they can't maintain them, because the US is pretty much broke as a nation now. China is now earmarked to officially become the new political world power this year, as they are thriving, and have the population to boot. The US need to spend a decade staying in their own country, sorting their own country out, getting rid of a lot of this debt, fixing all the issues within the US, then maybe they will stand a chance later on at taking some control within the world again, because they are just about to lose it all this year from their own political stupidity.

I believe I saw on TV that Hiliary Clinton is running for president. I personally think the US needs a strong female to do that job for two terms, to get the country back on track and out of the thinking that war is good. Focus on the people, build stability within once again...

[cookie]

all of it is unfortunate. caused by sin when you keep taking all the layers apart.
i wouldn't trust hiliary clinton as far as i could throw her. she will take the stand of anyone that she perceives will help her out, i don't think she really cares about anyone.
cathy

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi folks. Yes reading all of the replies about this it is a "Hot Potato", but in war things happen, mainly due to indiscipline, not just our American allies but some of our own troops have tarnished the name of the British Army as well. I'm meaning the guys from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers who were mistreating Iraqi prisoners in a Basra Jail, just in the same way that those American Troops did the same in that jail in Bagdad, they brought shame on both Armies.
My Grandfather who fought in Normandy said that they lost more troops to the American 8th Airforce than they did to the German Army.
But saying that. I think that it is time to bring our guys home, let the UN take over in Iraq, it is now an untenable situation, and I think that it would be best to bring the boys home, American & British. We've done our job. But Tony Blair and George Bush will not listen to us. How many more young men and women in our 2 armies have to die, be maimed for life and suffer the hell of combat stress, just to satisfy 2 politician's egos. Enough is enough.
Sure, concentrate on Afghanistan, as that is the main problem, and of course where it all started after 9/11. They will never be peace in the Middle East, The Romans couldn't do it 2000 years ago, what chance have we.
Anthony, you said that the best US Troops are their Marines, but I would say that there best Army Units are the 82nd & 101st Airbourne divisions these guys are the best, I worked with guys from the 101st during the 1st Gulf War and these guys know there business.
Cheers
Scott

[anthony]

No no Scott, I said Marine level of training, not marines in general... not basic US Army enlistment. Any soldier in the US forces with training equal too, or above, marine level, is what I believe the minimum requisite for the US to be sending into war. I dare say the groups you mentioned above, are more disciplined than regular US army?

Your absolutely right though mate... war and politics are hot potatoes, but I as you, believe they can be discussed, as long as we all keep discussions factual.

I think this is a very good discussion actually... quite thought provoking.

[anthony]

Cathy, is that the general consensus within the US about Hiliary Clinton?

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi Anthony. I only mentioned about the US Marines as they are the best that the Americans have, but they are increasingly used as infantrymen now. Their training is second to none, same as our Royal Marines, who I think are the best in the world. I mean 35 weeks training. I thought 18 weeks was tough.
Yes this is a good topic for discussion.
Cathy. Who is popular in the US for President, as I think that Hilary Clinton is to much tarnished by her husband. Or put it this way, if Tony Blair was running for president, (Give him time) would you vote for him.
Cheers
Scott:hello:

[cookie]

ha, i don't know enough about tony blair to vote for him, but his is not a citizen here, so he couldn't run anyway.
who is popular is up in the air right now, hil is popular in some circles, there is a plethoria of presidential hopefuls right now.
cathy

[ranger2_75]

Anthony
"Those guys" ARE regular U.S. Army! The only diference in the 82nd and any other Army unit, Except spec ops, is that they jump from airplanes. I know from first hand experiance. I was in the 82nd for a while. All the worlds forces have idiots in leadership positions. I have a friend who was 101rst in Afganastan and watched as two F-16s droped six five hundred pounders on a ground platoon. 43 U.S. 101rst troops killed by their own bad call for close air support. Yes they called it in on themselves. My buddy could not get his SATCOM up in time to intervien.
It sucks but it happens in all conflicks. I worked with some Royal Marines on a joint training operation on Ft. Lewis Washington U.S.A. They called our mortar fire on themselves. Once again training, artillery sims were used to simbleize incoming rounds and yes they went off all around Her Majesties Marines. It can happen to any one at any time. Stress is a bitch. It gets people killed frequently even in civilian life.

