It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US army in Iraq institutionally racist, claims British officer

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I work in the High Tech biz. It is not uncommon for members of the teams that I work with to have one or two muslims on the team.
I have two who sometimes look over my should whilst I post on this site and we have a good laugh at some of the "opinions" that have been stated as facts by varous members.
Muslims are good people. It is the extremists that are the problem. We all need to remember that




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   


And what exactly is laughable about racism?! Especially in our militaries.


I wasnt laughing at racism, i found it ironic that an Officer of the British Army i served with found a need to acuse another Military of Racism when Racism at the time i served was deeply ingrained.
Its called irony.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Funny, I lost of anti US and refutes against the UK....did the US not accuse a british lt-colonel (one who had served in NI and actually was from there and commanded men from there) of warcrimes based on the report of one USMC reservist after he had tearassed into the lt-colonels town and hasseling the populance?

But we could go back and forth, back and forth, all day long with : "Look what the UK done in NI , terribly racists and anti PC there" or "Gitmo there! Gitmo! CIA death camps!", whats it going to accomplish.

Is the US army unable to take critism from its allies yet dish it out itself?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The U.S. give 3,000 lives and thereby save 250,000 Iraqi lives
I do not think that is racist.





War in Iraq rescued at least 250,000 from death

Evidence presented at the trial of Saddam and elsewhere indicates that Saddam's regime killed two million of his own people over the two decades before the U.S.-led invasion.

That works out to 100,000 murders a year.

Since the allied invasion in March of 2003 almost three years ago, 30,000 Iraqis have perished as a result of the war.

That means the sacrifice of more than 2,000 American and other coalition lives have rescued at least 250,000 Iraqis from extermination.




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
The U.S. give 3,000 lives and thereby save 250,000 Iraqi lives
I do not think that is racist.


.....You know I dont think anyone here takes critism easily (me included)...



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
One of my jobs is at a nicer hotel in MI and I had like 10 army reserves in the lobby the other day hurling racist insults at Sanjay Gupta on CNN, because he is Indian.


so youre going to take the actions of a few guys and apply this attitude to the whole US military. that's just as ignorant as what you say these guys were calling Gupta. you should have called them on their ignorance. i have before, and would again. the trick i use in getting the attention of guys that are embarassing their uniform is to start the conversation with "soldier, when i was in we didnt disrespect the uniform....." and you use an authoratative tone. of course, you better be able to back up whatever you say....a combat vet can pick up timidness like a dog smells fear. but they pay attention when they know youre a vet.


Originally posted by thermopolis
I am not now nor have I ever been impressed with British "Officers" of any rank. I would suggest YOU look at history of british oppression and the civil unrest associated..........ahhh, INDIA, America, and every other part of the british empire lost to civil war.


as much as i hate to disagree with a fellow american, youre just plain wrong. the brits have a helluva lot more experience and a better track record with this kind of thing than we americans, and we could learn alot from them. having said that, i agree with majic....a brigadier should know better than to voice an opinion like this to the general media.


Originally posted by thermopolis
Until GW Bush anounced the war on terror the IRA was handing the Britsh Army it head on a weekly basis for decades.


umm, hate to disagree again, but the peace negotians with the IRA had been going on quite some time before 9/11. in fact, (and correct me if i'm wrong here Brits), i believe that a cease-fire was also in effect long before 9/11.


Originally posted by thermopolis
The only way to deal with terrorist is to kill them.........all of them..........and anyone that is standing next to or near them.


yup, kill em all and let god sort em out. forget all the innocent kids that get caught in the crossfire.



Originally posted by DaFunk13
Not to call our soldiers ignorant, but IMO they would not support so much of this mess if they really, really understood what was going on. Most are blinded by free college, a fat signing bonus, or an instilled patriotism that never questions leadership. All of which are evil as hell.


you just said "not to call our soldiers ignorant", and then proceeded to do just that. spoken like someone who has never served, and therefore doesnt have a clue what he is talking about. the "free" college is paid for with their own sweat and blood. the "fat signing bonuses" amount to just enough money to keep their families off of food stamps. military men and women are taught to think for themselves. the leadership doesnt want blind followers, they want people who can think on their feet. as for the rest, basically what you are saying is that the guys and girls on the ground who are seeing the day to day operations know less about what is going on than those sitting on their backsides in the states listening to cnn or fox news? again, you have shown a complete ignorance of our military. i suggest you keep your opinions to yourself in regards to the military until you get some education about it.


Originally posted by DaFunk13
And just what remarkable progress have we made? I am being honest. I have heard about the schools we have opened, or the hospitals we have established, but these are simply things to "win the hearts and minds." They seem more of a PR campaign that actual nation rebuilding.
How many of these people still dont have homes, or a grocery store, or even power and clean water? How many PERMANENT US bases have been built while we neglect the things these people need to survive. They need utilities, and jobs, and we send our corporations (you know the ones) to rebuild their country? Seems a little weird...


yes, it does seem a little wierd...that is, a little wierd that you seem to ignore the stories of how water treatment and electrical plants keep getting blown up by insurgents just as fast as we can rebuild them. we try to make it better for the iraqis, and the insurgents try to make it worse, and then blame the lack of power, sewage, and water on american forces.


