There are a lot of questions. The rounds likely went off 1 1/2 miles into the edge of town somewhere, probably into the desert. They may have helped to save the soldiers lives, as i’m sure you can sumize. Other questions are" Why did the British drop bombs on civilians in Basra killing hundreds without dropping them where they could harm only the enemy? Why did they do that? Were they winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqis at the time? What about all the incidents where british soldiers killed unarmed civilians who were walking toward them trying to talk to them? Was that “winning the hearts and minds”? Why did they not take off their berets instead of killing that civilian?
What you are trying to do is very sad. You are trying fruitlessly to make the US look bad for something the British have done more of in Iraq than the US: kill innocent civilians, shoot carelessly, and spend money to help the Iraqis have things they need…
So that’s why the British are inncocent?
Bullhockey. The soldiers of every army have to account for thier fire. American soldiers do too. Are you suggesting that the British soldiers count every round and make a note about where the spent it? Good Lord dude. Are you saying US soldiers don’t have to answer for their gunfire? Just want to know what you are implying clearly, so we can get the information from the appropriate sources in here to back it up.
I was refering to the British dropping bombs on civilian in Basra and killing numerous civilians. It happened, it’s documented by the British military themselves. Are you going to say it didn’t happen now?
Let me clue you in. To spead a rumore that makes a flase claim is hatred. Now, as for the video, it showed care and consideration. More than the British showed when they opened fire upon people at a wedding and killed an 8yr old girl. You can cut the hypocritical crap now. We’ve seen that the british make the same bad mistakes in warfare that other nations do. We’ve seen that they can be careless, that they can fire upon people without knowing exactly whom they are shooting at first, that they can drop bombs of a city and kill numerous civilians instead of counting their rounds and making sure that their bombs don’t hurt anyone other than the enemy.
Oh but money does make a difference, unfortunately. Money is what many of these things cost. A billion bottles of distilled water are not free. Neither is are the materials to build a school for children or to build an electricity generation plant or a civic building. Britain could spend a lot of money on goods and supplies for the Iraqis too if they wanted. I’m sure they ARE spending some, how much I don’t know. One thing is certain: it’s one helluva lot less than the US is spending over there to help the Iraqis.
Is that what you are refering to?
Let’s get this clear so we can get the proof in on it - Are you saying that only the British do that sort of thing or that they are doing nearly as much of it as the US is? Are you saying that because some British soldiers took their berets off when they met with some Iraqis that the US is somehow not doing a good job of supporting the Iraqi people and trying to show them that they are on their side? Do you mean that because some British soldiers took off their berets the ones who shot civilians who approached them to tell them about a problem or were walking home from a friend’s house were innocent and not to be counted?
Let’s just be clear about this. Is that what you are claiming? Because if it is, I can provie a ton of information from all manner of sources that proves that’s not so, and even that the British are doing a small fraction as much to help the Iraqis as the US.
So let’s be clear about this. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]