BTW I do believe some of the coments made about the U.S. would not have made it to the bord if the rolles were reversed.

[mac]

Seems everyone has posted a lot of good points here, even if it has slipped away from the main topic. I can't continue to argue here because I can't demonstrate proof... I can only say what I believe/know/experienced to be true and my opinion's on such (and not having any inclination to dig up news articles and the like), only this as evidence of fact.

[anthony]

Hey Ranger, oh no mate, don't exempt Australia from mistakes, they do get made, as with the UK. The thing is though, is that when you look at the data for friendly fire, the US lead the way over all other countries on a statistical basis, per man compared to total force. That is unacceptable IMHO, and that is at the higher level where training is either not being instilled long enough, well enough, or soldiers are simply ignorant and want to die. I doubt very much it is the later, which means US military training must change.

Let me compare training... the US soldiers are trained to do one job, and one job only, nothing more, nothing less. Now whilst this may sound good, its actually what I believe kills more soldiers than does good. Most armies cross train their troops, so they have a variety of skills across the board. In the Australian forces, every soldier, sailor and airforce member are trained to be the basic roles first, and trained highly in that role. Then they are cross trained in many many roles, so they can assume many positions, have many skills, all in order to help any soldier stay alive by knowing what to do under multiple conditions. I believe this is a major issue where the US let down their soldiers, attempting to make numbers that are off a majority, less than adequate for combat roles. As you state, this doesn't apply to everyone, and I have trained with US soldiers, and within those I have met some that are very clever, use a lot of commonsense and I have no doubt would survive war, but the majority where twits when it came to soldierly techniques, and couldn't be sneaky bastards if they tried. Why? A lot where simply too loud, didn't care, undisciplined. They where too busy yahooing, yes, even here in Australia, they where yahooing, and they wondered why they got their arsed kicked each and every single time. Its not because of any advantage, merely because you can find them without really having to look, they just stand out and you can hear them a long way away.

Malaysian soldiers whilst not so noisy, are very messy also, and you just have to follow their garbage collection they leave along the way... not real challenging stuff. Is any country doing their troops any favours by not training their soldiers to a high level? Lets face facts, training means survival. If Australia sends 10,000 troops into a war zone, we expect to bring home 10,000 troops. If we lose one or two, that is a tragedy. The US send 10,000 troops into a war zone, they estimate losses around 20%... why? Why would any country already expect to send in 10,000 troops, yet only get 8,000 back, and accept that rate? That is not acceptable, these people have families, they have lives... and smart tactics ensures soldiers come home. I just don't get that mentality to be honest... I wouldn't join an army that didn't care about me as a human life, the basic level of existence.

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi Ranger. The RAF have made the same mistakes as well as the US Airforce, but it gets covered, just like this latest incident has been, its been covered up for 3 years and that is what upset the families of the guys killed by the A10s. If they were only told the truth in the beginning, then I think all of this would have been resolved. But the MOD and The Pentagon are both to blame for this secrecy.
Don't get me wrong, the average GI is a good soldier, but its their officers that let them down on many occaisions. Our own officer training is good but it could be better. They spend 35 weeks at Sandhurst being trained, I don't know how long they spend at West Point. But I think that all officer candidates should spend a year in the ranks, especially in a unit of the line as we call it. (Infantry or Armoured). Before they go to Military Academy. And that would give them a taste of what its like.
But I now say that its time to bring the boys home, enough is enough, its becoming a grinder out there in Iraq. Afghanistan is the main danger point, especially the Taliban.
Cheers
Scott

[mac]

"I wouldn't join an army that didn't care about me as a human life"

Money and Benefits lend themselves to be huge motivators of any decision.

Also, IMO, it seems almost suicidal (or a severe lack of common sense) to operate vehicles up and down roadways potentially laced with IEDs.

[anthony]

Yer, Australian officers are trained for 18 months at Duntroon before being commissioned, and I too am a big believer they should all spend 12 months as a private soldier before being able to attend officer training, just so they know what its like to be a soldier, before they attempt to command them.

