Politics and History (World, National, and Local Events) [Archive]

DarkTemplarZero

13th November 2006, 04:28 PM

First of all, about the whole England thing, England is even worse than the United States when it comes to people voting for the party rather than the candidate, like they did over in Rhode Island.

And speaking of the US, the US's concerns are laughable. It's just more hypocrisy; we supported the foreign trial of Pinochet and the creation of special international tribunals to try Milosevic and the lead perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide, but the instant that an American is in danger of being tried outside of the United States it's a disaster. Besides, nobody really cares about their relation with the United States at the moment, as a matter of fact it'll make Germany look a lot better in the eyes of the rest of the world if they distance themselves from the United States, especially for trying that sick son of a bitch Rumsfeld. Now if only they could try Hayden, Cheney, Bush, Putin, and Pinochet too the world would be a much better place. Besides, although al-Qahtani will be a plaintiff, don't think that everybody held at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is a terrorist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipton_Three, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar. As a matter of fact out of the 775 people held at Guantanamo Bay since the start of the "War on Terror", 340 have been released, another 110 are currently labeled as "ready to be released", and only 10 have ever been charged with a crime. Ditto for Abu Ghraib, people such as Ahmad Aziz Rafiq have been thrown in there randomly and held without any charge or any reason. As a matter of fact, 7000 people were held in Abu Ghraib in 2004, they've been trying to get that down to 2000 and they're pretty close, but there's a constant influx of randomly captured people. So as for the 11 Iraqis who were prisoners, the odds that they were guilty of any crime is insignificant.

Roy Karrde

13th November 2006, 05:02 PM

You know it's funny you mention the Tipton Three, and all that they have is claims. No proof, nothing but claims, at the same time they also use their claims to get interviewed by Michael Moore and are making a Documentary. Not to mention there is questions being brought up by their parents connection to terrorists. And why they were in Afghanistan just a few months after 9/11. They we're either too stupid, or too arrogant to travel into a war zone. Especially one that is fought by Muslim Extremists.

As for Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, you neglect to mention how many we keep there, and where those came from. Should those that work with Al Qaeda be released? What about other terrorist organizations? Should they be released too becuase of numbers? Or should we hold them till we get all the information sorted out?

As for the above, are you really equating Milosevic, some one that helped the Rwandan Genocide with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush? And I ask you this, is it a possibility that one of the reasons the US does not want it's citizens and military to be put on international tribunals is becuase they will be used as a Political Circus such as what is happening in Germany right now? Not only that but classified information would have to be released, and if you don't think these international tribunals are full of leaks, then your crazy. And for your world would be a much safer place, I think that 'sick son of a bitch' Clinton as well as Michael Moore should be brought up on charges of treason, but then again neither is going to happen. That is the life of being on opposite sides of politics.

DarkTemplarZero

13th November 2006, 08:50 PM

Uhhh they already made a documentary, I saw it just last week. The Road to Guantanamo, very moving. And the reason they were in Afghanistan was because Asif Iqbal was getting married in Pakistan and they traveled to Afghanistan with a large group of young Pakistanis to give humanitarian aid. They were nothing resembling terrorists, they weren't even religious. Ruhal Ahmed was described as "cared more about fashion than religion". And how are they supposed to prove that they were tortured? Guantanamo Bay doesn't give you official documents that say "you were tortured" when you're released. However, the Abu Ghraib pictures don't lie, that's torture, so it's not too far out to believe the Tipton Three. Funny how you mentioned evidence, there was never any evidence against them, no charges, other than that they were rounded up by the Northern Alliance and they somehow managed to survive detainment and the whole container truck incident. And where did you get that their parents were connected to terrorism? I have never heard of that. Please, source?

I'm not saying those who work with al Qaeda should be released, I'm saying they should at LEAST be given the right to a trial by jury and be treated humanely. Besides, you think that torturing people will help the war on terror? Al Jazeera shows pictures from Abu Ghraib about as often as CNN shows Bush getting out of a helicopter, you're giving Muslims reason to hate Americans, the average Muslim doesn't give a crap about the United States until they see what the United States does to people just like them.

You can't sort what isn't THERE. For most of these people there has never been ANY evidence connecting them to al Qaeda. If you have no concrete evidence of somebody being linked to al Qaeda, then why torture them?

Next, political circus? If we're afraid of that, then why'd we support Pinochet's trial in Spain? Why'd we support the international tribunal for Milosevic and the perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide? And ditto for classified information, what classified information? I doubt that the tribunal will ask for the location of the government's beloved secret detention centers or any more photos of torture in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, only certain documents signed by Rumsfeld that authorize them. It's not like people don't know about the secret detention centers, Bush announced their existence on national TV recently. With that evidence, even a chimpanzee could prosecute Rumsfeld to a conviction on a charge of crimes against humanity.

Roy Karrde

13th November 2006, 09:08 PM

I have been looking for the sourse on the parents since I spotted it a few months ago. Second the sturring story about the Documentary gives even more credince the story could be false. They go into a war zone, just after 9/11 on a humanitarian mission? Again were they suicidal? And the proof of torture, we have had the Red Cross, Democrat Senators, and others going to Guitmo, all have said there is no Physical Torture taking place. And as with Abu Ghraib there would be pictures, there would be soldiers coming out to testify, there would be some document leak that the Democrats would pounce on. There has been nothing, except for claims of these men, who traveled into a war zone, on the pretense of a humanitarian aid mission. Sounds a bit screwy to me.

As for Abu Ghraib, it was the work of a few soldiers in a low security prison, who should not have been there in the first place. Guitmo on the other hand is a high security prison, with countless officials and double checks.

And for the trial, why do they deserve the right of a trial? They are not American Citizens, they are afforded no rights in the Geneva Convention which states that Military Officers captured with out Military Uniform are not protected under it. And even so a trial means pulling people off the front lines to testify, some of which are dead. It means releasing classified intelligence to their lawyers, and over all is a very bad idea. For the Middle East, average Muslims already have a reason to hate us, do you think the beheading and killings started before Abu Ghraib? We're talking about thousands if not millions of people that are taunt since birth to hate the west and to hate everything America stands for. Not to say that CNN and Al Jazeera constantly feed Anti American Propaganda. Most Middle East Muslims are poor and desperate, and are willing to believe any propaganda becuase they don't have the resources to find anything different.

