It seems that a number of our American friends who post on this forum are becoming increasingly aggressive and abusive. Main culprits at the moment are TTP and Vortex, with incidences from SOC and, in the past, Scooter. Phantom II is also guilty of this but to a lesser extent.
TTP’s answer to anything now appears to be veiled references to other poster’s sexuality and other personal attacks. This, of course, coming from a serving USAF Officer, a supposedly educated man of whom perhaps we should expect better? If this attitude is rife throughout the US military, and it can’t be, (can it?) how can they expect to be taken seriously? This aggressive stance which is being taken on a discussion forum is surely not indicative of the temperament of the majority of the American public, is it?
Regards,
kev35
By: Geforce - 29th April 2003 at 19:01
Vortex, I said `different situation`. I do know this war is not about religion or some kind of belief (like was during WWII). I only said that for many Europeans the words `may god bless our country` sound very frightening.
And this trial in Belgium. Let me just say `this law was formed because otherwise the greens would have quit the gov`t during a very difficult time. So the socialists and liberals had no choise but to agree with it. After next elections, this law will be history, where it belongs. It`s not Belgium`s task to police the world, and neither should we pay for it.
By: seahawk - 29th April 2003 at 08:42
Nah, you just fear to be held responsible for your war crimes. 😀
But it is always right to blame it on the imperialistic US pigs.
Btw let me add that no charges were filed against Saddam until now. :rolleyes: :confused:
😀
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th April 2003 at 07:38
and…
This is EXACTLY why the US is against the Interntational Human Rights Court (or what ever you call it) in Hague….all politics all the time.
By: seahawk - 29th April 2003 at 07:20
BRUSSELS – US Allied Forces Commander, General Tommy Franks, and a second, unnamed party, could face trial in Belgium for war crimes under the country’s amended genocide law after four Belgian doctors lodged a complaint in Brussels.
The four men, two of whom are still in Baghdad, work for the Belgian association Medicine for the Third World and were witnesses to the Allied invasion of the country.
Several events have already been cited by the doctors’ lawyer, Jan Fermon, including an ambulance under fire from US troops, the bombing of a market, an attack on a civilian bus, random excecutions and inaction in the face of hospital pillaging.
This will be the first time Belgium’s law of universal competence will be tested since its politico-diplomatic cleanup last month.
The so-called genocide law had given courts in Belgium universal jurisdiction to try cases of genocide, war crimes and human rights violations.
Several clauses were amended so as to avoid the law being used for political complaints in the current climate. It is feared by opponents to the changes however that the law is now left bereft of its previous clout.
The doctors’ case is thought to be within the remit of the new law because it is filed on behalf of Iraqi doctors by their Belgian colleagues.
However, the complaint will still have to be vetted by the Belgian government and the country’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, before it can go ahead.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell labelled the Belgian legislation a “serious problem” after joining **** Cheney and George Bush Senior on a list of suspects in a lawsuit pertaining to alleged crimes committed during the last Gulf War.
General Franks is currently holding residence in one of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces in the Iraqi capital – a symbolic gesture heralding the close of the Iraqi conflict
-> that is gonna be interesting.
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th April 2003 at 04:24
…
Originally posted by Geforce
Different situation, same words.
You have no clue about American culture or phrases and what they mean in what context and you’re trying to say they’re the same? What happen to your “sensitive” side when it comes to Americans must show for others? Being hypocrite again? If this comment is comming from Americans then it must be because we don’t know much about the world heh? But when it’s on Americans, then it must be “different situations, same words”. Why are you so intent on making this war somekind of battle of religions? Show how much you know about Americans while you’re making fun of how little Americans know of others. Many American words have a very different meaning when translated or heck even to a Brit….remember the whole issue with the world “Hero”…i guess many were shocked that Americans use the word “Hero” quite often on a “personal” basis. Does that mean we are Hero Worshippers? OH NO…that would be against one of the ten commandments…
By: Geforce - 28th April 2003 at 22:52
May God bless our country = Gott mit uns. Different situation, same words.