[ranger2_75]

I guess that we are all in agrement than that officers should spend time as enlisted before going to Officer Candidate Scool as it is termed in the US. OCS is mandetory upon entry no mater if they went to the acedemy or not. How ever I think that they need more than a year, I like 3-4 myself, befor being acepted to OCS.
Cross training, it happens a lot. I was cross trained as infantry, indirect fire, and demolition. Furthermore I had to have a working proficiancy of every weapon in the Battalion arsenal ie. Carl Gustove, AT4, sniper rifles both 7.62mm and .50 cal(12.7mm), 40mm grenade launcher, 12 guage shotgun, variouse anti personel and anti armore mines, Sattalite and am/fm comunications, calling indirect fire as well as close air support, and Naval fire. Every soldier, at least in the Army, is cross trained.
Yes it is not a warm fuzzy feeling to know that there are 15% casualties expected, but reality is people die in combat. The U.S.A. has had more problems with fratrisie than other countries. They also commit more troops than any other country so just maybe there is a corolation?
I also agree that there is more training that could be done. Training costs money and the American people don't want to spend money on training as much as they do saving some damned spotted owl or redeaded woodpecker. You are corect in that there has never been a millitary on earth that has had enough training,....Has there?

[anthony]

Absolutely mate, no military can fully prepare any soldier for war the first time, only experience itself can do that. They can prepare a soldier though fairly well if armed with all the right training, education and as much field experience as possible. Anything less IMHO, is sending any soldier in to be murdered.

Its interesting though isn't it, how the civilian population view how money is spent within their countries military? They are happy to push for their country to step into other countries and help them, yet when in peace time, they aren't happy to have the money spent, however; when troops are sent into conflict, and deaths occur at high rates, they really have to weight up the cost of life! Is it cheaper to train a less effective soldier and roll the dice on their life, or is it actually more economical to the civilian population to spend more money on training less troops, achieving the same outcome, then bringing home the majority of lives intact??? We know the answers, but I see it here with the news and when Australians are in a zone of conflict, they change their mind near as much as their underwear, without fully understanding the full scope of military force and conflict zones. Lets be honest, if you have been on peace keeping, war itself, humanitarian aid even, they all resemble one another really, its only the rules of engagement that seem to change, as the threats are still pretty high, some obviously higher than others.

[Scott_Fraser]

Here in the UK when we enlist it is to prepare to get ready to go to war. Even if you are a Sapper, Mechanic, Signaller, Pioneer, Cook or Pay Clerk. You are trained as a soldier first. And then you train for your trade, but you are always a soldier first.
When I went in I did 2 years learning my trade as I joined when I was 16, and you are not allowed to fight until you are 18. By the time I was posted to my unit, I was ready, but my training always continued. I was trained on SLR, Rifle and then SA80, Browning Automatic, SMG, LMG, GPMG and HMG. Also on 80mm Mortar, Gustav, Hand held SAMs, grenades, and then we trained on foreign weapons, AK47, and M16s. I actually found the AK47 a much better weapon than the M16 or SA80. When the battalion became Armoured Infantry we trained on the Warrior, I did a troop commanders course up in Sennelager, in Germany, where we were taught the job of driver, radio operator and of course commander, so that I could do everybody else's job.
Being in the British Army we have the advantage over our American Allies in that because we have so much experience in operations in Northern Ireland dealing with the IRA, that down in Basra we have less casualties because of that, in dealing with insurgents in built up areas.
I agree with Anthony in that no new soldier can even imagine to think about being in action until they actually do it for the first time. Or to make the training as so realistic as possible and I don't know if you can do that without putting them into action for the first time so that they can learn and hopefully come out of it alive and in one piece.
Scott

[anthony]

I must agree with you Scott, being the only benefit coming from the IRA was that UK soldiers got so much experience in order to prepare themselves for further combat roles, especially urban. Australia being the same, everyone is trained to do everyone elses job surrounding them, up and down the chain, because if one life is lost, another person can immediately step into that position without much thought. This is certainly part of cross training.

[anthony]

Also, IMO, it seems almost suicidal (or a severe lack of common sense) to operate vehicles up and down roadways potentially laced with IEDs.
That is actually another bug up my butt mac about what the US leaders put their troops into. They devalue the life of soldiers by placing them within situations that they full know are extremely dangerous, far to much, too often. There are always safer methods and alternatives to achieve any aim, and I believe this is where the US leaders neglect their roles in protecting their troops, and too many lives are lost for these very actions.

