If I remember what I was told by a Marine who took part in the "Battle of Fallujah" is was standard practice for the Marines to collect the weapons of the insurgents that were killed to prevent other insurgents from using those weapons. Now for a simple question. If all of the weapons were collected how do you tell a civilian from an insurgent 10 days later?

For those of you who state that those of us who support the US and UK troops in Iraq are being lied to, how do you know that you are not the ones who are believing the lies that you are fed?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Lol, right "you" focus on "my" side? Right....more home made BS stellar?

It was pretty clear in stating that bias is bias and they are certainly entitled to lie as much as the rest of the world media. Why should you( as world power) expect your enemies to play fair when you never do?

Lol the "enemy" who the hell said they where my "enemy" , are you trying to imply that because thier a diffrent race that means their my enemies?

No i have no race cards up my sleave. I pointed out that you expecting others to have high standards when western media does not.

LOL
So what about all these reports against the soldiers in iraq yet very few are there to suport the troops in iraq?

Time it by a few dozen and you arrive at the true horror of the war in Iraq. If i realised you were 18 years old earlier i would not have been as harsh as you can not be expected to know these things. It takes time to discover that not only the 'bad' guys lie and cheat.

Lol all I see in the media is a one sided veiw against the soldiers in uniform what ever you see is obviosly just in your head lol.

I see that the Soldiers in uniform get very good press considering the thousands people dying due to their actions. You are seeing what you have been conditioned to see.

Stellar

[edit on 12-4-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
It was pretty clear in stating that bias is bias and they are certainly entitled to lie as much as the rest of the world media. Why should you( as world power) expect your enemies to play fair when you never do?

Woah woah, your going on again about "enemy" since when did I pick an enemy and since when did the free world become the iraqis enemy?
Yes and how much bias is thrown against the troops these days by the "Free media" , quite a lot is the answer.

No i have no race cards up my sleave. I pointed out that you expecting others to have high standards when western media does not.

So your playing the "oh because our media slags our own troops the "enemy" can do it too!" card? Also whats this "enemy" thing about? I have no enemies in iraq.

Time it by a few dozen and you arrive at the true horror of the war in Iraq.

What do you mean by this, clarify.

If i realised you were 18 years old earlier i would not have been as harsh as you can not be expected to know these things. It takes time to discover that not only the 'bad' guys lie and cheat.

Yes thank you for judging me by age, shall we move onto skin colour or religion next?

I see that the Soldiers in uniform get very good press considering the thousands people dying due to their actions. You are seeing what you have been conditioned to see.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by StellarX]

Oh is that right?
I see very little press supporting them over here, I see news reports daily of how bad the situation is in iraq yet whenever anything, no matter how small it is happens its overlooked.

One thing I dont see though is reports on the iraqi insurgency by the local media, its almost as if the iraqi insurgency does not wish the media to see its side of the war or atleast the operations it conducts.

Originally posted by StellarX
I see that the Soldiers in uniform get very good press considering the thousands people dying due to their actions. You are seeing what you have been conditioned to see.

I guess the insurgents don't get any good press when they kill and maim people? Its the insurgents that cause World wide arguments..period.....

Listen. This is a thread of many started by Souljah. He/She likes to do this type of thing. He/she starts a thread off with the intent of causing this type of argument. This may me good, or it may be wrong. But the end result is always the same. Arguments..............

He/she is very good at provoking these type of replies. Can you not see that yet? The same arguments have occurred for ages throughout this persons threads..............

Originally posted by devilwasp
No it means I studied it for 2 years then recieved a qualification in that field, you said I did not know about WW2 my qualification proves you wrong.

And yet your here arguing with me. Just keep going and see how much you have to learn.

What was this supposed to mean?

It's in English; figure it out.

Lol we got dragged into the war because poland was invaded even though we sent not one bullet to them.

But yet Britain went to war not being able to do a darn thing about Poland being squashed. What's the point of going to war after you have let the enemy achieve so many of his aims making him so much stronger? You find nothing strange about this situation?

Well many in the german high command and obviosly some in the british armed forces.

You just go look at he original German plans and then wonder in amazement how they actually managed to do what they did so shortly afterwards. History is not what they told you it was.

Because one man refused to act, THATS why.

One man? Britain was a dictatorship? As far as i know that one man served at the 'pleasure' of at least a few others?

Because its better than the alternative (atleast it was in WW1 and 2)

The alternative being no war and people not losing their liberties?

Or is it because tehre is no other option, war is either thrust upon your or your choose to start it. There is no grey there.

There is a huge grey area when people themselves never want mindless war and it's a few people in government and business that lie and deceive the general public into situations where nations can be manipulated into war.

