What civil war?

[MVB]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64677.htm

May provoke some discussion.

[Devon]

Your right, it will.

As from what I have read from that article is seems that the US millitary have taken more to the british way of dealing with the locals. Less John Wayne.

Iraiq is in a shitty situation despite what Ralph has seen. They are going to take him on the less dangerous routes to show good PR. Yes he mentioned that there were bombs around, but nowhere like the real gravity of the situation. And what happened the other day?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4817762.stm
Largest air assult since the start of the war. And for what? Seemilingly a PR stunt.

True the people might be glad of the US military there but what happens if they leave? 'World of shit' covers it i think. Thats why the people are gald of the millitary.

[Psy]

<< suprised? not in the slightest....

Just another example of what "some elements" of US media are doing. CNN reported a "civil war" as well. Tis what I been talking about, ah well.

[RazielDemon]

" Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome. "


Ok, why don't I trust this? Can anyone spot it?

[Karmashock]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64677.htm

May provoke some discussion.
Nearly everyone that actually goes to Iraq tends to have a more positive story... so this is nothing new... the darkest stories are always written by people that have never been.
================================================== ====
Your right, it will.

As from what I have read from that article is seems that the US millitary have taken more to the british way of dealing with the locals. Less John Wayne.
... can you seriously say that with a straight face?

Ok, why don't I trust this? Can anyone spot it?
Because it contradicts your party line?
================================================== =
<< suprised? not in the slightest....

Just another example of what "some elements" of US media are doing. CNN reported a "civil war" as well. Tis what I been talking about, ah well.
what do you mean by that? Are you saying that elements in US media are exaggerating the problems and focusing on negative news? Or are you saying that this report was made by a tool of the US super secret media police headed by George bush and underwritten by Satan?

sorry, your statement could be taken either way... you're refering to media bias?

and because it amuses me...
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.03.19.Worse-X.gif

[Psy]

I would hope you have intelligence enough to figure it out for yourself.

[Karmashock]

I would hope you have intelligence enough to figure it out for yourself.
Intellgence isn't the issue... you're being cyptic which will force me to make ASSUMPTIONS if you don't make your position clear.


And frankly, considering that you seem to dislike my ASSUMPTIONS I would think you that you of all people would like to set the record straight.



If you're unwilling to do that, then really you invite such ASSUMPTIONS in the future.


Now... please... either communicate clearly like an INTELLEGENT human being or stop wasting my time.

[Psy]

Considering your second option is so far removed from reality, assuming IT would be an insult to not only mine but your intelligence as well. So I'd go with 1.

And if you have comprehended anything i said in past few threads, youd know that I not only believe but have provided examples of certain, and unfortunately mainstream, US media outlets getting so creative with the truth it is laughable at the least.

This is just one example. And in this I think this guy is oversimplifying the matter as well.

Truth is always someplace in between.

[Karmashock]

Considering your second option is so far removed from reality, assuming IT would be an insult to not only mine but your intelligence as well. So I'd go with 1.
I made option 2 artfically unattractive... you could be saying that american media reports are vaguely influenced by a varity of factors that causes them to support administration perspectives occasionally.


After all, american media is biased toward the US as you've said in the past.


That would imply option 2... not option 1.

And if you have comprehended anything i said in past few threads, youd know that I not only believe but have provided examples of certain, and unfortunately mainstream, US media outlets getting so creative with the truth it is laughable at the least.
In this case european/canadian media would be EQUALLY biased as MANY international media sources have reported civil war in Iraq and been very negative on the whole Iraq thing...


In fact, US media is strongly influenced by international sources... they feel they're being dishonest if they don't have the same additude as other sources.


So it's almost impossible for there to be a big difference in any way shape or form between American media... and what ever other Western source YOU happen to like in the next twenty seconds... but dismiss there after in favor of something else...

Much to our mutual detriment... I think the world would do to have more diversity in it's reporting... but the media people are idiots...

And in this I think this guy is oversimplifying the matter as well.

Truth is always someplace in between.
Saddam is out of power and the US is trying to build a new and better future for them.

In freedom and prosperity.


That's something that the bitter little twits are just going to have to get over.


We're not devils... we're not confused. We're doing good things... and it takes time. It's only been a few years since that country was under a brutal dictatorship and like soap oprea watching retards lots of people assume that the whole thing is going to shit if it isn't turned into paradise by the next commerical break.


That's the fact.

[Psy]

While CNN, constantly reported violent riots re; cartoon, canadian media had the other side of the story as well - the peaceful voicing of disaproval. This is what I have seen, and I follow CNN on a pretty much regular basis.

yet as far as majority in US is concerned the reaction was "violent". It was, just not entirely so.

