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 troops killed British reporter

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoSocialist

I know that UK troops have commited some stupid crimes in Iraq but on the whole they were winning the hearts and minds of the people. I think that US soldiers actions have destroyed any chance of there being a successful outcome to the occupation.
UK troops are definately more sensitive to the Iraqi people. US troops think they are just dirt.
I know this will upset a lot of you out there buts I think it's true - a lot of British soldiers have said the same thing


OMG, stop with this BS. UK troops are not "winning the hearts and mind of people", they are situated in southern Shia Iraq where are little problems with insurgency. And US doesn't have problems in Northern Iraq in Kurdistan and some other non sunni areas for example, so it's definitely not just because they are british.

And to the amricans being trigger happy - like Patriot accidents - well it's because americans are providing most of CAS and air defense. British had no Patriots in Gulf, so they were hardly able to shoot down some US planes, you know. They have also much less CAS assets like AC-130 or A-10, so there is less FF accidents.




posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The reason why US troops seem to be involved in the overwhelming majority of these incidents should be obvious. The US has 120,000 troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 for the British. With 17 times as many American troops in the region as compared to the British, one can reasonably assume that there will be 17 times as many 'friendly fire' incidents involving Americans as well.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
The reason why US troops seem to be involved in the overwhelming majority of these incidents should be obvious. The US has 120,000 troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 for the British. With 17 times as many American troops in the region as compared to the British, one can reasonably assume that there will be 17 times as many 'friendly fire' incidents involving Americans as well.



That's quite probably true.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
good we appreicated the supplys, but don't think you've not had it all back!!

we've paid for that in $cash£ of the past 60 years (infact the final payment was last year as far as i'm aware), plus we brits have supported you in 2 wars in the past 5 years.

the united states as had its fair share of donations though due to all the hurricanes you've had over the years, only difference is we don't ask for it back, america does nothing for people not even its own people (charged its own citzens fees recently for escorting them out of Lebanon
)

ww1 'wrong' america never had any equpiment to send, as far as i'm aware the US soliders used your thier own guns and thats it (rip to all those great men who gave their lifes),

oh and btw if we would be speaking german you would be speaking japanese if it wasn't for us
and due to your nations record in warefare *cough* vietnam, maybe even arab, (iraq), did you know as a nation america as never won a war by 'itself' thoughout its history


You have to be one of the biggest morons I've seen online. First, our citizens did not have to pay to get back to the US. You are speaking about an outdated law that requires citizens to promise to pay the money at a later time. The government came out and said they were not going to require any citizens to repay the government. Get your facts straight next time, thanks. As for Iraq, we could have decimated that little country with no problem and with no help. What major role did the "coalition" do that the US couldn't do alone? We used half of the resources they used in gulf war 1 to do the same mission. As for Vietnam, who in this world could have done a better in fighting that type of war than the US? If we were truly committed to fighting that war we would have won. Not like it matters though because those morons prefer to live in a broke-ass communist state knee deep in poverty. Guess they should have learned from South Korea and Japan that capitalism was the better choice.

Another thing, Britain would have never been able to launch a counter-invasion of Europe without the help of United States. We alone counted for 50% of all war-time production so the Soviet Union wouldn't have a chance defending stalingrad without the amount of assistance they recieved from us.

I'm not downplaying anyone's efforts in WWII, they all fought equally bravely and heroicly and deserve our appreciation.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I dont think the soliders did this knowing who the man was
.I think that when people are trying to kill you from all directions a media crew may look hostile from a distance.They were acting on a possible threat.
A terrible tradgedy this is.
I bet the soliders responsible think so too.Its hard for us to imagine the stress those boys are going though daily in Iraq.
I cannot blame the soliders for this as they are in constant fear of their lives out there.

I do blame the rulers who have sent our countrymen and yours to thier deaths on the back of a multitude of falsehoods.I can never support the objectives.Democracy and freedom is it?How do we know thats true if the reason for the war was a LIE?

Shame on the greedy oil stealing,child murdering bush/bliar regimes.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join