Stellar

Originally posted by JIMC5499
For those of you who state that those of us who support the US and UK troops in Iraq are being lied to, how do you know that you are not the ones who are believing the lies that you are fed?

We are ALL being lied to by our various governments/religions/business sectors and it's simply a question of which of us believe which of those lies. Obviously with such a mix of truth and lies, and general absence of perspective, people will be wrong most of the time whatever side their on. That being said if you dig deep enough and gain proper perspective i find that there is truth to discover and that it ain't pretty.

Since i have not seen the case for self defense, by means of invasion no less, being made ( Not that convention allows even for that) Americans or American soldiers/Allies have no business being in Iraq. The fact that America and most other countries have volunteer armies means no respect can , imo , logically be had for people being paid to enforce a illegal occupation. The moral authority clearly lies with the other side ( and they seem to realise this)
and no amount of American propaganda to the ME or rest of the world is going to change that reality. The fact that the American government does not seem interested in actually WINNING the occupation battle by force of arms seems to indicate that the KNOW they have no moral authority as such would have given them the courage and support to institute a draft and clean up the mess they have now created by shear force of arms and willpower.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
And yet your here arguing with me. Just keep going and see how much you have to learn.

I'm here to stop people flooding ATS with biased ideas, so far I hope I'm doing a good job. Yet again your playing the "you have so much to learn , so much that I have learned" card, dont try and raised yourself above me....you may be older but by no means smarter.

It's in English; figure it out.

So your refusing to clarify your statement?
I am asking you to clarify it just once more so I know your not trolling and looking for an argument, which btw I guess you are considering the way you act in chat and on the board.

But yet Britain went to war not being able to do a darn thing about Poland being squashed. What's the point of going to war after you have let the enemy achieve so many of his aims making him so much stronger? You find nothing strange about this situation?

No I dont our leaders refused to act, hence our alley poland was taken over...in truth though it was polish and russian distrust of each other that brought down poland....

You just go look at he original German plans and then wonder in amazement how they actually managed to do what they did so shortly afterwards. History is not what they told you it was.

German high command made great plans, if you look at it the plan was a great sucess.
The british and french both thought it would be WW1 all over again, so they piled on the boarder with brussels, leaving their flank exposed which the germans took advantage of.

One man? Britain was a dictatorship? As far as i know that one man served at the 'pleasure' of at least a few others?

No he did not, that one man was the sole commander of the united kingdom and it was his responsibility to prepare us for the war we SEEN coming and to make us act in time.
Unless ofcourse your saying that because the leader refused to act that means we're under a dictatorship since there are many others in the team that COULD have acted....

The alternative being no war and people not losing their liberties?

Lol yeah like living under german authority and having the weak and unfit killed at birth, having jewish people exterminated and if not that then under the leadership of a mad kaiser with a warped mind and body.

There is a huge grey area when people themselves never want mindless war and it's a few people in government and business that lie and deceive the general public into situations where nations can be manipulated into war.

Is that right, so buisness and goverment created ww1 so they could remove liberties and get rich....while killing over a million peopel and almost losing their personal freedoms themselves...
Right....thats just a bit too "OMG everyones out to get me" paraniod for me....

Originally posted by devilwasp
Woah woah, your going on again about "enemy" since when did I pick an enemy and since when did the free world become the iraqis enemy?

Well if you have a short memory just read what you said earlier to refresh it. The 'free' world ( NOT!) become Iraqi's enemy when it let half a million Iraqi children die due to sanctions.

Yes and how much bias is thrown against the troops these days by the "Free media" , quite a lot is the answer.

Very little considering their paid killers taking part in an illegal occupation.

So your playing the "oh because our media slags our own troops the "enemy" can do it too!" card? Also whats this "enemy" thing about? I have no enemies in iraq.

I am, AGAIN, saying that if the western press can hide the scale of American/allied atrocity why can some other sources not inflate it beyond reality? Why is one side allowed to lie trough their teeth but the other side has it's 'credibility' destroyed ( in some eyes at least) for doing much the same? Well your defending an illegal occupation so in my estimation your either hopelessly ignorant or hopelessly biased. Since i normally give people far more credit than they deserve i went with the second option but feel free to correct me if you like.

What do you mean by this, clarify.

Allied/American conduct in Iraq is far far worse than Western media portrays it to be.

Yes thank you for judging me by age, shall we move onto skin colour or religion next?

Well if you believe that some races are inferior then feel free to point out which one's so that i can take note of it. Same goes for religion and if you do not understand how judging someone according to age ( especially when their so young) is fair then your even younger than your 17.

Oh is that right?
I see very little press supporting them over here, I see news reports daily of how bad the situation is in iraq yet whenever anything, no matter how small it is happens its overlooked.