And again I take it your talking about the Three when you say there is no evidence connecting them to Al Qaeda? I might remind you there is no information saying they were tortured either.

As for political circus, the reason I said it, is that unlike Pinochet, or Milosevic, those that hate America, like say many Germans, like many French, like many Russians, like many Iranians. Could call Americans up there on false or very little evidence, just to get back at America's policies. For the Classified Evidence, do you not think that they will ask for files, for briefs, for anything they can get their hands on when a High Ranking American Official is up there? Or do you think they will just pass the chance to put a stick in America's eye?

As for the Detention Centers, again you are not placing them in the proper context, which neither I nor you know. And we will never be able to place it in the proper context becuase we don't have the full story. That is the main difference between Bush and Clinton, if you look back Clinton's policies were all judged by American opinion, he would never do something even if it helped America, becuase the American people would judge him with out the full story. Bush on the other hand does what he believes is right, becuase we elected him to office becuase we believed that him, not us would make those decisions when he is presented with the information.

DarkTemplarZero

13th November 2006, 09:55 PM

The Red Cross statement is completely false. The United States agreed to give the Red Cross access to Guantanamo Bay only under the condition that their reports and recommendations not be made public, so the Red Cross has it's hands tied. Second of all, I don't take democratic senators seriously, many of them voted for the Military Commissions Act, they don't mind it. And as for Abu Ghraib, just SEARCH for Abu Ghraib on Google images. Or just read this little Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse. Pictures much?

And as for Al Jazeera, that's the point. They have quite a lot of Anti American junk to spread because they have quite a bit to spread. And dude, people in the middle east are not born being taught that the United States is evil. There are extremists, yes, just like here in the States, but you're giving the moderate majority of the Muslim population an excuse to hate America. CNN feeds Anti American Propaganda? But it's The Most Trusted Name In News! Oh no, we're all doomed! The media is evil! AHHHH!!!!!!! Roflcopter. That's your response to everything, anti american propaganda. If CNN is spreading Anti American Propoganda, then there's no such thing as reliable media anymore.

"And again I take it your talking about the Three when you say there is no evidence connecting them to Al Qaeda? I might remind you there is no information saying they were tortured either."
I admit there was no information that they were tortured other than their claims, but you must admit, why would the United States deny access to the Red Cross for so long and finally relent to allowing them access but not allowing them to make the conditions public, why are there no images of prisoners other than them being put in those orange jumpsuits with goggles and being made to sit in the sun for hours for no apparent reason? It's suspect.

"As for political circus, the reason I said it, is that unlike Pinochet, or Milosevic, those that hate America, like say many Germans, like many French, like many Russians, like many Iranians. Could call Americans up there on false or very little evidence, just to get back at America's policies. For the Classified Evidence, do you not think that they will ask for files, for briefs, for anything they can get their hands on when a High Ranking American Official is up there? Or do you think they will just pass the chance to put a stick in America's eye?"
Oh man, how hypocritical is that? America detains people without trial, and you're worried about Americans put on trial with little evidence? Are you serious? Is it possible to be THAT hypocritical? DAMN. I really have nothing to say to that, I think the self-defeating argument speaks for itself.

"As for the Detention Centers, again you are not placing them in the proper context, which neither I nor you know. And we will never be able to place it in the proper context becuase we don't have the full story. That is the main difference between Bush and Clinton, if you look back Clinton's policies were all judged by American opinion, he would never do something even if it helped America, becuase the American people would judge him with out the full story. Bush on the other hand does what he believes is right, becuase we elected him to office becuase we believed that him, not us would make those decisions when he is presented with the information."
Oh so it is bad for Americans to judge their president? It's bad that a president did what he believed the majority of his people would approve of? Isn't that kinda the whole basis of representative democracy? That a "representative" of the people does what the majority of the people would do in his stead? I would say that you hate America on that basis, but unfortunately that would make me sound too much like you and I won't degrade myself that much. But still, now you're attacking the very principles of the American government, the core values that make us who we are.

Roy Karrde

13th November 2006, 10:08 PM

You don't trust Democrat Senators much? Yet you know full well that they would use any opertunity to attack the Bush Administration. Also where is your proof that the Red Cross statement is false? If so why has anything bad from their experiences not been leaked to the public? Or has there been none? And you use a Wiki article to back up your statement when we have already concluded that Wiki is not trustworthy.

As for CNN, go watch it sometimes, it is incredibly slanted and biased, just like yourself. The most trusted name in news? Funny I wonder where that trust was when it took them only half a hour to say George Bush was responcable for North Korea having Nukes. Where was that trust when one of their own anchors said that they hope the John Kerry statement goes away quickly. Where is the non biasedness?

I admit there was no information that they were tortured other than their claims

Then that should shut you up right there, end of story, end of debate. As for why deny the Red Cross access? I dunno maybe becuase there was a WAR going on at the time that we were in the first stages in? Maybe becuase we were trying to set up the facilities to house the detainies and we couldn't allow everyone to halt work for a day or two?

As for detaining people with out trial, I have already told you the reasons why, I have already pointed out the Geneva Convetion gives them no rights, and why it is so hard to get the evidence. Yet you seemed to pass that up.

Is it bad for people to judge their President? No, but it is bad to make snap judgements with out knowing the full story as you seem to do alot. And the whole point of a Representetive Democracy is that we choose the people that we believe can make those decisions, that is why we all do not get those National Security updates each day.

And finally, you are acting inflamitory, something I specifically said cannot be allowed in this topic. So with that in mind lets change subjects.

A local county near me is planning to be the first county that makes English the Official Language, And to pass laws to make it so that Illigals cannot be hired, nor can buy houses or apartments or do anything in their county. Mexican Rights protestors have vandalized the Mayor's house and protested endlessly. Do you guys think these kind of laws should be passed across America?