Originally posted by DaFunk13
You cannot force a way of life on people, whether its a better way or not. They have to want it.


that much we agree on. the part youre ignoring is that the elections prove that they want it. again, the media doesnt report the progress we make everyday, because it doesnt sell papers. blood and gore does.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Snafu, I promise you I have more friends in Iraq or Afghanistan than you do, and not all of them are as wholesome as you preach. They do sign up for signing bonuses and free college. They may not have when you signed, but you are proving my point that our generation gap is much broader than most think.
I may not understand the mentality of some old man, but I do understand my peers. Serving, while admirable, does not make you an expert on military relations. How many current soldiers are your brothers?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Snafu, I promise you I have more friends in Iraq or Afghanistan than you do, and not all of them are as wholesome as you preach. They do sign up for signing bonuses and free college. They may not have when you signed, but you are proving my point that our generation gap is much broader than most think.
I may not understand the mentality of some old man, but I do understand my peers. Serving, while admirable, does not make you an expert on military relations. How many current soldiers are your brothers?


lol....generation gap. i'm only thirtytwo, and while i realize that qualifies as "ancient" to some people, i dont think i'm that far removed from the current men and women fighting this war.

to answer your question more fully, my brother in law is a sergeant in the army. my best friend is in the guard and serving his second tour in iraq. my cousin is in afganistan. two other friends just got their notice to be ready for re-activation. many, many of my peers are in the gaurd and reserves and were called back to active duty in 2003. the only reason i havent is that i have a bum knee, thanks to uncle sam.

oh, and lets not forget all of my shipmates out there still on active duty all over the world (of course, very few of them have actually been shot at, but serving is serving).

you'd better learn about who your talking to before you make posts like this one. its gets old watching people pull their feet out of their mouths.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
*Sigh*, I guess he wants the US soldiers to start giving out candy and toys to people so we can win the “harts and minds“ of the people. Oh no wait, when we do that innocent children get blown to pieces because some moron decides to blow himself us. Guess who got blamed for that? Damned if you, damned if you don't. Personally I prefer we kill all those that try to kill our soldiers and Iraqi people, but that's just me.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwaspdid the US not accuse a british lt-colonel


giving opinion of the whole army isnt the same as accusng one soldier of something, you cant compare the two, calling the army racist because it focuses more on combat than policing towns is an obsurd and arrogant opinion, if the brittish had to control a large capitol, sunni towns and major religious towns i bet they or i should say he might see it differently. its easy to control an area by sea which has been bombed for 12 years, attacked for a revolt and faced 3 wars, dont you think?



[edit on 12-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
*Sigh*, I guess he wants the US soldiers to start giving out candy and toys to people so we can win the “harts and minds“ of the people. Oh no wait, when we do that innocent children get blown to pieces because some moron decides to blow himself us. Guess who got blamed for that? Damned if you, damned if you don't. Personally I prefer we kill all those that try to kill our soldiers and Iraqi people, but that's just me.

You mean like the US Marines that just turned up with no pre warning in LT col collins area and started handing out sweets , etc and acting like arses?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
giving opinion of the whole army isnt the same as accusng one soldier of something, you cant compare the two, calling the army racist because it focuses more on combat than policing towns is an obsurd and arrogant opinion, if the brittish had to control a large capitol, sunni towns and major religious towns i bet they or i should say he might see it differently. its easy to control an area by sea which has been bombed for 12 years, attacked for a revolt and faced 3 wars, dont you think?
[edit on 12-1-2006 by namehere]

Oh isnt it?
Then how come the opinions during that accused the army of several other infractions which where also false?

The British have had to control a large capitol and have had to control major religious towns, so your now saying that the british are getting "the easy end of the stick"?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
One more time for all you children.........

PEACE is not the absence of WAR it is the inability to make WAR...

To defeat terrorist one must cut off the money supply (donations to the tsunami killed that idea) the US had done a pretty good job of stopping the money.

Yet again the Irony of an arrogant brit officer speaking to racisim is just outrageous................

If one IED goes off on a street corner bomb the entire city into rubble.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
One more time for all you children.........

PEACE is not the absence of WAR it is the inability to make WAR...

Incorrect, for the UK had the ability to destroy the entire of ireland yet did not.
The UK has the ability to go to war with iceland, yet it does not.


To defeat terrorist one must cut off the money supply (donations to the tsunami killed that idea) the US had done a pretty good job of stopping the money.

Yet again the Irony of an arrogant brit officer speaking to racisim is just outrageous................

If one IED goes off on a street corner bomb the entire city into rubble.

The russians tried that strategy, doesnt work.
The UK tried a similar one, DOESNT WORK.
You might want to listen to UK officers and the UK military in general, they have fought terrorist of a much higher calibre and have done so for over 25 years....we've been fighting terrorists sicne before your country was borne, depending on your opinion of what a terrorist is mind you.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Maybe the US forces in Iraq would do well to listen to the commissioned officer..after all we have nearly 800 years of miitary experience with tactics in counter insurgancy learnt the hard way...from the occupation of France in the hundred years war until the peace treaty in Northen Ireland a few years ago.