Well if you knew much anything about what is really happening in Iraq you would know that it's far worse than anything you hear or see on TV. The fact that you form your judgement based on what you see on TV just goes to show that you WANT positive things to be said whether anything positive is in fact happening or not.

One thing I dont see though is reports on the iraqi insurgency by the local media, its almost as if the iraqi insurgency does not wish the media to see its side of the war or atleast the operations it conducts.

The Western media can not cover the insurgents themselves as that would immediately lead to westerners realising that said ' terrorist/suicide bombers/insurgents/rebels/fundamentalist are in fact mostly very human fighting for very specific reasons as best they can under the circumstances. If they wanted to hook up with these groups that would be very easy considering the general situation in that country and the fact that we hear so little indicates the bias and complicity of western media.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The Western media can not cover the insurgents themselves as that would immediately lead to westerners realising that said ' terrorist/suicide bombers/insurgents/rebels/fundamentalist are in fact mostly very human fighting for very specific reasons as best they can under the circumstances. If they wanted to hook up with these groups that would be very easy considering the general situation in that country and the fact that we hear so little indicates the bias and complicity of western media.

Stellar

The western media can't cover the insurgents because they are killing them. Not to mention insurgents and terrorists don't like the media recording their atrocities against mosques, worshippers, shooting or beheading people and putting them on the side of the roads, blowing up cars in markets, suicide bombings on funerals. Thats why you never see that, only the aftermath of the attacks on civilians by western media. Because thats all they can get, the insurgents won't post such videos of their attacks on innocent civilians. If the western media is so bias then they wouldnt be putting up pics and videos of Abu Graib prison, would they? Explain that.

Besides, showing such videos sure won't win sympathy except to the extremists. I doubt the American people would support what the insurgents are doing against innocent civilians.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by devilwasp
I'm here to stop people flooding ATS with biased ideas,

Your towing the line and are in fact the one spreading the bias while disrespecting anyone who disagrees with your 'experience'( such as it is).

so far I hope I'm doing a good job. Yet again your playing the "you have so much to learn , so much that I have learned" card, dont try and raised yourself above me....you may be older but by no means smarter.

You are in fact doing a terrible job but it's hard to realise your own fallibility when young.
I do not have to 'raise' myself to be above you as that simple results from being older,more knowledgeable and generally having time on my side. You have no idea what change another eight years of learning will bring you ( the advantage i have even if we were equally ignorant at 17; which everyone is at 17 imo) and you lack the perspective to realise just how little time you have had so far.

So your refusing to clarify your statement?

I just expected you to be able to figure it out but i now realise i misjudged you completely.

I am asking you to clarify it just once more so I know your not trolling and looking for an argument, which btw I guess you are considering the way you act in chat and on the board.

The leaders of Britain at the time were accepting plainly spoken lies , by Hitler, while giving Hitler additional time to prepare when most Britain's had already realised that reasoning with him was leading nowhere. If common people who are persistently lied to can figure it out then it's obvious that well informed leaders should as well if they are not in fact in league with enemy or generally being prevented from action by their peers.

No I dont our leaders refused to act, hence our alley poland was taken over...in truth though it was polish and russian distrust of each other that brought down poland....

'Our' leaders kept Poland on a string for a long time thus preventing them from settling or allying with others. They were used and abused simply to serve as trigger at the most inopportune time.

German high command made great plans, if you look at it the plan was a great sucess.

Your talking about the one that was used mostly as result of fluke and i suggest you go look at the one before to get some understanding of what i am in fact reffering to.

The british and french both thought it would be WW1 all over again, so they piled on the boarder with brussels, leaving their flank exposed which the germans took advantage of.

The British and French did not think it would be WW1 again as they could not afford to suffer as they did the previous time. I suggest you look at the level of mechanization to come to some understanding of what they actually had in mind despite their complete failure to live up to it.

No he did not, that one man was the sole commander of the united kingdom and it was his responsibility to prepare us for the war we SEEN coming and to make us act in time.

That's complete nonsense and you should know it. If that 'sole commander' ( nonsense anyways) lost credibility with the rest he would be gone in 'a day' as was the case in the end. It is the duty of the ENTIRE establishment to prepare to defend the nation and that was just not done despite very nearly bankrupting the nation in the progress.

Unless ofcourse your saying that because the leader refused to act that means we're under a dictatorship since there are many others in the team that COULD have acted....

He was just the figurehead of a larger group and that group in fact makes the decisions which we know were almost all bad.

Lol yeah like living under german authority and having the weak and unfit killed at birth,

That was done in America as well in at least one state so lets not scream at the Nazi's as if their the only crazy group in the world.

having jewish people exterminated and if not that then under the leadership of a mad kaiser with a warped mind and body.

