Anti-war people don't want to hear from actual Iraqi people

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-06 10:39pm

IG-88E wrote: How does this not address your point?

Unenlightened is as stupid as Deimos, if that's even possible...a so-so photoshopping
job is a 'death threat' according to this nimrod

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-06 10:39pm

Seriousily Enlightment, what is your fucking problem? Do you just hate airplanes, or do you have some inferiority complex when it comes to people who do something productive with their lives?

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-03-06 10:45pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Seriousily Enlightment, what is your fucking problem? Do you just hate airplanes, or do you have some inferiority complex when it comes to people who do something productive with their lives?

Be careful, WP. Remember, you're addressing a person who considers every American citizen to be an imperialist thug.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-06 10:45pm

MKSheppard wrote:Your fucking point, UNenlightened was that you said:

We tend to have enough sense not to fight wars that can't be won.
[sarcasm]Wow, we really lost big time in Afghanistan![/sarcasm]

My point is that Sea Skimmer's comment on the value of American airpower for reducing allied casualties is irrelevant as the UK would not have been involved in DS nor would Canada be involved in Afganistan if not for US military support. The UK and Canada would not have been involved without US support because we have the sense not to tackle a military problem that we lack the strength to solve.

Did you (and IG-88E for that matter) fail english comprehension or something? What I said was perfectly clear.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-06 10:46pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Do you just hate airplanes, or do you have some inferiority complex when it comes to people who do something productive with their lives?

I tend to get rather annoyed when someone else--particularly a supposed ally--decides to use my countrymen as targets.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-06 10:47pm

Enlightenment wrote: Did you (and IG-88E for that matter) fail english comprehension or something? What I said was perfectly clear.

heh.

We tend to have enough sense not to fight wars that can't be won.

Looks like we fucking WON in afghanistan, nimrod.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-03-06 10:48pm

Enlightenment wrote:The UK and Canada would not have been involved without US support because we have the sense not to tackle a military problem that we lack the strength to solve.

HEY GUYS, I SEE HIS POINT! HE'S SAYING THAT THE UK AND CANADA COULD NEVER STAND UP TO THE AFGANISTAN MILITARY WITHOUT US SUPPORT!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-06 10:49pm

IG-88E wrote: HEY GUYS, I SEE HIS POINT! HE'S SAYING THAT THE UK AND CANADA COULD NEVER STAND UP TO THE AFGANISTAN MILITARY WITHOUT US SUPPORT!

Yeah, the UK and Canadian military can't stand up to a bunch of camelfuckers!

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2003-03-06 10:50pm

Folks, let's be careful- As we all know, America is THE source of friendly fire. Take a look at World War 2- Everyone knows that the Canadians and British NEVER killed a single American through friendly fire, while Amreican troops veritably mowed down Allied troops.

Erm, that was sarcasm. Enough with the sweeping generalizations, Enlightenment. Your assertation that the U.S. Air Force is an ineffective, foolish organization is completely unfounded. Every military in the world inflicts friendly casualties.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-06 10:50pm

MKSheppard wrote:Looks like we fucking WON in afghanistan, nimrod.

Nice try, but the current situation within Afganistan is irrelevant to the matter of if US client states would have even attempted to force Iraq out of Kuwait or topple the Taliban without US support. No US support == we wouldn't have been there == we wouldn't have been routed due to an absense of USAF support. What part of this is too difficult for you to understand?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-06 10:50pm

Enlightenment wrote:I tend to get rather annoyed when someone else--particularly a supposed ally--decides to use my countrymen as targets.

If we wanted to use your countrymen as targets, we would have easily wiped your entire nation off the face of the earth by now.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-06 10:58pm

IG-88E wrote:HEY GUYS, I SEE HIS POINT! HE'S SAYING THAT THE UK AND CANADA COULD NEVER STAND UP TO THE AFGANISTAN MILITARY WITHOUT US SUPPORT!

That's not my point but it is an accurate assessment in an of itself. Both countries lack the power projection capabilities to project enough force into Afghanistan to overthrow an unwanted government.

Turning the tables around, the Taliban would also have a very hard time conquoring Canada or the United Kingdom.

What part of this do you find so amusing?

Thirdfain wrote:Enough with the sweeping generalizations, Enlightenment. Your assertation that the U.S. Air Force is an ineffective, foolish organization is completely unfounded. Every military in the world inflicts friendly casualties.

Careful. Packing that many straw men into one paragraph is a fire hazard.

It's not a sweeping generalization to state the facts that the UK suffered more casualties during DS from USAF bombs than from the Iraqis, that Canada suffered more casualties in Afghanistan from the USAF than from the local tribal enemies, that USAF pilots engage in hotdogging, and that the punishments for screwups are by no means proportionate with the damage caused.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-06 10:58pm

MKSheppard wrote:Yeah, the UK and Canadian military can't stand up to a bunch of camelfuckers!