DarkTemplarZero

13th November 2006, 11:03 PM

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/13/news/CB_GEN_Guantanamo_Red_Cross.php
^ Not only was the Red Cross denied access to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for the 3 and a half years since his capture in direct violation of common article 3, but their recommendations are "confidential" in contrast to the Red Cross's policy, which states that all recommendations are public knowledge. And besides, was there a war in Guantanamo Bay in recent years? I don't seem to remember it. And as for ahlting work, nobody asked for them to halt work, only to allow a few people from the Red Cross in. And still, why refuse to make the Red Cross' recommendations public?

And to me, CNN is ridiculously funny in it's blatant fear-mongering, not unlike yourself. Daily Show had a field day when CNN did it's "analysis" of where the United States was vulnerable to terrorist attacks. According to them, the threat is isolated to "geographic locations". Or in other words, everywhere.

The Geneva Convention gives them no rights? Common Article 3:
"Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not a Protected person/Prisoner of War"

Third Convention, Article 4:
"* Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
o 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
...
* Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt as to whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Fourth Convention, Article 4:
"Article 4 defines who is a Protected person Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals"

Geneva Conventions apply. So it is hard to get evidence, it is hard to get evidence to connect you to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. How about we put you in prison until we gather it? Doesn't that sound just a bit absurd to you? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Is it bad for people to judge their President? No, but it is bad to make snap judgements with out knowing the full story as you seem to do alot. And the whole point of a Representetive Democracy is that we choose the people that we believe can make those decisions, that is why we all do not get those National Security updates each day"
And what is the full story? Are Rummy's secret detention centers vacation spots in the carribean where the prisoners are served vodka martinis by scantly clad women? Is this picture: http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/ghraib-pile2-larger.jpg of Abu Ghraib Cheerleader's practice? Does the man in the lower center http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/16/wtort16.jpg just have an incredibly nasty case of hemorrhoids? Are the Tipton Three working for the terrorist organizations known as Gap and Urban Outfitters? Is there stuff like this in the President's Daily Brief? What more could there possibly be? Lack of information to the contrary does not mean that something is false.

Here's a picture for ya;
http://believe.amnestyusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7B7C46E5-9835-46E3-9557-BBD225E306DB%7D/AI_AIBI_4IMAGES.GIF
Amnesty International <3

=====================

And as for the county, what the hell? Whatever happened to this America:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Whatever happened to the America that has a statue in New York harbor welcoming people in, not border patrol to keep people out? Besides, if you're really worried about losing your job to a dirt poor and uneducated person who fled to the United States to make a better life for themselves and their children by cleaning bathrooms for minimum wage in a fast food resturaunt, you are pretty damn pitiful, unbelievable that in America we have so much money and yet our education system sucks so bad that we have people fighting to clean toilets and hand out ketchup for a living.

Roy Karrde

13th November 2006, 11:06 PM

DTZ I'm not going to respond to that and I urge others not to also. We ended the debate, you got inflamitory, and I already know from the past that, when that happens, it is bad road to go down. With that in mind I'm cutting it off there.

Asilynne

13th November 2006, 11:35 PM

Yeah because theyre ILLEGALS. I dont mind people coming into this country from foreign lands, after all we were built on the backs of immigrants and my family came over here as immigrants back in the 1800s from Ireland. But I cant stand it when people come in here work and get the "good money" and not have to pay taxes or learn the language. Sure Id love to not pay taxes but I dont have that luxery, and Im an american citizen for goodness sake. I dont like the idea of people milking the country.

DarkTemplarZero

13th November 2006, 11:43 PM

Ah, giving up I see. You think the term "fear-mongering" is inflamatory?

And as for Wiki not being credible, I laugh at that. First of all, I defy you to find anything on Wikipedia that you is unsupported by a credible source (well, related to current events. The article on longest increasing subsequence is weak and I'm fighting the idiot UC-Irvine comp sci professor who wrote it). Next, you don't think CNN is credible, you don't think Amnesty International is credible, you don't think Wikipedia is credible. I ask you, what IS credible? Your memory? "I have been looking for the sourse on the parents since I spotted it a few months ago". What you remember off the top of your head is more credible than Wikipedia?

Game, set, match. I win.

Roy Karrde

13th November 2006, 11:46 PM

DTZ I believe saying "but unfortunately that would make me sound too much like you and I won't degrade myself that much" is inflamatory, and I already said to get off the subject. We're trying to get away from it so that we don't have another flaming event. And trying to tempt me into another debate with "Game, Set, Match. I win" and any other antics will not work.

Stay on topic, keep it civilized, or get out.

Weasel Overlord

14th November 2006, 04:41 AM

[color=silver]Hey, DTZ? What exactly is wrong with voting for the party instead of the candidate? That's pretty much the basis of my vote, after all, since none of the so-called 'main' (and I use that term loosly here) parties are worth voting for. (talking British politics, if anyone was wondering, hee)

Over here there's less emphasis on party leaders or members and their own seperate policies in comparison to the party policies. And hey! It makes me even more happy to not be living in America! Your voting system is bloody shite, I've gotta say. After having it all explained to me (booooring!) I now agree even more that it's shite.

(Green Party all the way! *waves flag*)

And Roy, to be honest, I don't think that what DTZ said was very inflammatory. (which has two 'm's, by the way) Don't take things too personally. And to be honest, starting another thread about politics is bound to bring up more political debates, remember? And what DTZ was talking about is political, which does tend to mean that he was, in fact, on-topic.

But hey! I probably don't have a clue, eh?

The Blue Avenger

14th November 2006, 08:31 AM

Also, Roy, I would be interested in hearing you answer this question:

Next, you don't think CNN is credible, you don't think Amnesty International is credible, you don't think Wikipedia is credible. I ask you, what IS credible?

Nothing against you, but after reading through this and the other recent political topics, I think this would be an interesting question to hear answered.

RedStarWarrior

14th November 2006, 09:16 AM

I am the only one who is credible. Now, please avoid the flame-baiting.

Roy Karrde

14th November 2006, 11:09 AM

Nothing against you, but after reading through this and the other recent political topics, I think this would be an interesting question to hear answered.

Alright let me put it this way, Wikipedia is easily edited correct? From Political topics to Console Wars, anyone with a Wikipedia account can go in and edit the page. Hell I can go in and change the pages he posted myself. With that in mind, does that make Wikipedia a credible source? Amnesty International, a organization that has displayed that they do have a political agenda in these past few years. Now if I were to put in say the Drudge Report, which is also a place that started out with out a political agenda and soon started to lean to either side. Would that be a credible source? CNN, as I mentioned above, has shown political bigotry in these last few weeks. Would it be alright if I started posting Fox News links? Would those be any less credible?

When you're trying to make a point you also have to start thinking about the sources and where they come from now days.

DarkTemplarZero

14th November 2006, 06:42 PM

To Weasel Overlord: I can't say that I know anything about British politics, but here in the states the majority of candidates don't completely agree with their party on issues, for example Lincoln Chafee was a Republican and yet more socially liberal than the majority of Democrats. One might think that the Democrats are united on the War in Iraq, but Max Baucus, a Senator from Montana, is pretty much for the war. And true, I definitely agree with you, our voting system does suck. Here's a little video you might enjoy about a Chimpanzee hacking audit logs : http://www.bbvdocs.org/videos/baxterVPR.mov

As for Wikipedia, true you could go and try to vandalize it, but for a topic as commonly checked as current events the article would probably be reverted within 15 seconds and you would have your editting priviledges restricted. I think Wikipedia is far more reliable a source for basic facts than any news. Why? Because with Wikipedia you have hundreds of people constantly editting the article, whereas in a news article you have one person taking the facts and putting their own spin on things.

Second of all, Amnesty International, a political agenda? I hope Encarta is a reliable source if I, as a member of Amnesty International for the last three years, am not; http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553034/Amnesty_International.html . We pride ourselves on being nonpartisan. While I won't argue that there aren't any feminists, tree-huggers (the new Executive Director of AIUSA used to work with saving the rain forest), or bleeding heart liberals, but Amnesty International was founded in a Church, the founder a devout Roman Catholic, and the Catholic Church remains a supporter of Amnesty International despite the rumors that Amnesty has a stance on abortion (Which is completely false by the way). We have no political agenda whatsoever, why would we? What do we care about partisan bickering when we have the rest of the world to worry about? You don't mind when Amnesty International attacks the Human Rights situation in Sudan, Iran, China, or Russia, but when they dare say that the situation in the United States is not what it should be suddenly we're public enemy number one? Just because we don't create a double standard for the United States means we're a "terror ally" as Bill O'Reilly puts it?

And while I'm not a big fan of Fox News, sure, feel free. I have no doubt that they can get the facts right, just as long as there's no more footage of Bush getting out of a helicopter. As for the Drudge Report, anything that Bill O'Reilly denounces I like, and so I'm a fan of it. Go ahead. And besides, credibility has nothing to do with political leaning. Notice that I don't cite opinions, only facts? Bigotry shmigotry, I don't care if you get your facts from Sean Hannity (although I doubt you'll find any in his horrific mess of insults and bickering), so long as you have something better to say then "Oh I saw it somewhere a couple months ago".

Asilynne

14th November 2006, 07:05 PM

How many topics about politics do we need? This is like the 3rd and now there are 4 if you count the president one. Why dont you guys make a topic called "The Roy and Zero happy fun spam hour"?
No offense but damn its like its just you two mostly going at each other. Find a chat room and bitch at each other if you want but lets keep these topics from being mostly just 2 people going at each other o.O

Roy Karrde

29th November 2006, 11:59 AM

Well I figured I would bring about a new talking point since we lost alot of our posts. Today the Iranian leader presented a letter to the American People. Exerpts of the letter have now been released and here they are.

"Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the U.S. administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people,"

"It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice,"

and on the mention of Iraq

"would it not be more beneficial to bring the U.S. officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical U.S. military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people?"

"As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness,"

As for my reaction, first off this guy has no right to talk about trampling on rights or using coercion, fear, and injustice. Especially the way how they trample on the rights of women, and their use of retoric to put fear in the hearts of those in Isreal as well as their persuit for nukes.

Second I find it absolutely disgusting that this guy is talking about Katrina and the aftermath of it. I doubt that those have lost love ones in that event would want some one as sickening insane as the Iranian leader to use their deaths to push a anti american agenda. Finally I will say something that I bet will be on people's minds when they read this. Doesn't this sound like Democrat talking points?

DarkTemplarZero

29th November 2006, 10:18 PM

Wow, the Iranian president actually said something I agree with. I agree that "It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice," is incredibly hypocritical coming from a president who's nation has 11 people currently sentenced to death by stoning, but the rest sounds good to me. While he wants us out of Iraq so he can just topple the pitiful Iraqi government and take over in revenge for Saddam's mustard gas attacks in the late 80's and early 90's, *shrug*, so he's a douchebag.

Personally, what I find more disgusting is that our own president uses the name of those who died on 9/11 to justify the destruction of the America they believed in, but that's just me. After all, he's our own president. The Iranian president doesn't have control over our policies, thank god.

Ahh I remember a friend of mine wrote a story for the HSPA (stupid standardized test thing in Jersey that you have to pass in order to graduate high school. Nobody in the history of my school has ever failed other than somebody who got every single question wrong on purpose, so we make fun of it) for one of the picture prompts which had a black grandfather and his grandson sitting on a porch, he wrote "It's only been three days, FEMA will be here eventually".

Roy Karrde

7th December 2006, 04:55 PM

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or "vanish from the face of the earth".
"These oppressive countries are angry with us ... a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.

"They are angry with our nation. But we tell them 'so be it and die from this anger'. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth," he said.

The outspoken president also maintained Iran's defiance over its controversial nuclear programme, saying it was on course to fully master nuclear technology.

"Thank to God's help, we have gone all the way and are only one step away from the zenith.

"We hope to have the big nuclear celebration by the end of the year (March 2007)," Ahmadinejad said, echoing comments he has made on numerous occasions in recent months.

A defiant Iran has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment work, a process that the West fears could be extended to make nuclear weapons.

Iran however insists its nuclear programme is solely aimed at generating energy.

France's Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Wednesday after a Paris meeting on Tehran's nuclear programme that the UN Security Council is agreed "there will be sanctions" on Iran, though their extent is yet to be decided.

Okay anyone else think it's time to start bombing this country and turning it into a flaming hole of steel and metal?

RedStarWarrior

11th December 2006, 03:09 PM

To be honest, nearly all media is biased in one way or another. Wikipedia's community actually develops information pages that are often more accurate and free from bias than any other source out there. It does this in spite of the fact that it is easily editable, taking full advantage of that fact, instead, because you have a melting pot of contributors that tend to balance each other out.

DarkTemplarZero

11th December 2006, 05:49 PM

Thank you, finally, somebody on this forum respects Wikipedia other than myself.

TKnHappyNess

16th December 2006, 06:46 PM

I'm not sure if this is politics, but here goes. This is an article based on some moron female judge who for some reason decided to have a Christmas tree removed from a Toronto court because she claimed it was a "Christian symbol". Residents aren't too thrilled about her decision.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_6137.aspx

Jeff

16th December 2006, 08:00 PM

I wonder if that woman herself celebrates Christmas. I had a teacher back in community college who said that most Native Americans actually don't mind being called "Indians" as long as there is no ambiguity with the folks from India. The term "Native American" is actually mostly pushed by non-Native Americans/Indians that think the term "Indian" would be offensive. My point is, if non-Christians aren't actually being offended by Christmas symbols then there is no point in taking them down.

DarkTemplarZero

17th December 2006, 12:33 AM

Ridiculous, Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday, it's a capitalist holiday. Hell, Jesus wasn't even born on December 25. The holiday's all about being happy and with people that are close to you and buying gifts. How can that be offensive?

Roy Karrde

24th December 2006, 10:07 PM

Looks like NYTimes has a Christmas Gift for Supporters of the War in Iraq. Drudge Report is reporting that tomorrow the New York Times is going to release information that US Troops captured several Iranians in Iraq. Including what some call a Top Military Official.

DarkTemplarZero

24th December 2006, 10:39 PM

Oh goody, way to spread Christmas cheer. We captured Iranians! Yay! Lets eat, drink, and be merry, emphasis on the drink! That reminds me of the ad for tourism in Iraqi Kurdistan: "fewer than 200 coalition troops are stationed here". Just makes you want to saddle up your SUV and guzzle gas all the way across the Atlantic to Kurdistan, doesn't it?

But I guess that does show what we all know, Iran wants a theocratic Iraq, no surprises there.

Razola

3rd January 2007, 02:33 AM

I love fear-mongering because both sides use it and one side actually accuses the other side of doing it. Yeah, the side that tells us Bush will rob us of all our rights and turn America in Jesus White Land actually poo-poo people for fear-mongering. Hypocrisy is delicious.

In other news, I'm getting tired of Christian radicals.

Green_Pikachu

31st January 2007, 08:57 PM

Who do people think will get the Democratic presidential nomination? The big names are Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama right now. Kerry came out recently and said he won't be running for the party's nomination.

Also, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, does it really matter who runs for the democrats? Giuliani is one of the few Republicans I like, and I think he would do a fine job. I just don't know if our country is ready for a female or african american president yet. I wish I could say we are, but that's a different story.

Roy Karrde

31st January 2007, 09:10 PM

Obama will probably get the nomination. Clinton is just too unelectable, she has too many skeletons in her closet from her past and her husband's past that could kill her in a race. Meanwhile Obama doesn't have anything in his past, but he doesn't have the experience really either. So it is a tough call, but I just believe Clinton is too unelectable.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd February 2007, 09:51 PM

I'd like to see John Edwards win, he's a cool dude, he's young, been on The Daily Show, a unifying rather than dividing figure, and I like his stance on domestic issues. Plus he's certainly more experienced than Obama with the whole running for president thing.

Ultimate Charizard

8th February 2007, 02:38 PM

Well not that im wanting to drag this thread back to the War its the only current topic that the British and US can both have opinions on, and on a note of UK/US relations we have the story currently in the UK of the Friendly Fire incident (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384783-details/Named,+pilot+'who+killed+Briton+in+friendly+fire'/article.do) that took place towards the beginning of the war.
Now i know there have been many of these situations and both sides have suffered as is shown here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAHmqNoLTf8) however this particular case stands out due to the fact that it not only shows a 1st hand account of what happened with the cockpit video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4) but also the political interest as to why this tape was hidden for so long. At one point it was denied it even existed and the only reason it came to light was an unnofficial leak.
The tape to me shows the lack of responsibilty taken by the American military, further displaying the trigger happy video game attitude many seem to take. The pilots were unsure of their target. They recognised friendly markings but then tried to reason they 'look like' rockets. They even question whether they were friend or foe even between rounds of shooting yet because they wanted to get back to base they decided to go for it.
Im in no doubt they are sorry for this act. I understand they are human and capable of making mistakes however the fact that the US military will try and cover over anything they can get away with as long as they stay quiet is shamefull. The Pilot/Gunner in that video has since been promoted and now teaches Trainees 'strafing and ground attack tactics'.
Also since the Pentagon has 'dismissed' equests for these men to testify to a UK inquiry it shows once again that America will do anything it can to defend its own and screw the rest of the world. Allied or not.

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 05:13 PM

What a very hard nose angle to take and alot of blanket statements in there Ultimate Charizard. There are 130,000 or so American Soldiers during that invasion and the aftermath and you claim the American Army is trigger happy. The man made a mistake, and unlike today where there is no opposing army, in the weeks afterwards where this took place, there was alot of confusion and a accident was made.

Also is it not possible that

A: The Army did not want to release the video to give both families some privacy. I mean I would not want the death of my son to be posted on You Tube and be all over the news, nor would I would a accident my son made to be posted everywhere so that he could be villanized as he has been.

B: There were two investigations going on, one from the Americans and the other as noted from the British, The Americans who have much of a war to conduct concluded it was a accident. The British who have less of a war to conduct as well as it being their own soldier took more time into it, picking it down piece by piece. Anyway as I was saying there were investigations going on and they may not have wanted to put the video out till after everything was settled.

Either way Friendly Fire Accidents happen, I can pull up Friendly Fire videos of British doing it to Americans or Civilians or what ever. Does that make them trigger happy too?