Well considering the living standard ( the highest in Europe) under Hitler just before the war your quite incorrect to claim it was all bad for those who were willing to sacrifice freedom for stability and security. Their not insane AT ALL but very devious when it comes to enticing people into their web. If the rest of Europe were so willing to help Jewish people they would have accepted them in the 30's and generally helped them to get out which was not the case. Helping people when their already dead or dying is just another game being played by those in authority as if they really cared they would have acted on the earlier signs. You so far believe everything they want you to believe but luckily that will change with time if you just stick around here for long enough. I am very glad that i was not arrogant enough to jump on the Internet at age 17, when i still believed much of what you do, as back then I just lacked the kind of confidence that thinking highly of your own opinions brings. It in fact took me another 6 years before i decided my opinions/comments were worth sharing with a wider audience and that i could say something that reading text books might not have taught anyone . I would suggest you do the same but i can see that what you lack in terms of knowledge you sure have in confidence and arrogance.

Is that right, so buisness and goverment created ww1 so they could remove liberties and get rich....

They are always busy doing that whatever else is happening but now and again they turn to more desperate measures to change society. I am NOT suggesting that the British business class instigated this war ( they were in fact big losers in my knowledge) but that they thought they could control events better. The British government were clearly complicit( buy were also 'played' by others who were the real winners in that war) as they had ample time to stop Germany early on and simply did nothing thinking they could 'manage' German and use it for their own goals.

while killing over a million peopel and almost losing their personal freedoms themselves...
Right....thats just a bit too "OMG everyones out to get me" paraniod for me....

Well your 17 so i do not expect you to have read and seen what i have. Do not imagine the limits of your still narrow perception ( No offense intended) to reflect much of reality at 17 years of age. Your not only fooling yourself but insulting people much older and wiser than yourself. I have chosen not to take general offense but i suggest that in the future you focus on listening and learning instead of making your first assumptions about the world known. Mine were most all wrong but at least i never put them in writing to serve as testament to my youthful ignorance and while I accept that i am far from being done with the 'learning-and-making-mistakes-process' i at least i have the perspective to point out what embarrassments your bound to suffer while conducting yourself in this obnoxious overconfident way.

Stellar

Originally posted by deltaboy
The western media can't cover the insurgents because they are killing them.

We do not know who is killing the journalist and all we know for sure is that a great many have died due to American bullets. By extrapolation ( for lack of other evidence) we might imagine we just did not catch the allies killing the rest. That is however not saying that the Insurgents do not have many good reasons for killing Western agents who masquerade as 'journalist'.

Not to mention insurgents and terrorists don't like the media recording their atrocities against mosques, worshippers, shooting or beheading people and putting them on the side of the roads, blowing up cars in markets, suicide bombings on funerals.

Well they obviously wont let them record any of that ( the US forces do not allow journalist to film napalm like substances being dropped on cities or the torture in jails) since their not the complete crazies you imagine them to be. To fight such a long guerrilla war, with such low casualties, indicates consummate skill and professionalism in the main which is obvious if you realise who they are and who they were trained by.

Thats why you never see that, only the aftermath of the attacks on civilians by western media.

The Western media are great at filing the aftermath of such things ( normally blamed without much support on 'the insurgents') and then letting everyone assume what they will with clever cue's. How many reporters film the scenes of American 'accidents' ( bombing schools and the like) and fighting leading to the death of innocents? Every one's bias is clear but your logic for assuming Western media CAN'T film every one's crimes is clearly based on very faulty reasoning.

Because thats all they can get, the insurgents won't post such videos of their attacks on innocent civilians.

Once again we do not know who is mostly responsible for the incidents or who or what they were aimed at. What you are doing is making the type of assumptions you were conditioned to make trough no great fault of your own.

Either way how many factions , terrorist or otherwise, likes their brutalities filmed? How long did it take the US to release the material relating to the torture of Iraqi civilians ( held without charge mostly) and why were many of the tortured later released as if they never did a thing?

If the western media is so bias then they wouldnt be putting up pics and videos of Abu Graib prison, would they? Explain that.

They had no choice, as you can not hide everything, and the material leaked out anyways.

Besides, showing such videos sure won't win sympathy except to the extremists. I doubt the American people would support what the insurgents are doing against innocent civilians.

Once they start showing the thousands of dead men women and children that resulted from American bombing i think American citizens might start getting perspective as to why such brutality are visited on those who are part of the occupation forces or against those seeking to aid them for profit.

As it stands the USA stands today as the only country every convicted ( by the UN for it's actions in South America) of international terrorism. Go figure.