You pick one route as a major one, then you arm it to the hilt at every possible angle, monitor it from every angle, ensure it is highly guarded and secure, precautionary methods in place for suicide bombers, ie. pre-post stops where vehicles must pullup and be inspected by cameras or other means that technology allow us to now utilise, instead of sacrificing human life each time. You generally can assimilate between a suspect vehicle or not, and when human contact should be used vs. not used. We have technology, yet too many human lives are still lost. Devasting IMHO.

[Terry]

I aggree with Ranger on most the points but I think the main problem with friendly fire now is the fact that the millitary (everybody's) relies WAY too much on modern technology. In ALL of the friendly fire cases I've read about high tech weapons systems were the main tool they put everything into. In almost every case right after weapons were fired pilots and weapons operators had doubts that what they were told by these systems was reliable. It's the same in lawenforcement too. We are getting too dependant on our computer systems and the younger guys don't know what to do when the system goes down. Advanced training kinda goes out the window when your being shot at then everybody is a grunt.

[anthony]

Absolutely Terry, technology must be used within reason obviously, like everything in life. Some things just can't be replaced as effectively as simply sending a person in to do a job.

[paul]

i have trained with both english and american soldiers and both us army and marines and it all comes down to training.
i found the english to be totally professional and a joy to work with,however i found the us soldiers similar to our ary reserve but the marines are squared away with their attitude alot better than the army.
when i was in england i went and saw the memorial for the soldiers lost in the gulf and read the story and it gave me the shits very much.
accidents do happen but most learn from them, i have been in a exercise with american troops (army) and didnt have a clue what was going on around them.
they didnt know who was in front or beside them,now that is either not being smart enough to ask or not being properly breifed by officers.

[mac]

"...,now that is either not being smart enough to ask or not being properly breifed by officers."

The officer's probably didn't know what to brief :rofl:

[Scott_Fraser]

The usual break down in communications thing again. I think that some American officers have a lot to be desired, and yes, some British officers have alot to be desired as well. Many a time I've had to act as Platoon Commander because the Platoon Commander was hardly ever there. I think that the best officers are the ones who come up through the ranks, as they know what they are doing and they have the respect of their men more than anything.
Cheers
Scott

[anthony]

Yes, I agree with the officers being soldiers first, they are often the better one's. Why? Well, simply put, whether a soldier first or the very few that merely fit the profile of being a soldier more, in that they have commonsense. Most officers don't have it, or simply neglect to use it IMHO. I have worked under some very good officers, though the majority where less than adequate to command troops. Not a good ratio IMO for leaders.

[Scott_Fraser]

In the Scottish Regiments, you rarely get a Scottish Officer commanding them, and if you do its some young kid who went to Gordonston or some other public school, and has no idea about real life. But it is mostly Englsih officers that are you platoon commanders and comapny commanders.
In the Guards, unfortunately, its who your family is or how much money you have before you can apply for a commsion in the Guards or Household Cavalry.
In the Paras or Royal Marines, they have to do that bit extra training to prove themselves. For instance, an officer who is commisioned into the Parachute Regiment has to go through another 24 weeks Para Training before he can wear the Red Beret. Same as the Royal Marines where its an extra 32 weeks training.
But in the UK it is still the folk from posh backgrounds that become officers. The minority of lads that go to Sandhurst get their qualifications to enter the hard way, and these lads once they have been commisioned go and learn a trade like in the Royal Engineers or Signals where they are the best at their job.
Scott

[anthony]

US Raid Kills Five Police

US helicopters mistakenly killed atleast five Kurdish troops yesterday in a friendly fire incident, US and Iraqu officals said. The US military said the air strike was targeting alQaida fighter, but later issued an apology, saying the five men killed where Kurdish police. The men where guarding a branch of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

The US military said ground forces had indentified armed men in a bunker near a building they thought was being used to make bombs. The troops told the men to put down their weapons and fired warning shots before helicopters fired upon them.

An apology just doesn't cut it... the US military don't think, they fire first ask questions later. Idiots...

[mac]

This conflict in Iraq... how does the president live with himself.

[wildcritter44]

Rule #1 in War is good men (& women) die, Rule #2 is no one can change rule #1 (during times of war).

Now -- who do we blame... Why do blame.... War is HELL.... NO one said it's fun and bring a picnic........

Why do we have to keep at this ....More training, less war, etc etc...

Let's face some facts here: People make mistakes, No one is perfect..

God or whomever doesn't seem to be willing to change this... So why do we think we can? :dontknow:

I can't change the worlds thinking, no one (person) can, these people in some of these countries have NEVER KNOWN PEACE _-- THEY WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS IF IT JUMPED UP AND BIT THEM ON THE BUTT !! Nor would they know what to do with themselves if peace fell up on them.... NOW What??????:wall:


More people die everyday around the world in traffic accidents that we have lost in this war compared to many other wars! So what are we going to do about all these dam cars killing people (oh! yea, it's the people driving the cars that are killing other people !! DUH ) So what are we doing about those people making all those mistakes, etc?????????????????????????????

D

[anthony]

Well, me personally, I am not doing anything about dickhead drivers as that is against the law here to take matters into your own hands, however; I definately do report dickheads on the road, because if they are being twits and the police get enough reports about the, then they can take action without actually witnessing them doing these acts. Enough strangers can't be wrong if they are all saying the same things. Do i always do it? No, because I don't always have my phone with me.

What I do though, is that I drive responsibly, and not like an idiot, so I do my bit to help avoid the problem, instead of just ignore it.

War, far different thing. Mistakes should not be readily made in war. Why is it any person believes it is acceptable to take innocent lives in war when you wouldn't expect it in your suburb. Hell, why not just make it ok for police to fire automatic weapons to chase down a victim, regardless who else they hit in the process? If its acceptable in war, it must be acceptable in peace time with criminals?

Its not bloody acceptable to be stupid in war, nor is it acceptable for the amount of friendly fire the US seem to have. If thats the attitude, no wonder so many get killed, because their all too busy wanting to pull a damn trigger before they even identify what they are shooting at. Cowboys is the word for that!

[wildcritter44]

Anthony,

Sorry to see u feel like it is ok to the bash the US/just remember it won't change what happens no matter how many times you bash it. It is what/how it is. YOU can't change it. DEAL WITH IT !!!!

D Wildcritter

[ranger2_75]

It seems to me that when I came to this forum it was said that there would be no racialy motivated or hostile threads twards any race or nation. That is why this will be my final post on this forum. It has become aparent that that is the rule, with the minore exception of the U.S. and it's millitary. There for I say to Kng Anthony and his court of jestors **** YOU!!!!!:up-yours: :up-yours: :up-yours:

[paul]

i think that is a bit harsh, i dont see it as bashing as you call it and i dont think it is a race thing either just simply pointing out who has the most accidents in a war type situation.
look how big the us forces are they are naturally going to have more incidents than say aussie troops just on numbers and trying to control them.
and as for not posting again i think thats a bit silly i have one of my best mates who is a signaller and he still talks to me after i call him a p.o.g.o and he suffers from ptsd aswell.

[mac]

"So what are we doing about those people making all those mistakes, etc?????????????????????????????"
-Generally alcohol and drugs are involved! Usually most get their asses sued off, or go to jail sometimes for manslaughter!!!!!!!

"Rules of War"... I can understand that, AS LONG AS WE ARE AT WAR FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS!!!!

The invasion of Iraq; makes me wonder if alcohol and drug use was somehow involved with that decision?! No, it was greed, revenge, ignorance and selfishness.

For those of you that voted him back into office... :up-yours: :moon:

Iraq and the Law of War
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOY20051221&articleId=1588

[mac]

Whoa... I just saw the follow-up posts from WC44 and Ranger 2-75. Well Ranger, I don't get caught up in all that bullshit about how the US does everything so perfectly, AND I DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW, EITHER, ANYMORE. We make mistakes, just like any other military, and so I accept ill criticism from others when warranted. And Paul, you made some good points as well, IMO. Friendly-fire makes me sick though, so I have little tolerance of this type of mistake! And ranger, your out of line to take a crack at Anthony like that...:boxing: :naughty: :stupid: ... and me, considering I believe it was some of your 'brothers' who shot and killed poor Pat Tillman, so...:up-yours:

If y'all don't want to post here no more over this sht, then so be it.... the IXI botton is located top-right corner of screen. Good bye :claps:

[mac]

:angry-fla :angry-fla :angry-fla

Seems like The #1 Rule of War is now in affect; some good and bad people may not be coming back with us after this fight. At least it's acceptable loss though... to hell with them!:jerk:

[anthony]

I must say, its interesting to see who can, and who can't actively engage within political discussion without losing their tempers! You can take a crack at Australia all you want, providing what you say has substance, as does the topic of this conversation. Thing said here are topical points in the world, and if you can't discuss topical points openly, without anger, there are more issues than meet the eyes here IMO.