Heald

8th February 2007, 05:36 PM

B: There were two investigations going on, one from the Americans and the other as noted from the British, The Americans who have much of a war to conduct concluded it was a accident. The British who have less of a war to conduct as well as it being their own soldier took more time into it, picking it down piece by piece.If it was the other way around and a British soldier killed an American by accident, there'd be no doubt the Pentagon and the US Government would demand that we publically name, shame, and extradite said British soldier. Considering the only person in the UK who wants the UK to be in Iraq is that spineless toad Tony Blair, it is no surprise that the British become so incensed whenever a soldier is killed in a war none of us wants to be in, especially when he was killed in an act of idiocy by our allies, who are more or less the only reason why we are in this failure of a military exercise to begin with.

Either way Friendly Fire Accidents happen, I can pull up Friendly Fire videos of British doing it to Americans or Civilians or what ever. Does that make them trigger happy too?Please provide these videos, as I am unable to locate any such videos whatsoever.

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 05:42 PM

If it was the other way around and a British soldier killed an American by accident, there'd be no doubt the Pentagon and the US Government would demand that we publically name, shame, and extradite said British soldier.

You know how retarded that sounds? I would suspect both Governments would be more mature than that.

Please provide these videos, as I am unable to locate any such videos whatsoever.

While not American Soldiers...
2003 British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke

Now does this mean the British are Trigger Happy? Or was it a Accident just like this one.

mr_pikachu

8th February 2007, 05:58 PM

Obvious subject change!

Here are the list of presidential candidates who have officially filed with the FEC. This list was gathered from the internet's most obvious source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2008#Candidates_and_po tential_candidates). Shaddup.

Democratic Candidates

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska
Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa

Republican Candidates

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
John H. Cox of Illinois
Representative Duncan Hunter of California
Michael Charles Smith of Oregon

Libertarian Candidates

Steve Kubby of California
George Phillies of Massachusetts
Christine Smith of Colorado

So, who looks like a solid candidate to you? Who looks like they have no chance? And who do you want to keep out of office at all cost?

On my count, you may begin. 3... 2... 1...

*flees*

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 06:21 PM

That should be updated for Rudy and Hillary as well as Obama. Other than that, none of those Canidates look like they could have a chance in winning.

mr_pikachu

8th February 2007, 07:30 PM

Since you prompted me with those three, I checked out several other sites; from what I've seen, all three are still in the midst of exploratory committees and have not officially filed for candidacy with the FEC. Thanks, though.

Ultimate Charizard

8th February 2007, 08:36 PM

Shouldve known it would be TPM's resident 'USA-A'OK' Spin doctor that would reply first.
Well to counter your points. The main aguments of this whole case is the fact that despite this happening over 4 years ago now this video has only just come to light. The family of the killed soldier have been working tirelessly to get some sort of evidence to find who killed this man for Closure but were told the video didnt even exist. And before you say 'well the UK did an investigation too' the media link i provided (did you bother to read that? If so then look at a few of the related topics too) does state that the UK were unable to confirm its existence because the tape was deemed Classified by the US Military and since its their property there asnt much the MoD could do.
Cant think why the US would classify a video of one of theyre world famous A-10's blowing the hell out of a friendly target without properly I.D'ing it.

I also noticed the incident you picked out (From Wikipedia, since its a word for word quote by the way DTZ, i thought u said Wiki wasnt Credible Roy?) while looking for a few references of my own and 2 tanks firing at night is a totally different scenario to 2 advanced warplanes with visual confirmation on a target during the day not getting proper confirmation before attacking.
And conveniently you skip back enough to find a UK caused incident. Yes ok, mistakes are made i can understand that. But by my count, according to Wiki that leaves the UK record in Iraq at 2 friendly killed and 0 wounded. The US are currently at 34 killed, 22 Wounded. And who knows how many more 'classified' incidents there may still be.
Not to mention if you go a little further back to the last time we had troops in Iraq with Daddy Bush in charge you come across this statement:-

1991 - American A-10 in the Gulf War attacks British armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers (the same number as were killed by enemy fire in the whole war).

Oh and by the way, to say the UK had 'less of a war' is complete and utter patronising B.S

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 08:58 PM

Shouldve known it would be TPM's resident 'USA-A'OK' Spin doctor that would reply first.

Nice to have a nickname but lets keep the name calling away.

Well to counter your points. The main aguments of this whole case is the fact that despite this happening over 4 years ago now this video has only just come to light. The family of the killed soldier have been working tirelessly to get some sort of evidence to find who killed this man for Closure but were told the video didnt even exist. And before you say 'well the UK did an investigation too' the media link i provided (did you bother to read that? If so then look at a few of the related topics too) does state that the UK were unable to confirm its existence because the tape was deemed Classified by the US Military and since its their property there asnt much the MoD could do.

Here is my counter question, when ever has the US released video of a Soldier being killed? If they did it would be played over and over on the news. From what I remember they have never released a video that contained the death of a US or British Serviceman.

I also noticed the incident you picked out (From Wikipedia, since its a word for word quote by the way DTZ, i thought u said Wiki wasnt Credible Roy?) while looking for a few references of my own

If you wish I could give you other links that protray the exact same incident.

and 2 tanks firing at night is a totally different scenario to 2 advanced warplanes with visual confirmation on a target during the day not getting proper confirmation before attacking.

So lets see a Stationary Tank firing at night with some of the most advanced Night Vision Technology, is more acurate than flying 500 Miles Per Hour? Lets just both agree Accidents do happen on both sides.

And conveniently you skip back enough to find a UK caused incident.

I was asked to provide a UK incident, so I did, didnt take more than a minute or two.

Yes ok, mistakes are made i can understand that.

Glad we both agree on that. This case should be closed then.

But by my count, according to Wiki that leaves the UK record in Iraq at 2 friendly killed and 0 wounded. The US are currently at 34 killed, 22 Wounded. And who knows how many more 'classified' incidents there may still be.

UK Troops patrol and control most of Southern Iraq where there is less of a danger than say in Baghdad?

Not to mention if you go a little further back to the last time we had troops in Iraq with Daddy Bush in charge you come across this statement:

Holy Shit man! We went into Iraq back in 1991? I thought it was a Multi National Force that ended at Iraq's borders.

Oh and by the way, to say the UK had 'less of a war' is complete and utter patronising B.S

The UK has less troops in there, and less to deal with as they patrol Southern Iraq. Now if the Brits were say in Baghdad with the constant suicide bombers then they would have a bit more to deal with? By the way there are 8,500 British Troops in Iraq right now compared to 130,000 American Troops.

Now since you seem to be obsessed with numbers here is one for you.

130,000 / 8,500 = Rounded to 15

Now there have been 34 American Friendly Fire Deaths by Friendly Fire Accidents and 2 British Deaths by British Friendly Fire Accidents.

2 * 15 = 30 That number is very close to the American Number.

Place more troops in there and there are bound to be more mistakes, place less troops in there and there are bound to be less mistakes.

Ultimate Charizard

8th February 2007, 09:18 PM

Again in your blind defence of the US you completely miss the point. This isnt a 'boo hoo the British are being killed'. In certain situations, yes (such as the Gulf war quote) but in the vast majority the victims of these incidents have been other US/Canadian troops though Bulgarians and Italians are also on the list.
My problem is that it keeps happening over and over. I count about 10 incidents committed by US forces and 1 by UK.

2006 - Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts strafed their own NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham, and seriously wounding five others when soldiers were trying to seize a Taliban stronghold along the Arghandab River.

This is the last incident on Wiki. Once again those A-10's and nowhere near Baghdad. By your reasoning they should be much safer.

Now as for this tape. First you say its for Privacy, then you say its because they didnt want the media to get hold of it. If your going to use a story then stick to it. Of course they didnt want bad media attention but this tape was being requested as part of an investigation which the US witheld. The soldiers have been requested to give evidence in this investigation but the Pentagon have said they wont be giving evidence. Infact, the men involved have been promoted. Nothing like taking responsibility for your actions.

And this time when you reply, (and i noticed you did this with DTZ) dont jump on one small quote, such as my admittance that obviously mistakes happen' and pull a "Thats it end of debate" thing and then continue to say 'We ended the discussion'.
Thats like saying 'Im right and you agreed' without giving chance for reply.

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 09:32 PM

My problem is that it keeps happening over and over. I count about 10 incidents committed by US forces and 1 by UK.

It doesnt help that the US has what fifteen times the amounts in there?

This is the last incident on Wiki. Once again those A-10's and nowhere near Baghdad. By your reasoning they should be much safer.

That event also took place in Afghanistan It also took place in the middle of a battle it looks as if the pilot misfired.

Now as for this tape. First you say its for Privacy, then you say its because they didnt want the media to get hold of it. If your going to use a story then stick to it.

Media gets a hold of the Video = Video being released = Privacy has been compromised = More idiots screaming that all of the US Military is bad and making blanket statements.

Of course they didnt want bad media attention but this tape was being requested as part of an investigation which the US witheld.

Which was stupid of them to do. I will agree with you on that part. But the tape should have never been shown to the Media.

The soldiers have been requested to give evidence in this investigation but the Pentagon have said they wont be giving evidence. Infact, the men involved have been promoted. Nothing like taking responsibility for your actions.

Again it was a stupid thing of them to do. But we also do not know what steps the Army took to either displine them.

And this time when you reply, (and i noticed you did this with DTZ) dont jump on one small quote, such as my admittance that obviously mistakes happen' and pull a "Thats it end of debate" thing and then continue to say 'We ended the discussion'.
Thats like saying 'Im right and you agreed' without giving chance for reply.

I am saying that we both agreed Accidents do happen. It was a accident just like the above one you posted was a accident, just like the British tank one was a accident. It is human error and unless you want war to look like a scene out of Terminator then Friendly Fire will happen when you have a large mass of troops. Infact I am surprised more Friendly Fire hasnt happened.

Ultimate Charizard

8th February 2007, 09:34 PM

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 09:44 PM

Oh and also, as for your numbers...
The current UK troop count stands at 7200. only 1300 less than you quoted. However, since the majority of these incidents took place in 2003, during the initial invasion and not right now, where they happen to be patrolling now is irrelevant.
...and since you like to use numbers...
Initial US force 250.000 troops
Initial UK force 45.000 troops
250.000 / 45.000 = 6 (if you want to round things up)
6 x 2 = 12. Half the number killed by US troops. Its easy to make the figures work for you when you pick which numbers you use. Indeed if you use todays current numbers as i quoted them you manage to get the UK kills equating to 36 US kills.

You said the magic word above, care to guess what it was? The majority of the incidents took place in 2003. In 2003 you had the Invasion in full force, you had Republican Guard attacking us and alot of confusion.

At the end of the day though numbers dont matter. When all is said and done thats 34 people not going home thanka to the US, from many different countries. At the very least the ones killed by UK fire were British. God knows what would have happened if it had been an US tank.

There would have been a investigation. You continue to claim that the US would have wanted their head on a platter if the reverse had happened but do you have any proof supporting that? But yes 36 people counting the British that killed eachother died in accidents, it is sad but it happens in any war especially in the opening days of it. All you can do is move on.

Ultimate Charizard

8th February 2007, 09:45 PM

It doesnt help that the US has what fifteen times the amounts in there?
So your basically saying the US are incapable of managing a large scale military operation. This is the reason there is proper procedure to be followed.

That event also took place in Afghanistan It also took place in the middle of a battle it looks as if the pilot misfired.
How the hell do you work that one out? The quote says they Strafed theyre own Nato forces. No indication in the slightest of any sort of Misfire.

Media gets a hold of the Video = Video being released = Privacy has been compromised = More idiots screaming that all of the US Military is bad and making blanket statements.
And i thought u didnt want to resort to Name calling? No matter how hidden it is.

Which was stupid of them to do. I will agree with you on that part. But the tape should have never been shown to the Media.
It was leaked directly to the Media by someone who i can only assume has a concience to force the Pentagons hand. They couldnt deny its presence after that. The other video i linked to was a BBC report, that went straight to air but hasnt kicked up nearly half the fuss this one has.

Again it was a stupid thing of them to do. But we also do not know what steps the Army took to either displine them.
And as ive said there has been nothing done. They are being shielded by the US military and both are no longer in active service, now working in a training role for future A-10 pilots.

I am saying that we both agreed Accidents do happen. It was a accident just like the above one you posted was a accident, just like the British tank one was a accident. It is human error and unless you want war to look like a scene out of Terminator then Friendly Fire will happen when you have a large mass of troops. Infact I am surprised more Friendly Fire hasnt happened.

But it could all be avoided if procedure was followed. In this video its said multiple times they recognise friendly colours, they dont have proper confirmation but want to bag a kill before they head home. The pilots remark of 'Dude were in jail' kind of gives it away that they know they did wrong. Yet neither face punishment.

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 09:55 PM

So your basically saying the US are incapable of managing a large scale military operation. This is the reason there is proper procedure to be followed.

The US had 250,000 Troops there accidents happened, it's kind of hard to make sure 250,000 follow procedure exactly when in the fog of war.

How the hell do you work that one out? The quote says they Strafed theyre own Nato forces. No indication in the slightest of any sort of Misfire.

Here is the quote.

2006 - Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts strafed their own NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham, and seriously wounding five others when soldiers were trying to seize a Taliban stronghold along the Arghandab River.

And i thought u didnt want to resort to Name calling? No matter how hidden it is.

Sorry no I wasn't refering to you, I should have elaborated. I have already done this song and dance over at Serebii in which there is a topic labeled "American Army is Stupid!" or something of the sort. So I am getting a bit tired of it.

It was leaked directly to the Media by someone who i can only assume has a concience to force the Pentagons hand. They couldnt deny its presence after that. The other video i linked to was a BBC report, that went straight to air but hasnt kicked up nearly half the fuss this one has.

It really doesn't matter how it was leaked, it shouldn't have been. But we can debate that Ad Nausium.

And as ive said there has been nothing done. They are being shielded by the US military and both are no longer in active service, now working in a training role for future A-10 pilots.

So they have been pulled off the battlefield after making a mistake. Would you rather have them Executed? May I ask were those British troops that accidently killed two others displined harshly?

But it could all be avoided if procedure was followed.

When at Work or School have you followed everything exactly to the letter? Not to mention that they were in the middle of a battle field. Neither you nor I can put ourselves in that mind set and the split second decisions they make. Again I am surprised there hasnt been more.

In this video its said multiple times they recognise friendly colours, they dont have proper confirmation but want to bag a kill before they head home. The pilots remark of 'Dude were in jail' kind of gives it away that they know they did wrong. Yet neither face punishment.

Again may I ask if the British Troops were punished also? That way we can get some kind of mark on Friendly Fire Punishments. These guys were in a war zone and they made a mistake, should they be demoted or at the most dishonorably discharged for it? Yeah, but that really is up for the Army to decide neither you nor me.

Ultimate Charizard

8th February 2007, 10:07 PM

Ok well i wont go over it all as we will be repeating the same points all day.

However, as with the 'Misfire' incident, again i dont see mention of a Misfire. At the very best it shows that the gunner doesnt know how to aim.

When at Work or School have you followed everything exactly to the letter?
When im at work im not generally in command of half a dozen missiles and a Gatling cannon firing deplted uranium rounds. Using the photocopier for personal use isnt quite the same as Shooting up a friendly unit. Theres a reason Military protocol should be followed.

These guys were in a war zone and they made a mistake, should they be demoted or at the most dishonorably discharged for it? Yeah, but that really is up for the Army to decide neither you nor me.
Agreed, however when the Army chooses to promote these men.....i can understand your take on this however to anyone that isnt American this looks like a 'we can do what we like' gesture on America's part.

As for the Crew of the Challenger im not sure what happened. I remember the news report but not sure the outcome of the inquest.

Roy Karrde

8th February 2007, 10:26 PM

Ok well i wont go over it all as we will be repeating the same points all day.

Thank you so much becuase I am damn near exasted.

However, as with the 'Misfire' incident, again i dont see mention of a Misfire. At the very best it shows that the gunner doesnt know how to aim.

You make it sound as if the Gunner was flying around going "Hmm, I bet that Convoy is full of Brits, lets pump some holes into the red coats!"

When im at work im not generally in command of half a dozen missiles and a Gatling cannon firing deplted uranium rounds. Using the photocopier for personal use isnt quite the same as Shooting up a friendly unit. Theres a reason Military protocol should be followed.

Agreed there is, military protocol to follow. But we make mistakes at work and usually at work people are not trying to kill us. It's a different mind set and mistakes do happen. Anyway I have idiots on another forum to deal with, I hope we have both presented our views and we can both go away understanding each side.

Green_Pikachu

9th February 2007, 02:11 AM

well...as far as presidential candidates, the only possibilities i see for the dems are:

hilary clinton
barrack o'bama
john edwards

for the morons, the only candidates i see are:

rudy giuliani
john mccain
and a VERY slim chance for chuck hagel possibly. that's about it.

RedStarWarrior

9th February 2007, 04:43 AM

In regards to the friendly-fire incident that is being discussed, mistakes do happen and the reason behind it is probably not that the US soldiers didn't take the time to identify the target, but rather that there was a breakdown in communication that prevented such identification from occuring. All unknown units are to be considered hostile unless a determination can be made to the contrary. More than likely, they were following protocol. In addition, you don't really know what is being done behind closed doors. The US and UK governments do not have to (and shouldn't) reveal details of the investigations to you if they might provide the enemy information about our communication systems and protocols or otherwise expose critically sensitive information about combat activities. If the enemy knows how we communicate with one another, despite the apparent breakdown or error in communication in this event, then they can utilize it to their advantage. Also, it is rather presumptuous to assume that the US would act any different in regards to if it had been US troops accidently killed by UK troops. The UK is a valued ally of the US and, despite a few irate citizens that hold previous grudges against the queen's military, the US would easily forgive the UK so long as a proper investigation is held and mistakes are corrected to prevent any future repeat occurances.

In regards to the presidental nominees, Green_Pikachu has provided a good list of the most probable individuals to be chosen by their party to run in 2008. It will be an interesting and probably close election, in my opinion.