Stellar

[edit on 13-4-2006 by StellarX]

I don't think that people are distinguishing between "insurgents", civlians, and death squads. There are Iraqi death squads now, funded by the US: they all have police uniforms and are actually a small branch of the police.

So not only are the US forces killing Iraqis, so are the sectarian insurgents, AND US-backed death squads. It's a mess.

And Damocles, I dare say you know what 'free-fire zone' means. They exist in Iraq just like they did in Vietnam.

Plus, you haven't said what you thought about all the children killed. The kid with his nuts shot off by a sniper, the two children killed with head shots...

These are war crimes, after all.

Which is precisely why I would only be a soldier if I felt my country was genuinely under threat. (And, in fact, I am, thank God, too old for that kind of thing now anyway). Iraq was never any threat, yet the US invaded. And THAT is why every soldier there is a war criminal, and so on all the way up to Blair and Bush. THOSE two are the ones who should carry the blame for it, though. On the other hand, obeying orders is not generally held to be an excuse.

But if it were my country, I'd be out there with the so-called 'insurgents'. Did you really watch the movie? Did you see the teacher who said he was out there, fighting the occupiers, with his students alongside him? A bunch of civilians with small arms and improvised stuff against the best-equipped army in the world (as a soldier I'd expect you to know that your country's military budget exceeds that of the rest of the world PUT TOGETHER). My sympathies lie with the underdog, not the bully.

And all because the occupying army took over a school so they could put snipers on the roof.

They don't want the US there: and you haven't given me any good reasons WHY the US is there - which I asked for ages ago. Until you can, spare me your good soldier schtick. And if you think you can, those reasons had better stand up to scrutiny because that's what they'll be getting.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by rich23]

Damocles,

I do take your point about being out there defending if the shoe was on the other foot.

And I apologise sincerely for offending you. I don't think you're a liar. I think you're pretty honest, but that you come from different premises than I do. But, I find it hard to believe you watched the movie if you maintain that some of those kids could have had guns. The clip where the mother was talking about trying to evacuate her kids convinces me at least. And what about the bit in the farmhouse where the guy holds up the wallet which had held his brother's ID card and money before US soldiers 'confiscated' it?

Plus, there are sequences that demonstrate that US soldiers fired on ambulances. That's just WRONG.

Believe it or not, I have some sympathy with kids stuck out there in a hostile country. But they've been duped. As I have said repeatedly, your country INSTALLED the brutal dictator Saddam and supported him through his worst excesses. This is a consistent pattern through the Middle East, through Africa, and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Even Europe (Greece and Portugal) suffered through the imposition of death-squad dictators backed and installed through the US. This is history that the rest of the world learns about, but US citizens (most of them, anyway) don't.

This is why I really want you to examine the reasons for going into Iraq. NONE of them stand up to scrutiny. Do you really imagine they're better off now? How many dead Iraqis will there have to be before they are? It's particularly important to look at the reasons your C-in-C takes you to war at a time when it looks like there's going to be conflict in Iran and Venezuela (a carrier group has just been moved to the Caribbean - wonder why?). And please, please don't fool yourself that the guys at the top care about the soldiers. If they did, would they be cutting veterans' benefits? Would they be failing to equip them with body armour?

The US is bogged down badly in Iraq, and Afghanistan. The reasons for going into those countries don't stand up UNLESS you factor in the oil. Did you know, for example, that Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's 'president', used to work for Unocal (the United Oil Company of California)? He's just there to get a pipeline built for the multinationals. BushCo USED 9/11 as an excuse to get their programme of world domination rolling.

Originally posted by StellarX
Your towing the line and are in fact the one spreading the bias while disrespecting anyone who disagrees with your 'experience'( such as it is).

I am but on drop of bias in this sea of it...I do provide "bias" or an "opinion" but I do so in counter action to others...that way keeping a balance..

You are in fact doing a terrible job but it's hard to realise your own fallibility when young.

Well thank you for that assesment but frankly I dont really give a damm what you think.

I do not have to 'raise' myself to be above you as that simple results from being older,more knowledgeable and generally having time on my side. You have no idea what change another eight years of learning will bring you ( the advantage i have even if we were equally ignorant at 17; which everyone is at 17 imo) and you lack the perspective to realise just how little time you have had so far.

Yet again you believe your more knowledgeable in ALL areas where we both know this is not true, I may not have your experience but I have had training and have learnt things you have not.
You are trying to raise yourself above me and claim my "disagreements" as "youthful ignorance" , a simple yet regular tactic of yours.

I just expected you to be able to figure it out but i now realise i misjudged you completely.

Now whos insulting who, I asked you to clarify your position but since you havent I will take it the way its laid : As an insult to soldiers.

