The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
And how are they doing that? Well, whilst pursuing 4 suspected terrorists (they'd ran a checkpoint in their car), US troops managed to accidentally kill between 8-11 (depending on which report you read) Iraqi policemen, as well as the 4 suspects.
Hm...yeah, way to go boys! THAT will really encourage the people of Iraq to trust in the occupying coalition. I mean, there may well be more to it; maybe the policemen will turn out to be Saddam loyalists, who knows? But the fact is that the coalition are still behaving in a cack-handed and bullying fashion. That's not a recipe for lasting peace in Iraq, it's a recipe for disaster.
~shakes head~
And people still wonder why the US is so widely hated?
Hm...yeah, way to go boys! THAT will really encourage the people of Iraq to trust in the occupying coalition. I mean, there may well be more to it; maybe the policemen will turn out to be Saddam loyalists, who knows? But the fact is that the coalition are still behaving in a cack-handed and bullying fashion. That's not a recipe for lasting peace in Iraq, it's a recipe for disaster.
~shakes head~
And people still wonder why the US is so widely hated?
Page:
which end do the bullets come out of
(in and american voice)
(in and american voice)
Belldandy wrote:
>
> *yawn* None of the military forces involved have been asked to do
> anything contrary to international law or the Geneva convention,
> hence the reference is invalid Light.
Nah, they've just butchered innocent civilians cos they were trigger happy. So that's all okay then. By the way, if you want to convey contempt, you should maybe have left the post at that rather than continuing to embark on a whiny piece of sophistry that desperately tries to change the subject (I thought you were all opposed to that sort of thing).
Incidentally, to forestall your "I know you are but what am I" response, I don't hold you in contempt Bell. I just view you in the same way as I would any "Wind-up and watch the fun" toy.
>
> *yawn* None of the military forces involved have been asked to do
> anything contrary to international law or the Geneva convention,
> hence the reference is invalid Light.
Nah, they've just butchered innocent civilians cos they were trigger happy. So that's all okay then. By the way, if you want to convey contempt, you should maybe have left the post at that rather than continuing to embark on a whiny piece of sophistry that desperately tries to change the subject (I thought you were all opposed to that sort of thing).
Incidentally, to forestall your "I know you are but what am I" response, I don't hold you in contempt Bell. I just view you in the same way as I would any "Wind-up and watch the fun" toy.
Light wrote:
> They were just following orders, eh Kapo?
*yawn* None of the military forces involved have been asked to do anything contrary to international law or the Geneva convention, hence the reference is invalid Light.
However, if you want a debate about "following orders" then be sure to include the UN Peacekeepers 'following orders' in Bosnia and refusing to help the evacuation of civilians who were mostly later found dead. Everyone loves to use the example of Nazi troops following orders, but rarely the times when troops broke orders or should have. I'd hazard a guess the many of those who died in the Balkans did not give a fig that the UN evacuating them would have seen like UN involvement in ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, as a legal type person you'd know that the chain of command in the western military forces allows any commanding officer to question and refuse to carry out orders of a certain kind - the only exception to this being black ops, but these units are accountable to oversight bodies and do not just have carte blanche to roam at will doing what they want.
And the military, at least in a democracy, is accountable to the politicians and the public, whereas in Iraq before the invasion the Iraqi military was essentially one and the same with the government - inseperable.
> They were just following orders, eh Kapo?
*yawn* None of the military forces involved have been asked to do anything contrary to international law or the Geneva convention, hence the reference is invalid Light.
However, if you want a debate about "following orders" then be sure to include the UN Peacekeepers 'following orders' in Bosnia and refusing to help the evacuation of civilians who were mostly later found dead. Everyone loves to use the example of Nazi troops following orders, but rarely the times when troops broke orders or should have. I'd hazard a guess the many of those who died in the Balkans did not give a fig that the UN evacuating them would have seen like UN involvement in ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, as a legal type person you'd know that the chain of command in the western military forces allows any commanding officer to question and refuse to carry out orders of a certain kind - the only exception to this being black ops, but these units are accountable to oversight bodies and do not just have carte blanche to roam at will doing what they want.
And the military, at least in a democracy, is accountable to the politicians and the public, whereas in Iraq before the invasion the Iraqi military was essentially one and the same with the government - inseperable.
Belldandy wrote:
> Basically we're all second guessing as armchair generals. Simple as
> that.
Yup, no doubt about that.
>
> What I'll say is this: In most cases those on guard around Iraq,
> those in the fighter planes, at the controls of tanks, and so on, are
> normal people like you and me. They're thousands of miles from home,
> they're operating in a high stress environment, and most important,
> they all want to return home eventually.