Selective reporting, which only further shapes the public opinion. And in the context of war in iraq which can not escape "Islam" aspect, it only serves to promote it. I am not debating the goals, I am simply not in favor of the such an enviroment wher media shapes public opinion to suit current administration policy - always a bad thing. Also a big difference

And candian media has reported isolated pockets of conflict which "have the potential for breaking into larger, civil conflict", they didn't report a "civil war".

Media role should be to report facts and facts alone and in entirety using neutral language.

I sincerely believe you underestimate the role, and most importantly impact media plays and has in all this.

[Karmashock]

While CNN, constantly reported violent riots re; cartoon, canadian media had the other side of the story as well - the peaceful voicing of disaproval. This is what I have seen, and I follow CNN on a pretty much regular basis.
So AMERICAN media company CNN is showing information that is explictly NEGATIVE to the AMERICAN Administration.

Point.

yet as far as majority in US is concerned the reaction was "violent". It was, just not entirely so.
Don't entirely get what you're saying here... What does "Not entirely so" mean in this context?

Selective reporting, which only further shapes the public opinion. And in the context of war in iraq which can not escape "Islam" aspect, it only serves to promote it. I am not debating the goals, I am simply not in favor of the such an enviroment wher media shapes public opinion to suit current administration policy - always a bad thing.

I agree. But as you've said, the media is AGAINST the administration, not FOR it.

I agree that it would be better if they were simply Fair and Balanced about the whole thing... but that's a trick that old dog has forgotten.

It thinks it's being Fair and Balanced by being critical. It has confused being HOSTILE to american interests with being unbiased.



And candian media has reported isolated pockets of conflict which "have the potential for breaking into larger, civil conflict", they didn't report a "civil war".
I bet I could show a major canadian media outlet either in print or on air that made that claim... and I think you know it... I've been reading that "it's in the wind" for ages... while at the same time everyone that actually GOES TO IRAQ says just about the exact fucking opposite...


Media role should be to report facts and facts alone and in entirety using neutral language.
No disagreement.

I sincerely believe you underestimate the role, and most importantly impact media plays and has in all this.
You're sincerely wrong then...

[Psy]

Don't entirely get what you're saying here... What does "Not entirely so" mean in this context?


In context of violent - it was, just not entirely so. Meaning is simple. There were violent outbursts, however the reaction was far from "violent". Simple really.

Also:

Your very basic premise which you use to try and dismiss the argument is flawed. Civil war danger in Iraq is not negative it is quite positive media spin of the gov. policy and promotes the prolonged stay of troops.

If US withdraws and country plunges in civil war, not only will US be to blame for destabilizing the region even more, but it will also be seen as abandoning the people it so tried to free/protect from a bad "regime".

"point"

Us fighting in iraq in efforts to stabilize the place is again seen and can only be, a positive force, selfless and aimed at bringing liberty and peace to iraq.

"Point"

The whole argument allows US to maintain presence, even if only administrative because having been there they will not be taking sides, they will be seen as impartial.

"Point"

The whole story serves to justify and prepare public for a prolonged stay, and exuse the administation for being stuck in the region this long.

You listen, but you dont quite hear it....


You're sincerely wrong then...

Not possible because :

1. You dismiss the stance outlying language choice and event choice as a tool influencing public opinion.
2. You dismiss the examples of active and overt influence of such language.

What you don't hear is sometimes more important than what you do hear. That is why not saying the whole truth is same as outright lying.

[Karmashock]

In context of violent - it was, just not entirely so. Meaning is simple. There were violent outbursts, however the reaction was far from "violent". Simple really.
I know what the words mean, I asked for the context... the above quote does not define that context AT ALL.

Define it or as with all your cryptic half thoughts it will be stricken from the record.

Your very basic premise which you use to try and dismiss the argument is flawed. Civil war danger in Iraq is not negative it is quite positive media spin of the gov. policy and promotes the prolonged stay of troops.

You really have a very twisted sense of logic... you're now saying that the US WANTS things to go badly in Iraq to justify further occupation?

Bro... this is why I tend to include space aliens and men in black helocopters when I'm talking to you... that's just fucking paranoid bullshit.

If US withdraws and country plunges in civil war, not only will US be to blame for destabilizing the region even more, but it will also be seen as abandoning the people it so tried to free/protect from a bad "regime".

point.
And if Iraq turns into a peaceful little republic that 100 million times better for the administration.


Why would we want troops there? It just costs us blood, gold, and honor.

We want to leave as soon as we can... not stay.


You have no point.

Us fighting in iraq in efforts to stabilize the place is again seen and can only be, a positive force, selfless and aimed at bringing liberty and peace to iraq.
Point.
No... you have YOURSELF several times tried to use it to claim incompetence on our part...

Again... *shakes head in disgust*... no point.



The whole story serves to justify and prepare public for a prolonged stay, and exuse the administation for being stuck in the region this long.
No, it discredits the administration and makes it seem weak and stupid.


If we wanted to credit the administration we'd show happy iraqis begging us to stay with mean ol' terrorists blowing up babies.


Instead the media shows a mounting US death toll, mounting costs, a situation we cannot control, CONSTANT REFERENCES TO VIETNAM FOR FUCK SAKE - FUCKTARD, and many other obvious examples a child wouldn't miss...

You listen, but you dont quite hear it....
You'll be able to have an opinion on that when you have ears to begin with...

[Psy]

karma, simplicity incarnate.

If you create a mess in a room. Do you:

1. leave and make itclean itself?
2. appear to be the good kid that you are and spend time cleaning it up

As for the "context"

the context was fucking clear dolt. Some Pprotests were violent yes, but not all protests were violent. Clear now? Fucking hell. Thick.

no patience for you now. Got a few other things to check out instead of being stuck in perpetual bullshit which has no point but to stroke your ego .

[Karmashock]

You pathetic side step of a word in MAX SIZE TYPE is hilarious.


Kill yourself. :lol:

[Psy]

That was relevant? Maybe in your mind.

Media sources I look at simply bash the aproval rating, and just this morning some fat dude I didnt catch a name of dissed Bush's efforts as well. No (official) mention of Vietnam tho, to my recent memory. Assuming you are trying to say vietnam is used as a tool to paint the Iraq war as a mistake and is percieved as such.

in that acse you completely missed the point of doing something seemingly against the motive to arrive at the original goal. Its psych 101, known best and closest to pop cultures reverse psychology understanding.


Facts karma. is all I will be happy with. No 'in depth' analysis reports - just reports , don't tell me what to think, just the what, where, and the who. The rest always falls into place.

First step being neutral words, when you constantly report "defend" "was attacked " and the like you invariably paint the good guy on one end and bad guy on the other, even if the good guy tends to be the actual agressor.

You can say the same thing in same amount of time by saying "conflict between a and B escalated with first shot fired by a or b".

Done, and the latter being a simple fact of the event.

problem is the wording and effect, couldnt care less about motives as I have no control over them anyway, nor can I hope to have access to the full truth.

[Karmashock]

That was relevant?
we both know it was a damning point that you had no answer to... Point, match.


Have a nice day.

[Psy]

In your mind and your mind alone. In mine it is a forfiet, rather than "point, match"

Ditto.

[Karmashock]

In your mind and your mind alone. In mine it is a forfiet, rather than "point, match"

Ditto.
You can 'say' whatever you like... it doesn't change what we both know.

[Psy]

Exactly the same. And sure you can convince self of that.

See how stupid it is? Unlike you tho that power trip is irelevant to me so i can post as i remember to.

[Karmashock]

Exactly the same. And sure you can convince self of that.

See how stupid it is? Unlike you tho that power trip is irelevant to me so i can post as i remember to.
Just go away... you disgust me.


You post your half baked theories and when I question them you ignore the point was made.

I say you're doing it and you simply come up with reasons to continue to avoid the points. I call that point match and you like some retarded child try to mimic me.


Just kill yourself... you're too pathetic to tolerate.

*makes brushing motions*

[Psy]

Rofl you are impossible. Want a cookie?

I wasn't mimicking you oh great one, I was mirroring your stupidity.

That and I have allready answered your argument. The fact you disagree with the answer and thus treat it as non-existant is not my problem.

Oh and I'd say ditto, but please don't kill self, you are a good comic relief at times.

[Karmashock]

I wasn't mimicking you oh great one, I was mirroring
you're an idiot.

[Devon]

... can you seriously say that with a straight face?
yep
american millitary attitudes tend to be a bit more bull to a red flag style. Brits tend to be a bit more laid back about things

[Karmashock]

yep
american millitary attitudes tend to be a bit more bull to a red flag style. Brits tend to be a bit more laid back about things
You wouldn't know that.

And it's rather convenient that you would believe yet another flattering thing about your country that has no proof to back it up. Or would you rather I not bring up the whole concord discussion.

[MVB]

Watching Psy and Karma have a stupid, thick-headed retard argument about something they agreed on made me laugh.

The comments about us vs. british military approaches is comical in its ignorance.

[Karmashock]

Watching Psy and Karma have a stupid, thick-headed retard argument about something they agreed on made me laugh.
clarify that... I'm starting to suspect that you only take pot shots at me to remain credible with your thick headed associates.

[Devon]

You wouldn't know that.

And it's rather convenient that you would believe yet another flattering thing about your country that has no proof to back it up. Or would you rather I not bring up the whole concord discussion.
OK, I do.

I am serving the British armed forces, I do know what the situation is there and I do know the differences in attitudes. There is a noteable differance on how the two countires go about warfare out there. If you dont believe me, fine, I wont lose sleep over it

[MVB]

clarify that... I'm starting to suspect that you only take pot shots at me to remain credible with your thick headed associates.
This is of course the true reason for my supposed pot shot. Mug root beer. Now THAT'S thick headed. Or maybe that's A&W. It doesn't matter.

THICK BABY.

[Karmashock]

OK, I do.

I am serving the British armed forces, I do know what the situation is there and I do know the differences in attitudes. There is a noteable differance on how the two countires go about warfare out there. If you dont believe me, fine, I wont lose sleep over it
I'm sorry, I just need this point clarified.


Are you saying you are or have been a british soldier serving in Iraq along side American troops?


Yes or no?


And understand that a Yes answer will not cause me to dismiss you. In fact, it will make me very curious about you. I do not reject things that contradict me... I examine them... I deeply value first hand perspectives of british soldiers in Iraq.

Of course... an answer of "no" will mean you're just wasting my time... and I think you could understand my irritation in that regard.
This is of course the true reason for my supposed pot shot.
I have no recourse but to assume when you only surface to make a cryptic remark before submerging again... you're not giving me any choice.

[MVB]

I have no recourse but to assume when you only surface to make a cryptic remark before submerging again... you're not giving me any choice.

Fine, fine, if I must be less cryptic, you first ...
A/S/L? You tell me yours and I'll tell you mine snookums.

I believe Psy agreed with you off the bat, and it became a full-blown argument b/c he wasn't specific enough in his agreement. The whole page of back-and-forth detracted (IMO) from discussing whether Iraq is actually as bad as stated, and became a pissing fest b/tween the two of you. Some probably found this dumb, I found it funny in a retarded way.

[Karmashock]

I believe Psy agreed with you off the bat
I thought that as well, so I asked him to clarify here:
<< suprised? not in the slightest....

Just another example of what "some elements" of US media are doing. CNN reported a "civil war" as well. Tis what I been talking about, ah well.
what do you mean by that? Are you saying that elements in US media are exaggerating the problems and focusing on negative news? Or are you saying that this report was made by a tool of the US super secret media police headed by George bush and underwritten by Satan?

sorry, your statement could be taken either way... you're refering to media bias?

and it became a full-blown argument b/c he wasn't specific enough in his agreement. The whole page of back-and-forth detracted (IMO) from discussing whether Iraq is actually as bad as stated, and became a pissing fest b/tween the two of you. Some probably found this dumb, I found it funny in a retarded way.
Ah, but you see, I asked him what he was talking about and he was vague because he KNEW that I would tear his lungs out if he admitted that it was in fact option 2.

It took me most of the arguement to get it out of him... here you go:
If US withdraws and country plunges in civil war, not only will US be to blame for destabilizing the region even more, but it will also be seen as abandoning the people it so tried to free/protect from a bad "regime".

"point"

Us fighting in iraq in efforts to stabilize the place is again seen and can only be, a positive force, selfless and aimed at bringing liberty and peace to iraq.

"Point"

The whole argument allows US to maintain presence, even if only administrative because having been there they will not be taking sides, they will be seen as impartial.

"Point"

The whole story serves to justify and prepare public for a prolonged stay, and exuse the administation for being stuck in the region this long.
What he's really saying here is that US Media is going negative on the war TO BENIFIT THE US ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP THE TROOPS THERE!


Are you getting this?


I countered that point and then he went into full blown evade mode.


At which point I told him he wasn't fooling me, though clearly he's fooling some other people, and I really didn't feel like wasting any more time on him.


I'm clear. Clarity is good. I am good. Ohhhh yeeeah.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[MVB]

STOP EVADING MY QUESTION KARMA

A/S/L

NOW!

[Karmashock]

STOP EVADING MY QUESTION KARMA

A/S/L

NOW!
Don't change the subject...

sigh... how about this... I'll give you my asl so you can think about me while humping a mandoll... but in return, I'm going to have good faith that you'll respond to my previous questions to you.


22/M/Los angeles

I'm guessing you already knew that... but you asked.

[MVB]

My main problem, Karma, is that you are not an idiot. You knew Psy was agreeing with you. However, rather than let it be at that, and move on with the discussion of civil war or not, you decided to bait a person you've enjoyed baiting and/or "nailing" in the past. I found this petty and small-minded, a mere attempt by you to try and prove semantical, argumentative and rhetorical genius instead of address the original subject - civil war or not in Iraq. You could easily mask this by saying "oh well we discussed so and so and that's important," but the subject matter was merely the medium of you trying to wreak your litigious havoc upon Psy.

Fortunately, it did at least server to entertain me.

[Karmashock]

You knew Psy was agreeing with you.
No, he only made it 'sound' like he was agreeing... Psy is a very slippery character and is attracted to obviously flawed points masked by evasive tastics and/or petty loopholes.

I perviously pointed out TO YOU just a second ago that Psy was saying that US media is biased against the conditions in Iraq because the US administration wants to keep troops there.


He is saying that CNN and other major media outlets are saying bad things about Iraq to keep US troops there because secretely the US wants to keep it's troops there longer.


Do you get it?


Let me put it this way. Lets say if we asked two people what they thought of murder.

Ok... that's the hypothetical question... stay with me.

BOTH people say murder is wrong.

Boom, it looks like they agree, right? You'd think so... But wait for the twist.


Person A thinks murder is wrong because it hurts people and he's against people getting hurt.

Person B thinks murder is wrong because it doesn't hurt people enough and he's FOR hurting people.


See... they don't really agree. Person A wants people to be happy and unharmed... person be wants them screaming in pain under horrible torture.


There is no real agreement. Merely the illusion of agreement... which is something Psy is famous for at this point.


Do you see my point? Please stay with me here... go over the posts again or ask me to lay it out... But I really need you to see what I'm doing for what it REALLY is.

I'm not baiting Psy... i'm extracting truth from his bullshit.

Fortunately, it did at least server to entertain me.
Of that at least I'm glad. I do like people to have a good time here.

If you'd like to further the discussion about the Civil war, then I'm up for that... but I would like you to see my conversation with psy for what it really was... Make an effort to judge me fairly... because I don't want to think of you as the sort that merely takes opinions based on what is most fashionable at the moment with his peers.

[MVB]

What bothers me, Karma, and what I've been getting at - and I get you, don't get me wrong, I realize Psy's position and your desire to extract it out of him - is that the subject of this post was not "why do you think murder is wrong," but simply "do you believe murder is wrong?"

There are people who I'm sure believe that Iraq is embroiled in a bitter civil war, and this former intel officer is full of his own balogne. I tend to agree with the intel fellow who visited the place. Psy, by all accounts including yours, agrees there isn't actually a civil war. I understand you weren't satisfied with that, but by pursuing it so vigorously you ended up sending the debate off on a direction only faintly related - and then tangentially.

Any potential input was probably defrayed by observers avoiding getting embroiled in the flashy verbal duel that ensued.

So anyway I get what you're getting at, and I hope you now get me. Sticking with your analogy, I'd rather see the people who disagree on whether murder is wrong debate, rather than those who agree on it being wrong debating on their exact reasons why, because this pigeonholes the subject into a place altogether less exciting.

I find the argument about media/US gov't wanting to keep our troops there distasteful largely b/c it is non-provable. Evidence either way is purely circumstantial or argumentative, not fact-based at all. There are no government papers endorsing a media campaign to swing the populace in favor of keeping our troops in Iraq, etc. etc.

[Psy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psy

I wasn't mimicking you oh great one, I was mirroring

you're an idiot.


And you need to learn english.

Mimicking and mirroring are two diferent terms, it is quite pathetic someone with an english as a second language can own your ass on home turf. Learn english - maybe you'll actually understand some points.

-Mimicking - assuming the exact property of the external entity/argument whatever
-Mirroring - sticking it to Karma up the ass and with cynicism.

also for the slow among us:

Mimick - EXACT duplicate
Mirror - inverse image

They can be interchanged due to liberty allowed in english language but are not, depending on context, anywhere near being the exact same.

You are far too dumb at times. And you are trying to argue on english use which is very context dependant with someone who has shit published. Go fuck self k?




There are no government papers endorsing a media campaign to swing the populace in favor of keeping our troops in Iraq, etc. etc.

There are documents and memos outlying the exact words a reporter must use in several issues.

And yes he always goes off on a tangental bait. And always acts like a little bitch then pretends hes only - pop quiz karma- doing the following:

mirroring or mimicking the attitude recieved?

Lolz

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Karmashock]

So anyway I get what you're getting at, and I hope you now get me.
I'm glad and I think I do.

Anyway, I'll do my best to try and slavage the discussion as you'd like it to have been.


The best I can do for now is to ignore Psy's attempts at redemption.... sorry if that statement is provocative all on it's own... it's the best I can manage under the circumstances.

[Psy]

And prior to this, you accuse me of evading your points - insane comedy.

This was not an attempt at redemption. That would mean I have something to redeem. No Karma. This was exactly what it said.

Altho this little mimick and mirror tangent pretty much illustrates your posts in their entirety, no matter the external reality of what you see/read/hear, you reject that reality in favor of your own, substitute it and then go at it.

Incidentaly delusions do the same.

[Devon]

I'm sorry, I just need this point clarified.
Are you saying you are or have been a british soldier serving in Iraq along side American troops?

Yes or no?

And understand that a Yes answer will not cause me to dismiss you. In fact, it will make me very curious about you. I do not reject things that contradict me... I examine them... I deeply value first hand perspectives of british soldiers in Iraq.

Of course... an answer of "no" will mean you're just wasting my time... and I think you could understand my irritation in that regard.
Dismiss me if you will, I arrived onto the unit 4 months after they had returned from Iraq. The imformation I know about it is from the people who were out there at the start of the war. I also recieve information every 2 weeks or so on current events that are taking place out there. And I also usualy work with americans weeky.

Now, I do understand if you feel that this is not good enougth, but its the best I can provide on the subject and i am sorry to have ' irritated' you.

[Karmashock]

Dismiss me if you will, I arrived onto the unit 4 months after they had returned from Iraq.
You've merely misrepresented yourself... I don't think you were dishonest as you're close. But you have ZERO first hand experence.

I find your information interesting of course... but far less credible then if it were from your personal experence.

The imformation I know about it is from the people who were out there at the start of the war. I also recieve information every 2 weeks or so on current events that are taking place out there. And I also usualy work with americans weeky.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested... tell me stories... tell me what you have been told... obviously it was in regards to specific incidents...


Of course, you should also understand that the US and Britian had different objectives in the war. By which I mean different jobs... The US was the one expected to bleed... the ones with the heavy fire power... the meat shields.

Britian, like most of our allies, has been largely tasked with easier assignments. This is NOT because you can't handle harder assignments, but because you're more likely to pull out if there are problems. At least that is our preception.


So Americans might only be going John Wayne because they're the only ones that can deal with the consequences of losing people when that happens. Where as britian has been playing it safe because it is precieved that if it doesn't it will bail from the conflict.


That seems more logical to me... Your thoughts?

[Devon]

Granted, it is quiter in the south of the country. However;

Take day to day attitudes, The british armed forces have been patoling on foot in northen island for years... Now, because it is not a war zone they have to use softly softly tactics. No hard hats, minimal armored vehicles, more of better armed police force if you like. The US army does not have the same experience in the same enviroment.

US personel who are serving get a medal for just flying over northen Island did you know? Alway makes me smile. In a argument in the street in Iraq (think this got aired on TV in the UK) a US troop was desfusing an agrument by shouting "WHO'S GOT THE GUN?, WHOS GOT THE GUN?" and waving a gun in this persons face, who had no idea what he was saying. Not the best way about it.

Also US troops patrol in armored vehicles around the streets. British patrols are either on foot with soft hats or in open toped Land Rovers. This gives a less threating aproach towards the local population. When raiding a house US troops tend to storm in guns blazing. In the south (most of the time) British troops would knock on the door to explain that they are searching the house. Showing respect towards the homeowners leads to better relations between miltiary and civil populations.

The two countires armys have differnt 'Rules of engament' as well. This means when, or when you cannot open fire. Americans, I am lead to believe can shoot if they feel threatned. Now no doubt they open fire quite a bit as they often feel in danger. British troops have a more restricted rules of engament.

There was some traing not long back of US troops been show the 'softer' more dipolmatic attitides towards pecekeeping that UK forces have been doing for years. Across most of teh world UK troops have been doing peacekeeping N Island is just one. Unfortinaly I am limited on how much i can post, I hope that this has given you some idea of events out there.


Curse this 10min time limit to post and having to re-type most of the above. grrr
But 300th post!, ooooo, land mark

[MVB]

Karmashock hit it on the head, and your post supported it.

The British troops are operating in a soft zone, and as a result they operate softly. US troops can't wear soft hats and ride in open-topped vehicles - they'd get shot. They can't politely ask Iraqi insurgents if they have guns - they'd get shot or worse.

Totally different situations ... what's funny is that you thinking the US are adopting a British approach isn't quite accurate, but is quite telling. The situation is improving, so US troops are ABLE to take a softer approach than they used to. It's not the British approach, it's the easier-zone approach. You think it's the British approach b/c the British troops have been operating - for political reasons, not b/c they can't handle it - in softer zones.

[Karmashock]

Granted, it is quiter in the south of the country. However;

Take day to day attitudes, The british armed forces have been patoling on foot in northen island for years... Now, because it is not a war zone they have to use softly softly tactics. No hard hats, minimal armored vehicles, more of better armed police force if you like. The US army does not have the same experience in the same enviroment.

US personel who are serving get a medal for just flying over northen Island did you know?
What is northern island? Do you mean Northern Ireland?... Sorry... you've just confused me... I can't think of anything called Northern Island that a US pilot would get a metal for flying over.

Alway makes me smile. In a argument in the street in Iraq (think this got aired on TV in the UK) a US troop was desfusing an agrument by shouting "WHO'S GOT THE GUN?, WHOS GOT THE GUN?" and waving a gun in this persons face, who had no idea what he was saying. Not the best way about it.
I rather doubt that the US is exclusively guilty of that... I remember british people getting all proud about the prison scandel...


And then they got busted for the exact same thing... now EVERYONE that has run one of those prisons has been busted... even the Danish...

So there might be something to what you say... but I bet it happens on both sides.

Also US troops patrol in armored vehicles around the streets. British patrols are either on foot with soft hats or in open toped Land Rovers. This gives a less threating aproach towards the local population.
there might be something to that... but given the choice between the two, I bet you'd rather ride in the humvee.

When raiding a house US troops tend to storm in guns blazing. In the south (most of the time) British troops would knock on the door to explain that they are searching the house. Showing respect towards the homeowners leads to better relations between miltiary and civil populations.
I wouldn't know about either sides tendency to do one or the other... but I do know we knock too... I don't know if that's "most of the time"...

The two countires armys have differnt 'Rules of engament' as well. This means when, or when you cannot open fire. Americans, I am lead to believe can shoot if they feel threatned. Now no doubt they open fire quite a bit as they often feel in danger. British troops have a more restricted rules of engament.
the rules are related to your roles... the US is put in "hotter" zones. Which I think means you have to open fire sooner... or die.

There was some traing not long back of US troops been show the 'softer' more dipolmatic attitides towards pecekeeping that UK forces have been doing for years. Across most of teh world UK troops have been doing peacekeeping N Island is just one. Unfortinaly I am limited on how much i can post, I hope that this has given you some idea of events out there.
I don't know how much stock I'd put in that... the US and UK cross train their troops all the time... we learn from you... you learn from us... it's part of keeping our militaries in sync.

[Devon]

Northern Ireland, not Island. D'oh!! er yea dislexiya on my part.
:sleep:
I'm going to bed cause I carnt spell or type propley.
*Good night*

[Karmashock]

So wait... you're saying "US personel who are serving get a medal for just flying over northen <Ireland> did you know?"


I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one... there is no way that US personel get a medal for flying over Northern Ireland... I mean... tourists fly over Northern Ireland... and the US doesn't take it's Medals any less seriously then the UK does.

[Devon]

I rather doubt that the US is exclusively guilty of that... I remember british people getting all proud about the prison scandel
You miss read about what it is reference to. Is about how to clam hostile situations between the military and local the civi population. Not beating up prisoners and taking photos of if. But yes there are those who do that on both sides. Watch me beat this person up and take photos!! Dumass

the rules are related to your roles... the US is put in "hotter" zones. Which I think means you have to open fire sooner... or die.
The believe the rules are standard on matter where the location.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one... there is no way that US personel get a medal for flying over Northern Ireland... I mean... tourists fly over Northern Ireland... and the US doesn't take it's Medals any less seriously then the UK doesYea I though that to. But aperanty so, I can not say for certian if it is still in force but is was viewed as a war zone. The US does give out medals a bit more though. Oh and most civi traffic is to the south of Ireland
=====================================
Totally different situations ... what's funny is that you thinking the US are adopting a British approach isn't quite accurate,
Well not across the board, but in places they are.
The situation is improving,
Just one thing to that: :lol:


But anyway true, there is alot of politics behind the whole thing

[Karmashock]

You miss read about what it is reference to. Is about how to clam hostile situations between the military and local the civi population. Not beating up prisoners and taking photos of if. But yes there are those who do that on both sides. Watch me beat this person up and take photos!! Dumass
uhh... I think you misunderstood me.

I am saying that both sides have soldiers under a lot of stress and both sides have people that make mistakes... or over react to things.

The US is more likely to have bad situations happen to us because... and pay attention here:

A: The US is put into more dangerous situations.

B: There are a LOT LOT LOT more of us over there then anyone else.


Look at the casualities... I saw this list on CNN that summed it up rather nicely.

It showed ALL allied casualities in chronological order.

It goes something like this:
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
UK
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
UK
UK
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
Figi
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American
American

No one but perhaps the Iraqis themselves have a simliar situation.

We lose one soldier a DAY.

The believe the rules are standard on matter where the location.
I know they're not. The rules change depending on your mission.

Yea I though that to. But aperanty so, I can not say for certian if it is still in force but is was viewed as a war zone. The US does give out medals a bit more though. Oh and most civi traffic is to the south of Ireland
Yeah, I'm going to have to say it's something british soldiers tell each other to feel smug... probably started out as a joke... then someone didn't get the joke and told it as fact.


I'm going to bet that's an urban legend.

Post a link that shows otherwise.

Just one thing to that: :lol:
We've accomplished a lot. The situation is by no means getting worse and there's no danger of civil war unless we pull out.

Iran and Syria are TRYING to start a civil war... but that's being dealt with. If Iran keeps dicking with us, we'll cross the boarder.

[Karmashock]

Found the list

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

There have been 2,525 coalition deaths, 2,319 Americans, one Australian, 103 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, two Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of March 23, 2006, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. At least 17,269 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.

So the US has taken 22.5 times as many casualties as the UK.

You can't compare our situations... they're the very different.


I also found the racial break down to be rather enlightening.


You know how people say "you're sending minorities over there to die for you"...


Well, that's a load of bullshit.

Deaths by race:
White: 1,654
Hispanic: 248
Black: 231
Asian: 37
Other: 48
Unknown: 29

Even if we add up all the other races OTHER then white it's still overwhelming.
At...

White 1654
to
Other 593



Yet again proving the maxim: Michael Moore is always wrong... about everything... if he says it's light outside then the sun set hours ago.

It's an inescapable fact of the universe... I guess we should be glad that he's always bleeting about some negative pessimistic shit... if he were upbeat we'd all be fucked.

[Devon]

So the US has taken 22.5 times as many casualties as the UK.

Well, yea
you've got lots more troops out there.
Kind of ovious USA would take more casulties...

We've accomplished a lot. The situation is by no means getting worse and there's no danger of civil war unless we pull out.
Still finding that funny.
Oh, it all goes to ratshit if we pull out. But that does not mean it still wont get worse while we are there.

[Karmashock]

Well, yea
you've got lots more troops out there.
Kind of ovious USA would take more casulties...
And more obvious that there would be more bad things that our people would be responsible for... as well AS GOOD THINGS!!! But no one cares about that apparently.


Still finding that funny.
Oh, it all goes to ratshit if we pull out. But that does not mean it still wont get worse while we are there.
You shouldn't find it funny, Iraq is transitioning from a dictatorship to a republic. That takes a lot of time and hard work.


Expecting it to happen any easier then this is nieve.

[Devon]

You shouldn't find it funny, Iraq is transitioning from a dictatorship to a republic. That takes a lot of time and hard work.
No, I am finding that everyone on a diet of CNN who thinks that the current situation is good and there is no danger of a civil war, funny.

[Bentusi]

No, I am finding that everyone on a diet of CNN who thinks that the current situation is good and there is no danger of a civil war, funny.

dude, seriously. Your digging a hole deeper and deeper and your gonna die in it.

[Karmashock]

No, I am finding that everyone on a diet of CNN who thinks that the current situation is good and there is no danger of a civil war, funny.
I'm not on a diet of CNN, in fact I challenge you to find how many times I've quoted them?

I quote the BBC, the AP, and Reuters primarly.

I'm tired of these pathetic and clearly bigoted remarks from people that wouldn't know objectivity if laid alien babies in their stomach and burst out through their chests...

I say this not because I'd be ashamed to use CNN, there's nothing wrong with it. it says ALMOST THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING AS THE BBC YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE FUCKWIT! I mean, do you even read it? Or is this just more rampant foaming at the mouth anti americanism? Because that kind of thing isn't worthy of anything beyond a foaming dog... and foaming dogs are to be pitted and put out of their misery.


The fact of the matter is that we expected this... we have been prepared for it and we are being realistic. You don't turn a country around like this in a few years. And what we are doing in that region will continue for at least another 30 years minimum. We are changing the course of a whole culture... we are converting a whole civilization. And in that regard, we are winning. We are stiring the pot... that means that all the venom will rise to the surface... noxious gases and hate... but that's just the first step towards change. It will cost... but it is worth it.

It costs blood.
It costs sweat.
It costs tears.
It costs gold.


and it costs faith.


You ante up or fold. That's how the game is played... if it's too rich for you, then you fold your hand and go back to the kiddy table.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Devon]

not you yourself karma, my apologes.
I just get fucked off with some people who think that its A-OK out there and it all smells of roses. They see one news report and base the whole thing on that. Bha! I am deveating from people in this forum, just got fucked off about it thats all.

But as for my opinion it stands that I have no confidence in the situation getting better. yes your right, 30yers +, but no time soon

[Karmashock]

not you yourself karma, my apologes.
Don't get "fucked off" about something you don't understand.

Americans are positive because it's part of our culture. We are a postive people. It has nothing to do with news sources or brain washing or aliens from mars.

The english pride themselves on their sense of humor, americans pride themselves on their defiant optimism.

I just get fucked off with some people who think that its A-OK out there and it all smells of roses.
A-ok it isn't, but hardly a lost cause either. It's just hard work.


Hard boody work... that is no reason to give up or bitch like a some whining puppy because you don't like to get your hands dirty.

They see one news report and base the whole thing on that. Bha! I am deveating from people in this forum, just got fucked off about it thats all.
They don't base it off one report, it's just considered to be the 'lasted' evidence of progress.

But as for my opinion it stands that I have no confidence in the situation getting better. yes your right, 30yers +, but no time soon
30 years is the time table for the whole region.

Iran, syria, etc.