The leaders of Britain at the time were accepting plainly spoken lies , by Hitler, while giving Hitler additional time to prepare when most Britain's had already realised that reasoning with him was leading nowhere. If common people who are persistently lied to can figure it out then it's obvious that well informed leaders should as well if they are not in fact in league with enemy or generally being prevented from action by their peers.

"Common people" ? Do you work for the BBC political division? The common people where not as informed as you or I nowadays and it was beause of one parties unwillingness to act that caused this. IF you think he was in lie with the enemy then go ahead....I'll know what paraniod delusions to believe.

'Our' leaders kept Poland on a string for a long time thus preventing them from settling or allying with others. They were used and abused simply to serve as trigger at the most inopportune time.

"Your" leaders might have , "MY" leaders did nothing. ABOSOLUTELY NOTHING. They where used as a puppet until britain could be ready to go to war, a buffer between germany and russia.

Your talking about the one that was used mostly as result of fluke and i suggest you go look at the one before to get some understanding of what i am in fact reffering to.

You mean the fluke of the original plans falling into allied hands, no the plan drafted by General Erich von Manstein was no fluke.

The British and French did not think it would be WW1 again as they could not afford to suffer as they did the previous time. I suggest you look at the level of mechanization to come to some understanding of what they actually had in mind despite their complete failure to live up to it.

They did believe it would be WW1 again because they believed the germans would outflank the magionet line via brussels again like in the schlieffen plan, hence why best units of the french army where sent along with the BEF to brussels border.

That's complete nonsense and you should know it. If that 'sole commander' ( nonsense anyways) lost credibility with the rest he would be gone in 'a day' as was the case in the end. It is the duty of the ENTIRE establishment to prepare to defend the nation and that was just not done despite very nearly bankrupting the nation in the progress.

Oh is it? Your now an expert in the matters of her majesties parliment?
The entire establishment doesnt recieve all the information like the PM and the members of his cabinet, he alone makes the decsion on what to do.

He was just the figurehead of a larger group and that group in fact makes the decisions which we know were almost all bad.

He was no figure head, he was in command of the british government just because he was the leader of a party does not make him a figurehead.

That was done in America as well in at least one state so lets not scream at the Nazi's as if their the only crazy group in the world.

I am not discussing america, I'm talking about europe and frankly thats not a pleasant government to live under and frankly I am not making them the only crazy group but they where one of the worst.

Well considering the living standard ( the highest in Europe) under Hitler just before the war your quite incorrect to claim it was all bad for those who were willing to sacrifice freedom for stability and security.

Yeah and how many of britain where willing to sacrifice stability and security, oh and asl yourself how many of those high living people in germany 1939 where jews?

Their not insane AT ALL but very devious when it comes to enticing people into their web.

Hitler was a complete maniac, he killed his entire family and had his best general shot for crying out loud.

Oh and the rest of your drivel you can quite frankly forget about....its not worth commenting on...if you think I'm arogant go ahead...ha the nazis would have accepted jews in the 30's...sure they would have!

The British government were clearly complicit( buy were also 'played' by others who were the real winners in that war) as they had ample time to stop Germany early on and simply did nothing thinking they could 'manage' German and use it for their own goals.

They(chamberlin) thought germanyt was no threat so therefore took no action.

Well your 17 so i do not expect you to have read and seen what i have. Do not imagine the limits of your still narrow perception ( No offense intended) to reflect much of reality at 17 years of age. Your not only fooling yourself but insulting people much older and wiser than yourself.

Coming from a man who thinks sharpnel can sink a nuclear aicraft carrier carrier....I will take your words with a hold full of salt.
[qipte]
I have chosen not to take general offense but i suggest that in the future you focus on listening and learning instead of making your first assumptions about the world known.

Mabye you should do the same and not be hypocritical in this regard.

Mine were most all wrong but at least i never put them in writing to serve as testament to my youthful ignorance and while I accept that i am far from being done with the 'learning-and-making-mistakes-process' i at least i have the perspective to point out what embarrassments your bound to suffer while conducting yourself in this obnoxious overconfident way.

I know this subject if you think its overconfident then fair enough thats your opinion but in reality your being entirely hypocritical in critisising me. Also another thing, you may have hid your mistakes in your youth by not writing them down so that it doesnt serve "as testament to your youthful ignorance" but I am diffrent, if I make a mistake in writing or in speech then I will accept that mistake. I might drivel on for years and then find out I was wrong all along, I will happily change my position once I find out its wrong but frankly if I believe otherwise I will know I stuck by my guns and done what I thought was right. No matter what I look like in the end because after all, learn by your mistakes....dont sweep them under the rug.

What really happened in Fallujah?