Lets see... we own the Port Arthur masacre, you can bag Australia for that all you want, because it happened, just like all the friendly fire that American troops cause in war. These are facts, and facts should be discussed, and if you can't discuss facts, then what good is discussion in the first place?

[YoungAndAngry]

Wow, I was staying away from this thread because I very clueless when it comes to Politics. Heck, I almost failed Social Studies class!! lol

Anyways, my response has nothing to do with Politics, I just wanted to express my disapointment that a controversial thread like this could do so much damage.

When I'm talking about 'damage', I mean many members (hopefully all of them) are here to heal and learn about PTSD. If a thread like this 'causes them to leave this support system... that's really unfortunate.

[anthony]

I should also clarify my statement about "cowboys", for example; the Kurd police attack (friendly fire), was under control by the US soldiers on the ground, then "the cowboy" in his gunship decided to put some rockets into the building, just because he likely has a little chubby and needed to relieve it by being "a cowboy". The troops on the ground if left would have called it back that the building was run by kurd police, but the cowboy in the gunship had other issues going on, and wanted to increase his chubby by firing some rockets into a building of which he knew little about.

The cowboys in most military are predominantly residing at command level, those who make decisions based on little intel, half arsed information, and send innocent troops into fight battles that they should not be fighting. Does America wonder why they keep getting their arse kicked in conflicts? I can tell you... because the cowboys rile things up constantly, instead of defending, they attack, attack, attack, and that is where the casualties are... and what do they attack? Some actual enemy, some civilians, some friendly fire... unacceptable in conflict I believe.

Somewhere along the lines in the management of the US military, life has become expendable... I wonder if it would be that way if the management where on the battlefield with a rifle in hand? Who really gets to make that decision that life is expendable to any cause? As mac said above about whoever put that spanner of a president back in within the US, need to take a good long look at themselves, because you elected a puppet of mass proportion, not a president who makes good decisions. Again as mac said, about the intent of any troops being in Iraq in the first place... hell, the entire world got lied too by the US for its reasons to be their, and I do say the entire world. The spanner elected was even backed into a corner and had to admit it on public television.

Now multiple countries have troops in a country for all the wrong reasons, not the right one's, and you wonder why other countries looking in are critical of the US motives anymore. Ha... Its not the poor soldier who is following orders, its the cowboys in management positions who make stupid decisions to get the poor old soldier killed.

[becvan]

Guys, I locked this thread yesterday!

No one but editors can reply...

bec

[veiled]

As mac said above about whoever put that spanner of a president back in within the US, need to take a good long look at themselves, because you elected a puppet of mass proportion, not a president who makes good decisions.

Being one who voted for him I looked at he did not screw up Texas as Governor. And considering who he was up against this last round... Hell, you might as well flip a coin. All we can do is try and to a lot of people Kerry did not seem to be able to make up his mind about a thing, he would vote one way then another, he was way confusing. This last session we did not exactly have a good selection. The process is corrupt. It is who ever has enough "money people" willing to back them and who throws the hardest during the mudsling fest before elections, while you sort through all the shit they throw out. You have no clue how many people who voted for him are groaning. '08 may prove very interesting. The Americans as a whole want to see changes.

Also, take in consideration we do not go by popular vote... Cannot figure that one out. We use electoral college. So for those who do not get it... We have our states. Each state carries so many "points" not all equal, depends on how many representatives per state. So if you win a state then those are the points added up.

Again many many who voted for Bush are kicking themselves, but considering who ran against him... Shudder. I would love a suggestion as to how we should hit the polls and see in the future who is going to be a royal dumb ass... Enabling my mind hee hee I see either party!

Note - Now see this is how you nicely disagree and invite answers as trust me I live here as an average and normal American. You must think I want what is best. Sadly the politicians only want what is best for them and that is both parties.

