messy campaign?

…ink

I agree with you that a lot of things NATO said was way out of proportions…but you also need to find peace with yourself that some rather evil people committed some very serious genocide crimes. You have to acknowledge that even if the numbers weren’t as huge as originally “advertised” it happened. The question is intent.
On the other hand, it really doesn’t make you wonder what the French and the Germans are up to with these two rather very similar situations while by all accounts Serbia was nowhere as totalitatrian as Iraq?….very inconsistent if you ask me. No UN declaration, no large “coalition” (Europe isn’t the “world”), and to stop “evil” regimes…yet why is one ok for France and Germany and the other not ok? It really doesn’t make you wonder? I hope we find out soon such inconsistencies….

Vortex…

Vortex,

“Once again ink (i’ve told you many times and for some reasons you failed to accept that even though a simple look at the timelines can easily see that) the US had no interests in the Balkans until those trio up there start accusing the US about not living up to the NATO responsibilities…”

I think your comment comes from a misunderstanding of why the US did get involved. Anyway, while I agree that perhaps it took longer to realise what its interests in the Balkans might be it certainly found them in the end. I don’t think France, Germany and Italy could diplomatically, financially, economically, militarily or in any way whatsoever, influence the actions of the US.

“so why you specifically point out about UK/US “lies” during the last decade in the Balkans? To me, if you’re fair, lump them under NATO ,fine, because those trio up there were way more eager IIRC…why just single out UK/US?”

Well ok, I’ll lump them under NATO if you prefer even though they generally came from the military services or politicians of the US or the UK.

As I’m sure you can imagine I haven’t the time nor the energy to list every specific incident and the lies that surrounded it. Instead I thought I’d give you a little flavour (apologies for the lack of dates… I really must dig out my file on Allied Force):

The incident where NATO bombed a train as it was crossing a railway bridge at Gurdulice is famous enough. IIRC an F-18 attacked a bridge just as a train was crossing it and then turned around and attacked the bridge again, while the train was still on it. Now, when the tape was shown at NATO press briefings it indeed looked like the train was travelling so fast that it took the pilot by surprise and that he couldn’t possibly have reacted in time. In fact, Gen Wesley Clark said this on the incident “you can see if you were focusing right on your job as a pilot, how suddenly that train appeared – it was really unfortunate”. Months later, long after the end of the conflict it was revealed that the tape had been speeded up by a factor of three in order to make it appear that the pilot accidentally bombed the train in an attempt to bomb the bridge.

Also, throughout the conflict we were told things like >>the Serb integrated air defense system has been totally destroyed<< When it kept woring right to the 78th day. We were told >>100,000 Albanian men are missing and we fear have been captured or killed by the Serbs<< only 4,500 ethnic Albanians died in Kosovo from late ’98 to summer ’99 (and most of them were AK wielding terrorists). There are lots more… Lots lots more.

..ink

i was refering to France and Germany, and also Italians…but now their government is fundamentally under a different ruling party or else you would see the trio at work countering any humanitarian aid to Iraq via UN. Once again ink (i’ve told you many times and for some reasons you failed to accept that even though a simple look at the timelines can easily see that) the US had no interests in the Balkans until those trio up there start accusing the US about not living up to the NATO responsibilities…so why you specifically point out about UK/US “lies” during the last decade in the Balkans? To me, if you’re fair, lump them under NATO ,fine, because those trio up there were way more eager IIRC…why just single out UK/US?

Hi, Steve.

“The distinction between what I’m saying and what you’ve written is in context. What I described was the ability to arrive at the most honest and accurate appraisal of a situation you can without resorting simply to the automatic emotional reaction of the moment. What you are talking about, in most of the cases below, is heroism. Heroism isnt an automatic reaction based solely on emotion. Heroism is knowing what the dangers are, sizing up the situation and still going on regardless to do something you know is massively unwise.

I accept though our respective natures regarding this are so opposed that we will never agree on the issue!.”

I can see your point and to a certain extent I can understand it. “Heroism isn’t an action based solely on emotion.” In many cases I think it is. It is a split second response to an emotional stimulus or stimuli. How many citations carry the phrase ‘with no regard for their own safety’? In many cases the act of heroism is not a considered one. A friend of my late Uncle won the MM in Burma. Pinned down under heavy fire he took the initiative to charge the Japanese position. He always maintained that he didn’t consider it, he was upset that his friend had been killed and the emotional impact was such that he charged the enemy position. Now I understand that there are other acts of heroism where the actual consequences are considered in detail, and still the act is carried out.

To try to explain why I believe we are emotion-led, I’ll try to give an example or two. I have been involved in a considerable number of resuscitations following respiratory or cardiac arrests. By its very nature it is a distressing and emotional situation to be involved in. In some instances, the team’s understanding of the situation, and the direction taken is based largely on the emotional impact of the event on the patient and their family. Do you continue your efforts at resuscitation for up to an hour even though the situation is hopeless to allow the family to arrive? To show the family that all that could be done was done? Or, in that same situation terminate the resuscitation attempt early as there is no possibility of success? These are all emotional decisions.

I was involved in the care of a young girl who was dying because a drug overdose had destroyed her liver. It wasn’t a suicide attempt but a plea for attention. She died with her family at her bedside, I was there too. I have found it impossible to retain an emotional detachment from these people. Indeed, if I have tried I have found that I was unable to function with the same level of effectiveness. I was good at my job, but in no way could I detach myself emotionally from what I was involved in. And I miss it.

Sorry for waffling but it’s just my clumsy attempt to explain something for which I have no explanation. You’re right, I doubt we will ever agree but I respect your views and have enjoyed our discussions. I look forward to more.

Regards,

kev35

Ink,

I completely agree that expert analysis is important when viewing such a highly complex conflict live on Sky. The problem is that we generally receive all our expert opinion from one of the military sides.

I see your point and I’d absolutely agree with it, media management IS undoubtably in play here by the coalition BUT I’d say that it isnt that heavy AND you have the scarcely concealed antiwar rhetoric from journalists like Rageh Omaar and David Chater offsetting every positive statement that the military advisors come out with.

Today Rageh Omaar made a report regarding this terrible accident in Baghdad stating that he had no idea what the military target could have been when he had absolutely no idea what may have been in the area!? Later we hear that the US had some strikes going in against some kind of missile vehicles that had been, one can only assume deliberately, sited within 300ft of that civillian concentration. If the US doesnt target weapons like SSM batteries in Baghdad it gets fleeced for the casualties it takes from a few “backwards arabs” when they get used and, if it does take them on, causing civillian casualties because theyve been sited as to be effectively human-shielded they get painted as murderers. Dont you see the inequities of that situation?

Earlier on in the conflict we had David Chater decrying the coalition use of stealth aircraft as they gave the Iraqi citizens no warning to get to shelters!!!. I mean for christs sake……….!.

However, you’ll be glad to hear that I’ve been running around telling all my non-military-enthusiast friends that the resistance put up so far has been less than significant.

Bravo sir!. Ladies and gents here we see intellectual honesty at work and look hard ‘cos, as far as I can make out, its a bloody rare sight.

Steve,

What they left out was that the impact with the terrain was assisted by a ship’s defence projectile up its jacksie (I’m sure Steve can enlighten us as to what it was hit by).

Yep your quite right and most attentive in picking out the only RN blue-on-blue of that particular war. The projectile in question was one of two GWS30 Sea Dart missiles fired at an unidentified target, outside of the established free-flight box around San Carlos, by HMS Cardiff. The confusion was generated when a forensic inspection team, after the war, found no remains of a Sea Dart missile at the wreckage site so the crash theory was the only one that fit the circumstances. It wasnt til a second inspection was conducted three years later that ANY evidence of Cardiff’s involvement was found. Good conspiracy theory for those who like them though!. 😉

Why on Earth would any of you believe that things have changed since then? I can certainly see straight through all of the rhetoric and bullsh1t.

Its hard to say in the media that Iraqi’s are just p1ssing themselves with delight to see our lads in Basra when footage is showing pro-Saddam rallies chanting “down with Bush, down with Blair!”. Equally it would be hard for CENTCOM to say they’re pressing on Baghdad when the embedded media camera’s show everyone kicking back, having a smoke, round the NAAFI truck.

Is there still “rhetoric and bullsh1t” yes of course there is. For the first time though a lot of that bullsh1t is coming from the media and is being accepted as gospel by large segments of the public. Its interesting though how widely it has been shown and just how quiet and inactive some of our units have been allowed to be portrayed though. I thought there was something wrong with that, compared to the yanks, and there might be policy from MoD to intimate that our forces were weak and fragmented which, when it got to the Iraqi’s, might make ’em do something dumb. I’m still not sure whether this could’ve been the case or not but, with this Iraqi column heading out of Basra tonight, maybe its paid off. :rolleyes:

If any of the British on this forum think we have more in common with the USA than we do with our European neighbours after witnessing Bush’s address to CENTCOM at MacDill AFB just now I would be astounded. If I had to describe it I think the phrase “xenophobic christian fervour” would be pretty accurate to anybody hailing from outside of “God’s chosen country”.

Point one is that I dont think Bush’s views represent quite everybody in the US Steve which is news to no-one!. Point two is that I’d much rather us have more in common with a country that has the courage of its convictions, even if some of those convictions could stand a little tempering, than a country that refuses to help deal with a problem its already accepted needs dealing with and then demands it should be allowed to cash in on the aftermath when someone else has cleaned the problem up. Like Inks joke said – its not every day that the French can accuse another country of arrogance!.

Kev,

The distinction between what I’m saying and what you’ve written is in context. What I described was the ability to arrive at the most honest and accurate appraisal of a situation you can without resorting simply to the automatic emotional reaction of the moment. What you are talking about, in most of the cases below, is heroism. Heroism isnt an automatic reaction based solely on emotion. Heroism is knowing what the dangers are, sizing up the situation and still going on regardless to do something you know is massively unwise.

I accept though our respective natures regarding this are so opposed that we will never agree on the issue!.

Sincere regards lads,
Steve

Vortex;
Of course, big guys spy to each other. Of course chinese spy you, you the chinese, soviets spied everybody…..but this is a quite and secret, so if caught………who ever does it…….keep quite.

Re: Reply to Kev from preceeding page

Steve,

“I dont accept this. Excessive emotion is the enemy of rational judgement – always has been and always will be. If you allow yourself to be controlled by your emotions you’ll never be able to make clear and accurate judgements and will always be a puppet to those who have the ability to play on your emotions.”

Look how many actions have ended as the result of one man’s emotional reaction. The guy who charges an enemy position alone becuse his oppo’s just been killed, or he’s just got plain p****d off, or goes out under fire to retrieve the wounded. The latter is especially true. Look at the medics in Vietnam whose emotional involvement led then to saving hundreds of lives, and indeed to they themselves having one of the highest casualty rates among infantry specialists. The emotional response that led them to obtaining their own medical supplies so they could do a better job. The emotional ties that mean a nation will spend millions and risk many more lives to rescue a downed airman. The emotion which binds an army unit to its tattered Regimental colour. The emotional response which meant a nation stood up to Hitler in 1940 when no-one else did. The emotional bond which still ties you to your former colleagues.

Again, I think this is something we will never agree on, but I believe every facet of life is touched by our emotions and is not something to be denied.

Regards,

kev35

You’re spot-on, Ink.

Cases in point, both involving “friendly fire” incidents:

the AAC Gazelle that was shot down by a Royal Navy ship at anchor during the Falklands War. Has that actually ever been admitted to? The inquest and the initial report had it “flying into high terrain”. What they left out was that the impact with the terrain was assisted by a ship’s defence projectile up its jacksie (I’m sure Steve can enlighten us as to what it was hit by).

It took until 1997 for the US Army to admit that an ACR soldier took a HEAT round in the sternum during a blue-on-blue in the ’91 Gulf War. I wonder what we’ll be reading about for the first time in 2009 from this campaign and what’s still undiscovered from round one?

Lastly, and try to get ANYBODY to admit to this little gem:

during Operation Provide Comfort after the ’91 Gulf War, not only were the USAF involved in dropping relief supplies and tents to the Kurds in northern Iraq, they also helpfully refuelled Turkish AF Phantoms (confirmed) and F-16s (assumed) that were dropping bombs on the very same people. Nice piece of tactics don’t you think? Concentrate your targets by dropping them something they need to keep them from freezing to death then drop cluster bombs on them.

Why on Earth would any of you believe that things have changed since then? I can certainly see straight through all of the rhetoric and bullsh1t.

If any of the British on this forum think we have more in common with the USA than we do with our European neighbours after witnessing Bush’s address to CENTCOM at MacDill AFB just now I would be astounded. If I had to describe it I think the phrase “xenophobic christian fervour” would be pretty accurate to anybody hailing from outside of “God’s chosen country”.

Somebody please pass me a bucket, I think I’m going to chuck…

Peace, y’all (or does that make me a pussy these days?)

Steve

Jonesy,

I completely agree that expert analysis is important when viewing such a highly complex conflict live on Sky. The problem is that we generally receive all our expert opinion from one of the military sides. It’d be like watching Man Utd vs Arsenal live, with commentary from Sir Alex Ferguson. Admittedly it’d be just as bad if it was Arsen Wenger but thats the point isn’t it? I’d prefer to be more precisely informed about the military situation by someone who isn’t actually directly involved.
Anyway, the US and UK militaries have been discredited, in my eyes, as far as their truth telling credentials go.
However, you’ll be glad to hear that I’ve been running around telling all my non-military-enthusiast friends that the resistance put up so far has been less than significant.

Reply to Kev from preceeding page

Kev,

You’re doing it again Steve. YOU have to interpret those images for US?

I was presumptuous using the term “we” – I meant the UK MoD and I think YES people do need to have images placed in context for them. I make no apology for that as I’m certain, using myself as an example, where I to enter an operating theatre I wouldnt be able to make a good determination of what was going on without continuous expert commentry. After a few words of opinion on the topic from a reporter I’m sure I’d not be in a position to congratulate or castigate the surgeon on his work. This is exactly what people are doing here with the military though and it is grossly inappropriate.

You say it is encouraging the viewer to a higher level of empathy but then you imply we are not capable of understanding what we see. I think you’re wrong. Of course we are seeing civilian casualties and heartbreaking as it is we know they will occur and at the moment seem a lot less in number than during the 1991 conflict. We are seeing the actions of the coalition troops almost first hand. I can’t vouch for anyone else but I think I understand what I’m seeing.

Let me put it to you this way Kev people, civilian analysts and members of the public in the main, are crying and wringing their hands about how terrible it is for us to be facing resistance in the urban areas. The military, on the whole are saying that its no suprise and that provided the unconventionals stay tucked away they’re little threat to anyone strategically. Who do you expect to be closer representing the true picture?

If there is a failing in this “war” its that no proper explanation has been made about the difference between strategic and tactical action….perhaps this is the militaries failing as they may have expected it to be fairly straight forward. It doesnt seem that the ability to make that leap is very widespread though as we have A LOT of people suggesting that the whole things doomed to failure because a few tactical actions have dragged on a bit.

Please go and say that exact phrase to the families of any soldiers kiled or wounded in those areas.

Tactics and strategy again Kev. To those families suffering the loss of loved ones no justification will be sufficient..ever – how could it. If you think that ONE of those service families would say that their loss is justification for the whole war to be stopped and make their son/daughter/husband’s death meaningless and serve no greater good then I’m afraid you dont understand the service ethos very well.

Very brave of you to make a statement like that. Keltic has expressed his opinions, and I don’t think Keltic is the kind of person to arrive at those opinions lightly. You don’t mean to criticise Keltic personally but… you suggest he lacks objectivity, a sound intellectual footing and a lack of ability to apply logic. I hope you don’t mean to criticise me, I doubt if I could take it……

Possibly poorly phrased on my part. I was trying to say that I had no specific hostility towards Keltic and was meaning my remarks as constructive criticism.

In a paragraph above you stated ‘now I think we have to start interpreting those images for a population’. Make your mind up. Do we need guidance or don’t we?

Think I’ve explained this. People dont need to be lead by the nose. They do need to have sufficient information and perspective to formulate an accurate opinion though. Without that, as you’ve said, they can only fall back on emotional reactions which are no basis for informed decision.

I know my background influences me on this point but sometimes it’s all we have.

I dont accept this. Excessive emotion is the enemy of rational judgement – always has been and always will be. If you allow yourself to be controlled by your emotions you’ll never be able to make clear and accurate judgements and will always be a puppet to those who have the ability to play on your emotions.

May not be civilised but I doubt if I would be as accepting of the situation as you.

Well, it gives me justification to keep winding him up – a few weeks ago I parked my car on his drive to make a point and left it there til he made the mistake of coming around to ask what the hell I was doing!. Most of the time he does it I get to bang on his door, tear a few strips off him and make him move the bloody car. So it can be a good decompression tool at times if I’ve had a bad day. Juvenille perhaps but I have to admit it does amuse me in a vindictive little way.

There we differ in our interpretation of events again. I know you will be saddened by the loss of coalition forces in these incidents but it is interesting that you mention the equipment losses before that of the men.

I mentioned the equipment to emphasize the point that they were new-tech and we should be able to expect better of the new kit we are being issued nothing more nothing less.

So now you admit that these troops and airmen may not have believed in the ’cause’ for which they died.

I’ve never denied that. I have generalised that the military is more interested in the people against the politicians being more interested in the oil – not the same thing.

I’d expect that a percentage of the forces dont think we are on solid ground on this one – being the aggressor isnt something we are used to. Thats largely academic though as when you wrote “just about doing the job and getting home” you hit the mark spot on. A display of gratitude from the Iraqi’s, if it happens, will be a big bonus for our people though.

I remember a PO who served aboard Invincible in Op Corporate telling me that many of them had reservations about steaming 8000 miles to fight for a bunch of sheep and it wasnt really til he had to go ashore after the war and he met the islanders that certain pieces fell into place for him. Didnt effect the way that they fought though.

No, but if they are dying for something they have no belief in, that surely cheapens the efforts of a Government which sends them there.

Why? Are you suggesting that a matelot in the engine room of a frigate has the same perspective as the Prime Minister?. Like I said that PO had no belief in the Falklands until he got a different perspective on the issue.

Anyone can capture miles of empty desert.

Not in 4 bloody days!.

It is the towns and cities that are important.

Nuts!. Its the Regime leadership and the symbols of that leadership that are important not the entire urbanised area of Iraq.

The Iraqi Government has stated that the coalition forces can do as they please in the desert.

That makes them right does it? By ceeding the desert to the Coalition they’ve given our forces room and time to consolidate and maneuver. Dont seem so smart to me!

If these squads are not a problem why in Umm Qasr have US forces been relieved by British Marines? It has been stated that it is because the Royal Marines are better trained in street fighting. It would appear they are far more of a nuisance than you’d have us believe.

You answered your own question. The RM are better trained and experienced in the role. That makes them correct choice for a politically sensitive tasking. I’ll restate though those pockets exist at sufference only as, at any point, coalition forces COULD go in and destroy them. That they choose not to is no sign of weakness or failure.

Re: …

Vortex.

“And what catalogue of abuse about Guantanomo?”

Held without charge, held without trial, no legal representation, no visitation rights, they don’t even have a declared status. All of those listed above are abuses against either American law, International law or both.

“Mind you that red cross make constant scheduled visits and like i said, i don’t expect the Iraqis or almost anybody else the US fights against to NOT mistreat US POWs…that’s just reality.”

So your justification for America’s treatment of those held at Guantanamo is that ‘others will do it to us?’ True playground, or should I say Kindergarten logic from the most powerful nation in the world.

“…..so what moral high grounds are you talking about?”

America maintains a catalogue of ongoing abuse against those held at Guantanamo. Yet as soon as one American is captured Bush instantly asserts that American POW’s are being ill-treated. That’s the moral high ground. America preaches that captives should be held according to the Geneva Convention and that they should not be mistreated, yet continues to abuse those at Guantanomo in the manner described above. If that doesn’t fit the term double standard then please enlighten me as to what does.

“I have no problem with critiques, but those have to be “fair”.”

Sorry, but I did have to laugh when I read that. Your definition of fair appears only to apply to commemts in support of the US.

“I know you know what i mean when i’m frustrated with people saying rather biased stuff simply because it’s against Americans….and that frankly is what turn us away.”

But the things I’ve said about the US treatment of those at Guantanamo aren’t biased. They are facts. You just refuse to see that there is anything wrong with your treatment of these people even though their captivity breaks American law. It might surprise you to know that I agree that Saddam needs to be removed for the good of the Iraqi people. I just question the method, timing and legality of this current invasion. Now it is on, as I have said before, I hope it is concluded quickly and with the minimum loss of life on all sides.

Regards,

kev35

Vortex,

“The majority of the world agrees that he needs to be stopped. What does any police eventually do against criminals who avoids arrest at all cost? What happens when police don’t do anything ink? I’m sure you have NO IDEA.”

The problem is that we’re not talking about the police here. I’m sorry that I do not have the same trust of the US as some moral, international police force as you do. You see, I’m too worried about their track record and the fact that they only seem to deal with crimes where they have a vested interest. Here’s a case in point: Over the last couple of decades Turkey has been killing, torturing, ethnically cleansing and generally mistreating to Kurdish populations of SE Turkey and Northern Iraq. Now the scale of some of their actions has been sickeningly impressive. Villages were bombed, thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands have been killed, the Kurds have been denied basic human rights (like freedom of speech), millions have been ethnically cleansed and forced into countries where there was no money to provide them with any kind of humanitarian aid. The list of horrors is a long one… Anyway, so what did our moral police force do about this? Nothing? No, they didn’t just stand by and watch, they provided Turkey with military aid in order to buy the US weapons and the US training they needed to do their job more efficiently. Turkey is a close NATO partner and is dependent on US aid, both financial and military, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the US to put a bit of diplomatic pressure on Turkey to stop the bloodshed – they didn’t. I’m sorry Vortex, thats not the kind of police force that makes me feel safer on the international street.

“Since when you care about “international” law?”

Pretty much since I became interested in politics.

“And you have no agendas?”

I can only presume you’re refering to the fact that the US has already bombed my country. Well, yes those 78 days taught me a lot about how much western governments (esp US and UK) are prepared to lie, spin and cheat in order to convince their own publics of the morality of their actions. I was shocked by the extent of some of the fabrications. I’ll be glad to recall some of them if you’re interested.

“It seems like you’re against anything American and raises “international” law only to your “needs”.”

I hope that the impression I have left on most members of this forum is not one of anti-Americanism. I am pretty upset that you think that simply because I disagree with and am seriously worried by US foreign policy that I am against anything American.

“but clearly those who “tout” international laws and are against sending aids to Iraq via UN is clearly no humanitarian even though YES it was the American lead coalition who started this.”

I don’t remember ever even suggesting that I was against the delivery of UN aid into Iraq.

“Remember who started the Balkan wars, it wasn’t the Americans and these same people are talking about “international law”? How easily are YOU fooled.”

I’m not sure what you meant by this closing sentence Vortex, I’d be grateful if you could clarify your meaning. If I take it at face value it suggests a very serious misunderstanding of the causes of the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia and I don’t really think you’re qualified to comment. However, I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and am keen to hear a clarification.

EDIT: Also, could you please refrain from refering to European nations by the blanket term “Europe”. However you look at it Europe is not a united continent and I think this conflict shows that even more poignantly.

…

I said many Americans BELIEVE the European reactions would be worse…i didnt’ say it definitely WILL be worse. As to the N.Ireland funding terrorists, i thought that issue was settled? You don’t see people here making an issue of donations to Islamic extremist terrorist groups because they were mislead as an example of “supporting”? That would be ridiculous wouldn’t it be? Americans supporting extremists to attack America? Plainly because people were ignorant and mislead. And what catalogue of abuse about Guantanomo? Mind you that red cross make constant scheduled visits and like i said, i don’t expect the Iraqis or almost anybody else the US fights against to NOT mistreat US POWs…that’s just reality. And, i haven’t heard of any Presidents of the US telling others to “shut up”, so what moral high grounds are you talking about? The French have always used phrases like “everybody should follow France’s lead or Europe’s lead because we are moral…from Kyoto to War Crime Court to current situation”….you hear that often from American presidents? Unless, you equate moral and just,freedom,liberty,fighting evil as the same thing…then yes, Bush does use those words a lot. I have no problem with critiques, but those have to be “fair”. I know you know what i mean when i’m frustrated with people saying rather biased stuff simply because it’s against Americans….and that frankly is what turn us away. There are tons of bad Americans, sure, just like anywhere else, but when it comes to “Americans” its almost synonomous with either American Government or the American people.

Re: …

Vortex.

“Frankly, many Americans feel that if 9/11 happened in Europe then you’ll see the European reactions to be even more drastic than Americans. Right after the attacks you have plenty of people around the world and in Europe saying “Americans deserve it”…now, how would you feel if it happens in Europe and Americans say “you deserve it”?”

I have never suggested that America “deserved it”, nor has anyone I have ever spoken to about it thought that. As for it happening in Europe? Well, Irish Republican terrorists, though not on such a grand scale, have plagued the UK through terrorism for the last thirty years. London pub bombings, Birmingham pub bombings, Warrington, Enniskillen, The Cavalry patrol in London, Canary Wharf, the assassinations of Airey Neave and Lord Mountbatten, The Brighton hotel bombing in which we almost lost a Government. As to how we would feel if Americans said to us we deserved it? You already have. Through Noraid, the Irish American community and Americans with no Irish background whatsoever paid for these atrocities to occur.

And Irish terrorists who have been caught have been treated as criminals, given fair trials with legal representation, have been convicted or acquitted and for those who were convicted served their sentences in prisons. You say our reactions would be worse than yours, compare then the treatment of convicted IRA terrorists by Britain with America’s ongoing catalogue of abuse towards the prisoners at Guantanamo. And before you say anything just consider how well you treat your criminals compared to those at Guantanamo. If you want to hold the moral high ground, at least do it with some consistency.

Regards,

kev35

given the chance that it could very well had happened in Europe instead(there were many plots that got stopped)? But, knowing Americans, a overwhelming majority of us won’t say that…why is that i ask you? Even today with all this antiFrench thing going, we won’t say “you deserve it”. Why is that again i ask you? When Bali got bombed and majority of them are Australians, why didn’t you say because the “world” hates Bali or Australians? You say i have aggendas to show as such of world against America, but show me otherwise to make me don’t feel that way. Besides, why when Americans tell others to “behave” it’s called arrogance and imperialism, but the reverse almost sounds like it’s the “moral” thing to do? Certainly that’s exactly what Chirac said…you can’t deny that, it’s public records. [/B][/QUOTE]

…

of course they have the right to intercept…did i said otherwise? Also, Arthur, i don’t think i’ve addressed that specifically to you. I’m merely telling you how many Americans feels, so, if you don’t want us to feel that way, why don’t you show us otherwise? Frankly, many Americans feel that if 9/11 happened in Europe then you’ll see the European reactions to be even more drastic than Americans. Right after the attacks you have plenty of people around the world and in Europe saying “Americans deserve it”…now, how would you feel if it happens in Europe and Americans say “you deserve it”? given the chance that it could very well had happened in Europe instead(there were many plots that got stopped)? But, knowing Americans, a overwhelming majority of us won’t say that…why is that i ask you? Even today with all this antiFrench thing going, we won’t say “you deserve it”. Why is that again i ask you? When Bali got bombed and majority of them are Australians, why didn’t you say because the “world” hates Bali or Australians? You say i have aggendas to show as such of world against America, but show me otherwise to make me don’t feel that way. Besides, why when Americans tell others to “behave” it’s called arrogance and imperialism, but the reverse almost sounds like it’s the “moral” thing to do? Certainly that’s exactly what Chirac said…you can’t deny that, it’s public records.

here js an interesting article.

Ex-Cheney firm gets Iraqi fire job

AFP – The US army has awarded the main Iraqi oilwell firefighting contract to a division of Halliburton Co., once run by Vice-President **** Cheney, the Pentagon said.

Kellogg, Brown and Root – was given the contract by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Defence said in a statement.

Halliburton was run by Cheney for five years until 2000.

The Army Corps of Engineers was put in charge of executing a contingency plan to extinguish the oil well fires and assess the damage to facilities during the war, the department said.

“To carry out this mission, the Corps will rely in large part on contractors with the needed expertise and specialised resources,” the Department of Defence said.

“In the initial phase, the Corps’ prime contractor will be Kellogg, Brown and Root, of Houston, which prepared the contingency plans for the government,” it said.

The price of the contract was not immediately available.

Oil well fighter Boots and Coots International Well Control Inc. announced it had been subcontracted by Kellogg, Brown and Root to help extinguish the oil well fires.

“We have surveyed these wells and are preparing to mobilise the equipment,” Boots and Coots president Brian Krause said in a statement.

“We will begin stabilisation of the wells once the location around the wells is secure,” he said.

Boots and Coots was brought into Kuwait in 1991 to control about 240 of more than 700 burning wells following the Gulf War, it said.

©AAP 2003

Vortex,

You seem really desparate in proving the whole world likes nothing better than taking a piss against the US of A, that the world thinks that the US of A is the most vile, revolting, disgusting, international-law-breaching country around.

Being critical on a number of US policies, i don’t recognise myself in your rants even though i suspect i am one of your aims.

To continue with one of your rather rather far-off examples: it might shock you, but i think the US has the right to send spyplanes out above China’s EEZ. Just like China has the right to intercept those aircraft (mind you, the American ADIZ is also it’s EEZ, which is beyond territorial waters) – unfortunately accidents happen, and the Chinese did not handle this well. Tough sh!t.

And yes, North Korea is a far less law-abiding and decent country than the US has ever been or will be. But then again, it doesn’t claim to be the world’s pinnacle of justice, freedom and human rights.

The US does claim to be that, and i won’t deny it has no reasons to make that claim. But tall trees catch a lot of wind, and you can expect a lot more wind if that trees starts boasting how big it is.

You want the US to be an example to the rest of the world? Fine. Then make sure that the US starts behaving like one. It will give the rest of the world a lot less to complain about.

and for your info Mongu…

N.Koreans DO operate spies in the form of human spies ON Japanese and S.Korean soil and they DO have spy “ships/boats”…how you explain those Japanese got abducted? The point is, why no outrage there? You do know that numerous times, N.K. send minisubs and scouts on S.Korean coasts?

I think the point that was trying to be made was that if NK operated spy planes in international airspace, just narrowly outside US territorial waters, it would be viewed as an agressive act and it is highly likely the spyplane would be “dealt with”.

don’t have to imagine…

it happens with the Soviets and i don’t believe their aircrew are as mistreated, and why you have this view that the Chinese themselves don’t have survaillance planes on neighboring countries? And…there’s NO “international” law/rule on “spying” in “international” waters…so you see my point? Why is it when Americans are involved….there’s this thing called “international” law, but when others are involved it doesn’t apply. To Americans this is very double standard. Again, there’s no rule that you can’t send a plane in internatinal waters, preannounced, on flight schedule, spying. If you don’t like the current Chinese Regime, then you’ll understand why the spying is happening, they are having war exercises aiming at invading Taiwan. So, what are you saying, let’s not care about it until it happens? Then you’ll be one of those laughing at US intellegence or lack of when that happens….what EXACTLY you want us to do? Mind you that Europeans also have spy satellites…what? that doesn’t apply anymore because it’s in space? I thought the point was about spying?