I'm going to ignore the political, let those who think they are better qualfied continue that discussion, and focus on the military.

What happened in Fallujah has become the world defacto standard of urban conflict in war. While people would like to think innocents should never die, during war they do die, it is the risk of war, and a fact of reality.

Fallujah in 2004 was an urban operation that put 5000 US and Iraqi troops against over 4,000 insurgents and terrorists as determined by the Iraqi provisional government and US commanders in Iraq. The orders instructed the 5000 coalition troops to remove the insurgency from the city completely.

It resulted in 500 dead and wounded Iraqi and US Military personal, and 1200 confirmed dead and 1500 captured insurgents and terrorists, and around 1300 missing or sent fleeing. By doctrine standards, it was the most brilliant urban combat campaign ever performed during wartime, resulting in a hstorical low (calculated back over 100 years) of innocent casualties for a modern large urban combat military action based on population.

Terrorists and insurgents that got out and were later captured all reported the same thing. They felt like they were being stalked by a machine. All they heard was footsteps, followed by a grenade and/or gunfire, as room after room was cleared. Buildings that were overloaded with defense were surgically removed with smart bombs, which compounded the psychological effects of putting up a coordinated defense.

Intimidation played its part, as did training and equipment. Robotics was heavily used on the battlefield, and training combined with communications made the Coalition advance through the city very swift. By dividing the city into sectors, rotations were established to keep the campaign moving at a 24 hour pace, which hurt defenders as lack of sleep caught up with insurgents and made them prone to many mistakes.

The Pentagon still doesn't know what to make of Fallujah of 2004, but it continues to be studied to determine what exactly this means for future urban operations. Allied militaries are keenly interested in Fallujah, specifically NATO and Asia-Pacific allies.

While the media and fools who think war is non violent focus on the number of civilian causualities in Fallujah, militaries world wide have noted that innocent civilian losses were incredible light when placed in historical context for urban actions, and not just by a little, by ALOT. They have every intention of conducting operations the same way as the American and Coalition troops did Fallujah to insure light causualty numbers should they ever be caught in an urban combat situation.

Within the next decade, it is highly probable that West Point teaches urban combat based on the Fallujah model. It would be foolish not to, because what is completely ignored about Fallujah, is that if you apply historical standard causualties were increadibly light. The highest estimate of civilians killed during US/Coalition actions in Fallujah in 2004 was around 8000, even though fewer than 3000 bodies were ever found. For a city with an estimated population of a bit over 250,000 at the time, that worst case scenario is over 6 times fewer than averages from any other war in the last century. Historically, 20% of the innocent civilian population dies to urban combat, which in every other war in history would have resulted in over 50,000 deaths.

That is why every US military ally is seriously interested in Fallujah, they want to insure their military operates like the Americans, who strictly on a military analysis, rewrote the book standard for urban combat with Fallujah.

As for the political, I have no opinion and think only fools do after the fact. Applying political opinions after military operations is the mentality of a fool with no concept of reality, political opinions come before military operations, not after. When you choose the military option, your asking for exactly what you get, no matter what you get. That is why War is Hell.

Originally posted by deltaboy
You say we do not know whos killing them, but now you say its Americans for sure.

I am saying that we know that the American military with all their supposedly good training still manages to shoot people with camera's quite often. The official excuse is that this happens by accidents but we know that insurgents never make accidents and that journalist would NEVER get shot by accident by the bad guys, right? Fact is i am waiting for someone to show me that we know for sure who is killing the journalist and media that is not quote often targeting by the US armed forces and their allies.

Obviously they sure as hell wont record any of it, no matter the reason, either professional or just the thought of losing sympathy.

No one likes their dirty secrets on TV and that is true for all sides; why pretend otherwise?

Since insurgents like to fight in mosques and schools that practical as to why we bomb them.

If American troops were not in Iraq they could not be shot at thus crying about where they are getting shot from is completely irrational and completely avoiding the issue. Would you be firing from targets that the enemy might consider not firing at if they invaded YOUR city? Your expecting the enemy to play by rules that would allow for them to be tracked and killed with far greater ease. Why should someone who gets invaded play according to the rules set up by the invader?

But when you bomb mosques where there are no American troops nearby, then that pretty much accounts as to pure murder intentionally.

If we know who were bombing those places then we could assign as much blame as you like but having blame assigned due to the 'usual suspects( according to western media; who got it from 'reliable' sources) being pointed out is just another way to make one particular side seem blameless. Who stands to gain more from civil war considering that the US has so far caused nothing but unrest and general violence? Why fire Chief of Staff Shinseki ( US army) who said that he would need 400 000 or more US troops on the ground in Iraq to keep the peace? Is it not obvious that the US is not interested in stability in the ME?