On the other hand the Americans have only he Vietnam war to look upon..and clearly the top brass have learnt very few lessons from it.

As for Themopolis...before your so critical of the Britrish..i suggest that you learn the language fully and improve your grammar, beacause your threads and replys are full of grammatic and spelling errors.

The US is currently waging a war of occupation that it cannot maintain or win..the situation will not improve only detiriorate.

Bring ém home Bush.

No Edit.

[edit on 14/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972
As for Themopolis...before your so critical of the Britrish..i suggest that you learn the language fully and improve your grammar, beacause your threads and replys are full of grammatic and spelling errors.

The US is currently waging a war of occupation that it cannot maintain or win..the situation will not improve only detiriorate.

Bring ém home Bush.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]


My grammar and spelling are equal to the audience, aggrevating to the arrogant eliteist. Any discusion of Islam deserves only the least effort and maximum contempt.

As for the WAR, the real war is soon to begin..........in Iran.

With so called alies like this arrogant "brit", I hope the EU keeps its cowardly "ID" home.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Thermopolis its people like you who give the US such a sterling reputation.

It seems that the Brigadier was trying to point out the flaws in the US army in such a way that people will sit up and take note, regardless of whether it offends others.

Judging by the differing success rates of the US and UK armies it would seem that he had a good point. US troops are supurb at kicking arse but not so hot at getting on with everyday folk, a result of inadequate training in peacekeeping and reconstruction. Whereas there is talk of almost all British troops leaving the Basra region this year because it is pretty much pacified.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
With so called alies like this arrogant "brit", I hope the EU keeps its cowardly "ID" home.

With respect you can hardly call him arrogant when you have americans insulting the EU and the UK on a daily basis.
BTW, you were singing a diffrent tune in GW1, GW2 and afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
How can you expect people in general to not be racist? We sow what we reap. We've placed an illusion that "these people" if not "this culture" all attacked us. To some people all of "these people" are the enemy, and it's because of the way we presented it after 9/11. Thats not to say that everybody in the army is racist, but alot of people may be unwittingly conducting themselves racistly, because theyre clouded in the allusion that everybody there is an enemy, thats what happened in vietnam.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Family Feud

While it's inevitable that nationalistic chest-beating will work its way into discussions like this, I still recommend not being played by the media.

Yes, there are obviously issues underlying and surrounding Brigadier Aylwin-Foster's remarks. Yes the U.S. Army isn't perfect. Yes the good Brigadier might have been better served to channel his criticisms more tactfully (perhaps, or perhaps not, see below). Yes there are longstanding differences in the way U.S. troops operate and British troops operate.

And yes, when articles like these are published by the press, they are intended to ignite precisely the sorts of arguments we see in this thread.

I see nothing wrong with discussing these sorts of things, but I think it's wise to remember how stories like these find their way into the media spotlight -- and be mindful of who controls that spotlight.

This Is Your Brain On Mass Media

In this case, Brigadier Aylwin-Foster's remarks originally appeared in Military Review.

If you read the original fourteen-page article, Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations, lo and behold, you find that the authors of the Guardian article basically cherry-picked the terms they wanted to use to get the result they desired from the reader.

In other words, the Guardian is sensationalizing the critique and apparently seeking to manipulate public opinion by doing so.

Brigadier Aylwin-Foster's article is actually a very well-composed, thoughtful and honest assessment of how the Army could improve its ability to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

Such critiques are not only common in military circles, but highly valued as feedback that can help save lives and improve effectiveness in future operations, and that is clearly the spirit in which the critique was written – not as a hit-piece against U.S. troops as the Guardian would have us believe.

What The Brigadier Really Thinks

Having had the chance to look through the original article itself, I personally don't think Brigadier Aylwin-Foster is deserving of the vitriol I've seen directed at him.

I recommend that my fellow members consider and take to heart the words of the editors of Military Review in presenting the article to their readers:


From Brigadier Aylwin-Foster's article:

A virtue of having coalition partners with a legacy of shared sacrifice during difficult military cam­paigns is that they can also share candid observations. Such observations are understood to be profes­sional exchanges among friends to promote constructive discussion that can improve the prospects of the coalition successes for which all strive. It was in a constructive spirit, then, that this article was made available to Military Review. The article is a professional commentary by an experienced officer based on his experiences and background. It should also be understood that publishing this article does not imply endorsement of or agreement with its observations by the Combined Arms Center leadership or Military Review. Indeed, some comments are already dated and no longer valid. Nonetheless, this article does provide Military Review readers the thought-provoking assessments of a senior officer with significant experience in counterterrorism operations. And it is offered in that vein—to stimulate discussion.—Editor

Here's hoping the discussion the article itself may generate will be more constructive than the discussion precipitated by the Guardian's second-hand, sensationalized and selective account.





[edit on 1/14/2006 by Majic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join