By: ageorge - 28th April 2003 at 19:13
I’ve been following this thread for a while now and the most impressive thing is that everybody has their say in an informative , interesting manner and not once has it degenerated into the usual slanging matches and general abuse , are we getting wiser with old age ?????
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th April 2003 at 18:19
hey Geforce…
stop making things up….when did we declare this war in the name of “GOD”. Your everything is the US’s fault is rather biased isn’t it? Just be patient and wait….there’s already stories coming out of French betrayals…
By: Sauron - 28th April 2003 at 16:55
Geforce
Your claim that the war in Iraq could have proceeded under a UN mandate surprises me because the SC was dead set against it.
The UN has proven that it can do anything with a problem but solve it and anything with a resolution but live with it.
Actually the US and the UK did try and work with the UN. It was they (not the UNSC) who got the weapons inspection regime started again.
As far as the US attempting to understand other nations opinions…. well if you are talking about France, Germany and Russia it wasn’t dificult to understand their position as I recall. They made it plain they were against the UN taking any form of forcefull action against Saddam. They made it plain that they were acting in their own political and commercial interests and had no interest in giving up their own plans and designs on Iraq’s oil.
Even now with Saddam gone, the UN is apposed to lifting the sanctions against Iraq. It’s reluctant to lose its sales commision on Iraq’s oil sales.
If you ever needed confirmation about the true characture of the UN or who was really after Iraq’s oil wealth, that pretty much answers the question.
Regards
Sauron
By: Geforce - 28th April 2003 at 09:03
I am against this war, most of all (and I know this will cause some reactions) because the world opinion was left out, because the US doesn`t did do an effort to try to understand other countries opinion, like France and Russia. Maybe France was wrong saying it will boycot any UN-resolution, but that is also the US`s fault. The Bush-administration did not leave any space open for opposition against this war. I`m sure Clinton, though he would also go ahead with this war, would be able to convince France, Germany and Russia.
And ofcourse, we in Europe are angry because the US is making war in the name of God. This is not true.
I do have to admit though, that so far, the US kept its promises, and it`s not making a new colony out of Iraq. I`m glad SH is gone, but this war could have happened with a UN-resolution if the US would be a bit more carefull.
And I hope the conservative party will win here, most of all for domestic reasons which I won`t tell you cause It would take me more than two days :D. But, though I appreciate Belgium`s position in this war, our gov`t has made huge diplomatic mistakes thinking it can change the world on its own. The problem is that we have two green parties in our gov`t, which I hope will not rule a second time. The conservatives want to increase the defence spending. I support them.
By: Sauron - 28th April 2003 at 06:23
Kev35
Apologies for not answering your question re the Canadians trashing bars in Aldershot soooner, but I wouldn’t be surprised. They did similar thing to parts of Halifax (Nova Scotia) during the second world war as well. Drunken, bored troops getting ugly over some real or imagined slight.
I did not mean to imply that Canadian efforts during the two wars were ignored or unrecorded in the history books.
My comments were simply to explain that Canada by virtue of its geography and history as a former British colony, tends to get overlooked by both the US and GB. This is evident in the popular culture and media, films etc. of both the US and GD. We just happen to be in the middle, below the level of vision of both and ignored for the mostpart. Perhaps this is changing a bit. I notice that we are now famous for SARS in both the US and UK news outlets and fingered as a hotbed for SARS by the WHO (along with the PRC). Not the kind of recognition we hoped for but someone had to be put in the doghouse with the PRC.
:mad
Regards
Sauron
By: PhantomII - 28th April 2003 at 03:55
Sorry, no new history just yet, as I still don’t understand how/why a united European army would have prevented this war.
Bush and Blair were pretty determined to remove Hussein from power. The means and will to remove him were both there, and as we’ve seen it was done in a very short amount of time.
And when you say save lives whose lives are you referring to? Civilian casualties have been pretty light as the war was so quick and precise. The worst part about the whole conflict was the unusually large number of friendly fire accidents.
I still wish I could see why you are so adamently against the war Ben. I’m not saying you have no right to be, but I wish I could understand. Saddam Hussein has been removed and while nothing is certain, prospects for the Iraqi people as a whole look much better now than before.