Again why do you asking as to who is doing the atrocities, you seem to must think American troops can blow themselves up as well.

How many of those bomb explosions are in fact due to anything suicide related? You bring me the numbers and i will show you how you have been lied to. Car bombs do not leave craters and neither do suicide belts on humans.

Uhuh, so much for that bias crap on western media.

You may want to believe that your seeing negative bias but all i have seen is a general reflection on reality with most if not all of the truth hidden from the view of the mostly Western viewers.

Excuse me, I don't think the American people would still sympathize them even if they added innocent civilians to be targeted on the list along with coalition forces and contractors.

You would be surprised how easily people can notice how much they have in common with others once they hear a translation and see the tears/anger/general anquish; it's called empathy and what makes us 'different' than animals is the fact that we can imagine ( to some extent) ourselves in their places.

Ooooo the only country to be convicted of international terrorism.

As far as i know, yes.

So all the other countries have never committed terrorism right?

Well i can see you completely smashed that strawman; well done. If you get convicted by the UN (with so much political pull on your side) your clearly either incompetent or your just generally terrorising enough countries to get yourself noticed. You might want to look into just how many nations have and will continue to suffer the same terrorism.

Like South Africa for example has never committed any terrorism?

Not, as far as i know, enough to get noticed by the UN which is admittedly not saying much. Scale that up and you will begin to understand the scale of atrocity that you must commit to get noticed.

Stellar

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I guess the insurgents don't get any good press when they kill and maim people? Its the insurgents that cause World wide arguments..period.....

No illegal invasion and no bad press could result. No one gets great press ( at least not from all sides) for killing and maiming even if that is sadly one of the requirements in war or self defense.

Listen. This is a thread of many started by Souljah. He/She likes to do this type of thing.

Saying things that should be said but never gets?

He/she starts a thread off with the intent of causing this type of argument. This may me good, or it may be wrong. But the end result is always the same. Arguments..............

I can live with bias and motivations, other than my own, if people were willing to source their claims and defend them without relying on insult and evasion to maintain their point of view. Souljah , as far as i can tell , makes his views clear but also goes to the trouble of telling us where they come from so that we may look at it ourselves. No more can be asked and the world would be a better place if all people could tell each other what their base their opinions and perspectives on.

He/she is very good at provoking these type of replies. Can you not see that yet? The same arguments have occurred for ages throughout this persons threads..............

You do not have to read his threads and i find it interesting that you find it worth your while to spend time warning 'us' against his views when we can clearly see what sort of material he bases it on. Do you not feel that we are qualified to judge for ourselves?

Stellar

Originally posted by Damocles
your bias is showing through and this statement alone gives credence to that opinion.

I think your response makes clear who is well informed and who is not.

you honestly BELIEVE that its 'the worlds fault' those children died?

Yes, and it seems many officials in the UN agreed with me and resigned in protest. Do some research?

saddam is skimming billions off the top with the oil for food program,

So what if he did skim the money? Everyone needs oil and will cheat whoever they have to get it but that does not mean the UN ban on vital medicines were no longer there. If you do not understand that the two issues are completely unrelated ( even if it says plenty about SH) then you should not be the one pointing fingers.

his kids are sporting gold plated ak-47's,

And you think gold is that expensive? With the type of oil money and kickbacks he got he could probably have gold plated all the rifle's of a guards division. No related, even if it's true, but makes clear he did not mind taking money from the people.

he's got palaces for pretty much each day of the week, and its OUR fault his people starved?

Who said the kids starved? I suppose it can be argued that he could use the money spent towards all those luxuries to bribe some country in providing the medicine on the UN blacklist but can you show that is the case?

all he EVER had to do was PROVE he dismantled his weapons program and let inspectors in.

He did that and they( the UN) said that he did FOR SURE by the middle late 90's ( i think 1997) so this is another case of you believe what you want instead of what was admitted rather long ago.

thats it. show us the paperwork on the destruction process. let us see the facilities, and after the UN, NOT the US was satisfied..trade restored.

It was but they kept the sanctions going due to pressure from Britain/Us. Do SOME research please?

but HE chose to be the 'tough guy" and its OUR fault his people starved.

Your ignorance, on this matter, will become ever more apparent the longer you stay here and i really advise you to read abit more on topic before assuming i must not have.

sorry, in my own personal opinion your credibility is gone because of an overbias. but thats just me and i am willing to accept my opinion doesnt mean crap.

I disagree with your opinion on my credibility ( everyone can judge for themselves i hope?) but i can certainly agree that your opinion on this specific matter is not worth much anything due to you, apparently, not knowing much anything related to it.

Stellar