[anthony]

I think its great that people such as yourself veiled, who have voted for him, atleast now see that it was a mistake. How many still think he is doing great though? That is the scary part. I have been watching bits and pieces on hilary clintons speeches, and I must say I am actually impressed with what she is saying about where to start and try and fix the problems the current administration has caused.

Its a shame the system is so corrupt, because the world looks into the US for what it does, and of late years, not much good has come out to the rest of the world. This is not a reflection of the people, but a reflection of the country as a whole, the political level that travels the world, is what the world focuses upon. To the point now that China is set too take over as the new super power of the world this year, because that is how poorly the current administration has taken the country. Shame to see... but maybe its a good thing that if you put someone in that uses commonsense, not the typical political BS speeches, then maybe, just maybe, they might we swayed into fixing the country without the pressures exerted as the super power of the world as such, because lets face it, the US don't own any of the bombs they drop, instead the public has to pay for them, yet trillions of dollars in foreign debt because of this current administration, how long do you think it will take for the citizens to now square that debt off a good amount? A decade atleast.... the next president has one hell of a job ahead of them, and it would take them the first term just to sift through the shit, the second term if re-elected to start seeing results if the first term was well run. Hopefully the public see that if its the case. A decade is a long time for a country to suffer financially...

[veiled]

Social security that is taken from our pay checks at this point will never be seen. It just is not there. Old are going to go with out. It is heart breaking, you pay all your life to have a tiny check to help you as you age (but not enough to cover meds) and cannot work and it is basically gone.

Hilliary is scary. She does not stand by her words either and it will show up later I am sure. She is abrasive. My opinions there. But looking at the big picture how can countries that view women as property like a goat or cow be dealt with? She will be a joke to them unless we flex our muscles which is what we want to steer away from? I would love to vote a woman in, but considering some nations' views on women it may not be possible or wise as of yet. That would take some good sway. I am going to be looking into Obama's history to see if he is worthy. I do not vote party lines. But LOL... The latest hoopla I hear now is he is not "black enough". I just found out his mom is white. That is our media. So many need to see our media and the loud people are not a true reflection of the people as a whole here.

But that is the point, the media we see local is Bush has uhhhh language issues, can't get his words out right. Former Pres. Clinton all we heard about was the stupid blue dress and cigars. No one really hits real issues and does jack shit about them. Sad thing for Gore he did not hit them when he could, he missed the bus and his back bone came after the fact.

Things normal Americans want is our land safe. Watch our borders as we are a target like it or not. We do not want men running in circles playing world police. Spend the money to treat and find cures for Cancer and AIDS and help our poor (not lazy), not lets see what frigging bacteria we can scoop up from mars that is billions of dollars, that was sharp thinking for some one there too; what if that cash was put into job training? Not factory but work you can feed your family on and pay health costs? To me I am a nut job but somehow can have a wee bit of common sense. Maybe I am missing something.

What do they say again, those docs I see when I swear I am nuts? The ones who think they are sane are the ones nuts?

[anthony]

I think you're using plenty of commonsense actually veiled, and that last statement is a cracker... oh so true. Would putting a woman in as president though help persuade these countries that view women in such a manner, to see that what they are doing is not accurate of human beings, men and women being human beings as such, not just men, not just women, but all people?

Its interesting to get internal perspectives to Clinton, as we only see what the media want us to see, and the US obviously gets a lot more of the coverage.

[veiled]

Curious, which Clinton are you discussing there or is it both? I am afraid of them (woman hating nations) taking advantage and pushing harder with a female president, though she has brass balls. I will give her that.

But on the other hand some top scientists "the bad guys" who see women as property were women. Again very confusing. Maybe if they heard the phrase hell hath no fury like a woman scorned... But there ya go, right back in the same boat we are again. See it feels like a catch 22 over here. And there is no telling which Dem will will make to election. It may be Lady Clinton or Obama. We only get the one choice. Reps. have not jumped the gun like the Dems. have this year. I hear a lot about them making a bad move starting so soon, but I think it is pretty slick if they have good records, gives people plenty of time to review them. It will backfire big time if they were stupid.

[anthony]

Hiliary that would be... Ok, so do you think the democrats have put a male up also in lieu, just in case the whole woman idea falls through?

[veiled]

I think the Dems have their own lines to follow before they chose their "chosen one"... Their male is Obama. I place my money on him for the Dem elective.