Again, this type of discussion between us is rather nice to have so do continue to talk with me. Help me understand your point of view on this European Army thing and the anti-war perspective.
Also, what was that you said about the Belgian government? Are the people who are more pro-America about to win some election? Is this a bad thing in your personal opinion?
By: Geforce - 27th April 2003 at 23:52
You asked how the EU could have avoided this war. I answered it, now don`t say you just `agree` with me, cause that would make into the history books.
By: PhantomII - 27th April 2003 at 19:16
Benjamin,
Can you please repeat your question? I looked through several of your last posts, but I couldn’t seem to find it.
By: crobato - 27th April 2003 at 03:54
Yes, China is making transports now. It’s not even with the US aviation industry now but who knows in the future. By the way, China already supplies parts and plane sections to both Airbus and Boeing.
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th April 2003 at 03:16
ooo…and China’s making transports for exports now….please. Are you even in the US aerospace industry?
By: crobato - 26th April 2003 at 05:34
Oh puhleeze. You can’t seem to shake the fact that the US aviation industry is headed towards a state of virtual non competition monopoly if trends continue.
So quit your whining. The Chinese industry has nothing to do with it.
yes, those UAVs in China, India and so on do fly, and it does not take much for them to do so. So having more UAV designs in the US does not impress. And those UCAVs you pointed out. There are more like tech demonstrators and it would nearly twenty years before they even get to service. So putting a model plane together and let it fly does not mean a thing.
You also mention variations and prototypes. Guess what? Many of them were made at a time when there are more companies around, like General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas. And there are even a lot more back in the sixties.
If current trends go on in the decline of the civil air industry continue, Boeing may be next to go. Well they won’t go out completely, but the red ink will surely hurt. Check the newspaper will you? Read about how commercial airlines—Boeing’s biggest customers—-are failing.
And by the way, F-22 started well beyond 10 years ago.
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th April 2003 at 02:51
Crobato…
beyond “prototypes”…how many planes did China make in the last 20 years that’s considered as modern enough to be recogn with? Probably only the J10 and the JH-7 while the “moderness” of the JH-7 is questionable. yet you went gaga over it….plus those millions of J-7 and J-8 “prototypes”. Just in the last 10 years, there are two all new air superiority fighters with 2 prototypes each, the YF-22 and the YF-23…there are two strike fighters from the JSF program with 2 each also, the X-32 and the X-35 (now concretely F35), then there’s the F16 derivatives, the F-18EF, IIRC at least two prototypes of the Bird of Prey (Boeing), and at least another classified manned aircraft. On top of that a host of REAL UAVs, better yet UCAVs…none of that model aircraft crap that most countries claims as UAVs(If that’s the case, i can make one too and put an inertial/GPS system onboard). How many UCAVs are there outside of the US? Even prototypes? And then you still have the C-17 and B-2 programs, V-22, and another host of vertical takeoff UAVs. A single J-8II version with some Russian radars or missiles and you’re hailing as if it’s somekind of proof of how great it is….how credible.
By: crobato - 26th April 2003 at 01:21
Jumping up and down just over UAVs? You know how many UAVs India displayed the last show? Do you know how many UAVs the Chinese have shown (just about the same number)? Heck, even Pakistan has shown UAVs.
‘
The four fighter types in the US was designed at a time when there are a lot more aviation companies in the US today. In fact, Lockheed and Boeing didn’t design any of them.
F-14: Grumman
F-15: McDonnel Douglas
F-16: General Dynamics
F-18: Northrop
Boeing and LM only acquired these when the four companies above called it quits in the airplane business.
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th April 2003 at 23:12
…Correction Crobato…
3 major aeronautics companies and about half a dozen or more secondary companies where each is larger than most aerospace companies around the world. Boeing, LM, NG, with NG primarily responsible for unmanned systems. The Aerospace industry may not be what it used to be but except the Soviets name me one that is relatively as lively as the American aerospace industry even today. Why you get so excited when a fighter like J8II+what ever varient comes out? At the same time, there were about 4 to 5 fighter type and 5+ UAV prototypes of TOTALLY DIFFERENT configurations in the US. Quite biased aren’t we?
Sign In
April 12, 2003 at 4:02 pm