Pity about all the Iraqi civilians who won't return home thanks to soldiers firing on anyone who moves...
>
> In the case of the army, most signed on to fight wars, not keep the
> peace. They're trained to respond with lethal and overwhelming force,
> not to be the police. They're trained to follow orders - if a vechile
> runs a checkpoint, or they are fired at, they will respond as they
> are trained.
Incorrect. Peacekeeping duties are part of an invading army's responsibility. What, you think they're trained to invade and then just stand back and let nature take it's course?
>
> Accidents happen, friendly fire happens, because - shock horror - the
> technology relies on human operators and they are fallible. In the
> past twenty years nearly every modern armed forces has lost more
> personnel and equipment to accidents and friendly fire than any
> enemy.
Fair enough, but do you really think that means we should stop complaining about it and accept it?
>
> Ultimately, the military goes where it is told, democracy works like
> that, the politicians invoke the military, they rubber stamp policy,
> and so forth.
They were just following orders, eh Kapo?
> Basically we're all second guessing as armchair generals. Simple as
> that.
Yup, no doubt about that.
>
> What I'll say is this: In most cases those on guard around Iraq,
> those in the fighter planes, at the controls of tanks, and so on, are
> normal people like you and me. They're thousands of miles from home,
> they're operating in a high stress environment, and most important,
> they all want to return home eventually.
Pity about all the Iraqi civilians who won't return home thanks to soldiers firing on anyone who moves...
>
> In the case of the army, most signed on to fight wars, not keep the
> peace. They're trained to respond with lethal and overwhelming force,
> not to be the police. They're trained to follow orders - if a vechile
> runs a checkpoint, or they are fired at, they will respond as they
> are trained.
Incorrect. Peacekeeping duties are part of an invading army's responsibility. What, you think they're trained to invade and then just stand back and let nature take it's course?
>
> Accidents happen, friendly fire happens, because - shock horror - the
> technology relies on human operators and they are fallible. In the
> past twenty years nearly every modern armed forces has lost more
> personnel and equipment to accidents and friendly fire than any
> enemy.
Fair enough, but do you really think that means we should stop complaining about it and accept it?
>
> Ultimately, the military goes where it is told, democracy works like
> that, the politicians invoke the military, they rubber stamp policy,
> and so forth.
They were just following orders, eh Kapo?
Basically we're all second guessing as armchair generals. Simple as that.
What I'll say is this: In most cases those on guard around Iraq, those in the fighter planes, at the controls of tanks, and so on, are normal people like you and me. They're thousands of miles from home, they're operating in a high stress environment, and most important, they all want to return home eventually.
In the case of the army, most signed on to fight wars, not keep the peace. They're trained to respond with lethal and overwhelming force, not to be the police. They're trained to follow orders - if a vechile runs a checkpoint, or they are fired at, they will respond as they are trained.
Accidents happen, friendly fire happens, because - shock horror - the technology relies on human operators and they are fallible. In the past twenty years nearly every modern armed forces has lost more personnel and equipment to accidents and friendly fire than any enemy.
Ultimately, the military goes where it is told, democracy works like that, the politicians invoke the military, they rubber stamp policy, and so forth.
What I'll say is this: In most cases those on guard around Iraq, those in the fighter planes, at the controls of tanks, and so on, are normal people like you and me. They're thousands of miles from home, they're operating in a high stress environment, and most important, they all want to return home eventually.
In the case of the army, most signed on to fight wars, not keep the peace. They're trained to respond with lethal and overwhelming force, not to be the police. They're trained to follow orders - if a vechile runs a checkpoint, or they are fired at, they will respond as they are trained.
Accidents happen, friendly fire happens, because - shock horror - the technology relies on human operators and they are fallible. In the past twenty years nearly every modern armed forces has lost more personnel and equipment to accidents and friendly fire than any enemy.
Ultimately, the military goes where it is told, democracy works like that, the politicians invoke the military, they rubber stamp policy, and so forth.
lalakersrule wrote:
> Well unless people around here have actually flown a fighter jet and
> dropped a bomb onto a small target then quite frankly they have no
> idea what the hell they're talking about either, yet that doesn't
> stop them from heckling the American pilots involved in friendly fire
> incidents does it? So exactly why if people are allowed to make those
> sort of posts am i not allowed or insulted for making the exact same
> thing just turning it on our own British troops?
The simple truth is that such attacks cause very high levels of collateral damage, from both friendly fire and missed targets. Whether that's because the pilots are gimps or because their commanders decide that such consequences are forseeable with the given equipment and acceptable isn't the point.