What make you so sure that Canadian military could`nt kick the ass of arab terrorists on its own.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-06 11:00pm

Enlightenment wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:And if it wasn't for American air attacks destroying and shattering Iraqi and Afghan units, British Armor would have suffered ten times the losses, while the Canadian forces would have been wiped out as they landed.
If not for the US we wouldn't have bothered to show up in the first place. We tend to have enough sense not to fight wars that can't be won.

Got any more stupid things to say?

No, you seem to have a monopoly on that.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-03-06 11:02pm

Montcalm wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Yeah, the UK and Canadian military can't stand up to a bunch of camelfuckers!
What make you so sure that Canadian military could`nt kick the ass of arab terrorists on its own.

In case you counldn't tell Montcalm, my comment and Shep's reply were supposed to be humor.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-06 11:08pm

Montcalm wrote:What make you so sure that Canadian military could`nt kick the ass of arab terrorists on its own.

Getting over there may be a problem, but the Canadian military would ass rape the Taliban. This is of course only if they have a strong committment to the cause, and I personally don't see this as the case.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-03-06 11:11pm

Hmm... Mounties Vs. Camel riders. Well, this could get ugly...

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-06 11:11pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Montcalm wrote:What make you so sure that Canadian military could`nt kick the ass of arab terrorists on its own.
Getting over there may be a problem, but the Canadian military would ass rape the Taliban. This is of course only if they have a strong committment to the cause, and I personally don't see this as the case.

I think that our soldiers would prefer to ass rape taliban women and leave the men to the british

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-03-06 11:15pm

Montcalm wrote:I think that our soldiers would prefer to ass rape taliban women and leave the men to the british

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Montcalm, I was chewing on the end of a pen when I read that. Now, the pen is halway across the room. Goddamn it, that was funny.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-06 11:20pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Getting over there may be a problem, but the Canadian military would ass rape the Taliban.

Afghan tribesman (under the Taliban banner) with a few decades of combat experience verses the grossly underfunded and ill-equipped Canadian Forces who haven't fought a serious war since Korea? My money is on the Afghans.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-07 12:00am

Enlightenment wrote: Afghan tribesman (under the Taliban banner) with a few decades of combat experience verses the grossly underfunded and ill-equipped Canadian Forces who haven't fought a serious war since Korea? My money is on the Afghans.

I beg to differ.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-07 01:12am

Enlightenment, you are doing the very thing you profess to hate Americans for.

I'm shocked and dismayed.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-07 01:16am

Wicked Pilot wrote:I beg to differ.

Not enough numbers to occupy the country. Not enough bombs to drop and not enough planes to drop them. Not enough money to pay to keep everything running long enough to defeat the Taliban.

Our special forces don't even have the cash for desert camo uniforms for crying out loud.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-07 01:18am

Howedar wrote:Enlightenment, you are doing the very thing you profess to hate Americans for.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-03-07 01:37am

Enlightenment, would you please tone it down? You're starting to get on the nerves of even the people who do agree with you some of the way (like myself) or even completely in some respects.

You're completely correct about the Italian incident, and I've also heard some rather bitter comments from British military personnel regarding certain friendly fire incidents during Desert Storm that make your comments in that regard quite understandable, but exclusively using sweeping generalisations is going to get you nowhere and just alienate everyone. You're doing a good job of that last one, I'm only slightly less disgusted with your behavior here than I am with Shep's and some of the others.

Yet, it is not American policy (or anybody's policy) to intentionally shoot at allied troops, but accidents do happen, and it always sucks when they do. Nobody wants that to happen, and when it does, it should be dealt with directly, efficiently and fairly. It's that last part where America has failed miserably in nearly every case when the friendly fire involved American troops accidentally firing on allies, there are few if any consequences and to outside observers it appears that usually these incidents are attempted to be covered up or obfuscated until they're no longer in the public eye and the people responsible can be let off with minimum consequences. Whether that's what really happens, it's what appears to happen, and the reason why you get reactions like Enlightenment's.

I have heard that in one case during Desert Storm an American officer did order an air strike on British troops after being specifically told by the British that the tanks were British, because he just ignored the radio message as enemy propaganda or something, and that he got off without consequences is understandably something citizens of the UK can legitimately be upset about.

Now I know that this comment is going to have every American on the board and their dog asking me for a source, and the only answer I can give is that I was told this by a British soldier on another board, and that I don't remember what he said verbatim, and that I don't know all the details regarding that incident, and therefore this should be taken with a large grain of salt unless somebody knows where more info can be gotten from.

As for the general quality of this thread, it should be either locked or at least HoSed, it serves no good purpose here and is basically just flamebait.

Try to calm down, people!

Edi