When we see this kind of bloodshed we don't just shrug it off, we speak up. People could whinge about the chain of command, or question the general mindset of the military, but that's really beside the point.
Instead of losing the message in a sea of beaurocracy, we look to the people who definitely do have blood on their hands - those who physically carried out the bombing.
Whether other have more, or which specific individuals we point the finger at is really absolutely beside the point we seek to make.
> And so when American fighter pilots are dropping bombs they're using
> their own eyesight are they? No they are not they're using their
> instruments as well to navigate and when to drop bombs yet i don't
> hear that being mentioned when an accident happens. Just more
> bleatings *ooooh look what America have done now*
You commented to the effect that they should have seen the other helicopters. I pointed out that was quite possibly bull. Nothing to do with fighter pilots.
> Well unless people around here have actually flown a fighter jet and
> dropped a bomb onto a small target then quite frankly they have no
> idea what the hell they're talking about either, yet that doesn't
> stop them from heckling the American pilots involved in friendly fire
> incidents does it? So exactly why if people are allowed to make those
> sort of posts am i not allowed or insulted for making the exact same
> thing just turning it on our own British troops?
The simple truth is that such attacks cause very high levels of collateral damage, from both friendly fire and missed targets. Whether that's because the pilots are gimps or because their commanders decide that such consequences are forseeable with the given equipment and acceptable isn't the point.
When we see this kind of bloodshed we don't just shrug it off, we speak up. People could whinge about the chain of command, or question the general mindset of the military, but that's really beside the point.
Instead of losing the message in a sea of beaurocracy, we look to the people who definitely do have blood on their hands - those who physically carried out the bombing.
Whether other have more, or which specific individuals we point the finger at is really absolutely beside the point we seek to make.
> And so when American fighter pilots are dropping bombs they're using
> their own eyesight are they? No they are not they're using their
> instruments as well to navigate and when to drop bombs yet i don't
> hear that being mentioned when an accident happens. Just more
> bleatings *ooooh look what America have done now*
You commented to the effect that they should have seen the other helicopters. I pointed out that was quite possibly bull. Nothing to do with fighter pilots.
Pin wrote:
> I think the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about
> is something of a distinguishing factor though.
Well unless people around here have actually flown a fighter jet and dropped a bomb onto a small target then quite frankly they have no idea what the hell they're talking about either, yet that doesn't stop them from heckling the American pilots involved in friendly fire incidents does it? So exactly why if people are allowed to make those sort of posts am i not allowed or insulted for making the exact same thing just turning it on our own British troops?
> Situations of low visibility (dark, sand kicked up by wind/rotors)
> while travelling at high speeds would clearly mean that the pilots
> could only rely on their instruments to navigate and avoid
> collisions.
And so when American fighter pilots are dropping bombs they're using their own eyesight are they? No they are not they're using their instruments as well to navigate and when to drop bombs yet i don't hear that being mentioned when an accident happens. Just more bleatings *ooooh look what America have done now*
> I think the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about
> is something of a distinguishing factor though.
Well unless people around here have actually flown a fighter jet and dropped a bomb onto a small target then quite frankly they have no idea what the hell they're talking about either, yet that doesn't stop them from heckling the American pilots involved in friendly fire incidents does it? So exactly why if people are allowed to make those sort of posts am i not allowed or insulted for making the exact same thing just turning it on our own British troops?
> Situations of low visibility (dark, sand kicked up by wind/rotors)
> while travelling at high speeds would clearly mean that the pilots
> could only rely on their instruments to navigate and avoid
> collisions.
And so when American fighter pilots are dropping bombs they're using their own eyesight are they? No they are not they're using their instruments as well to navigate and when to drop bombs yet i don't hear that being mentioned when an accident happens. Just more bleatings *ooooh look what America have done now*
*believe
Just a little incident worth remembering: I belive a British aircraft was shotdown/obliterated by a 'smart' missile from it's own side.
This was near the beginning of the war and spelled out the path future events would take there and then.
This was near the beginning of the war and spelled out the path future events would take there and then.
I think the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about is something of a distinguishing factor though.
Situations of low visibility (dark, sand kicked up by wind/rotors) while travelling at high speeds would clearly mean that the pilots could only rely on their instruments to navigate and avoid collisions.
You're welcome to have an opinion, but if it's neither informed or adequately thought out then you'd better be prepared for people to think you're a mong.
Situations of low visibility (dark, sand kicked up by wind/rotors) while travelling at high speeds would clearly mean that the pilots could only rely on their instruments to navigate and avoid collisions.
You're welcome to have an opinion, but if it's neither informed or adequately thought out then you'd better be prepared for people to think you're a mong.
Page: