A villiage? Good Lord. You mean an insurgent camp kid. Like the USAF looks down on a village of civies with a satelite and a 12,000mm camera zoom lens and sees children playing in the street and an old lady walking with a pale of water on her head and says, “Hey! Let’s bomb those civilian f*cks!”
Go Fuchs yourself kid. You assertions are false and hateful, and the same could be said of UK soldiers. But I’m not a hatemonger like you. I’m not going to post hundreds of reports of UK soldiers killing civilians, which could be done if I wanted.
You are very much an anti-American punkish hatemonger. Go try to make your life matter somewhere else.
Kid? Thanks I’ll take that as a compliment been a while since anyone has thought of me being that young must be my dashing good looks.
I’m no “hatemonger” and I have worked with good, professional US soldiers BUT I find that seen as a whole the US forces are lacking in some very important areas which leads to the problems that have been discussed. Although saying that I dont particularly like you but that’s personal and has nothing to do with your nationality.
“Anti-American” not at all but I call a spade a spade and if I see something I dont agree with even in an allied nation I will mention it, that’s all part of the learning process.
“Punkish” well in my youth I quite liked the Clash, Sex Pistols, Ramones etc if that’s what you mean?
“Hatemonger” I hold no hate for any nation, just individuals.
As for “my life” I’ve got one thank you and very happy with it I am.
As for British troops killing civilians I’m sure you could find reports especially if you go back a few hundred years but lets keep it in the context of modern times. The British Army has learned it’s lesson and all suspect cases are investigated and if found at fault soldiers are punished, what did happen to the US soldiers that shot up the Italians?
Edited to say: Hey Tinwalt I thought you were going to give a reason for your edits, you seem to have forgotten that rule pretty quick.
A villiage? Good Lord. You mean an insurgent camp kid. Like the USAF looks down on a village of civies with a satelite and a 12,000mm camera zoom lens and sees children playing in the street and an old lady walking with a pale of water on her head and says, “Hey! Let’s bomb those civilian f*cks!”
After being targetted by the USAF on at least 8 occasions I take statements like “Insurgent camp” or “scud launcher” with a pinch of salt.
Yes, I edited it to remove something i should not say, because I am unlike you. I am not a hatemonger, and I’m not going to resort to posting all of the reports about the gobs of civilians UK soldiers have killed in Iraq and elsewhere. That is what YOU do. So, enjoy it. Just know that as you do it, it is transperent, it is not what the world knows, and it is your character that is being expressed.
We were not attacked purely because we foresaw the problem and briefed your command staff very carefully and very clearly about where we were and what our vehicles looked like (even going as far as carrying out a little demonstration) so when the requests came in from pilots there was someone on the ground who thought twice before granting permision if we had not had this forethought I’m sure we would have been attacked. Btw do US pilots still only get recognition training with US vehicles, along the lines of if it’s not ours it’s the enemy?
BUT IT’S YOUR JOB TO INFORM THEM. You’re looking for praise for it? You’re claiming you would have been attacked if you had not done your job and saying that’s the USAF’s fault?
I was editing before you posted. What I had posted was:
“And you escaped the USAF’s guided weapons 8 times?”
I will edit 1st post second now that you guys are posting so hot and heavy. :lol:
Not for small targets. Good Lord. They didn’t in Iraq 1, what makes you think they’ve gone back to old technology. You’ve being intentionally silly now. :roll:
[quote="IRONMAN
BUT IT’S YOUR JOB TO INFORM THEM. You’re looking for praise for it? You’re claiming you would have been attacked if you had not done your job and saying that’s the USAF’s fault?
[/quote]
Of course it’s our job to inform, but it is unusual to have to go to the lengths we did and in the end it was necessary. We were operating at a site where it was known allied troops were situated and at least 8 of your pilots targetted us and had their thumbs on the button. I do believe we were not once targetted by British aircraft and they did not receive a walk through talk through demonstration from us.
I think you may have missed the part where I pointed out that you were the one who was wrong.
It was the part where I said :
"All in response to a factual and proven post.
The only person posting anything preposterous was you.
If you had been back to that thread, Ironman you would have found this link : http://whitlamdismissal.com/overview/
Read it, please.
Now, you were wrong. It wasn’t a matter of opinion, you were just plain out and out wrong.
And it is precisely that kind of casual, condescending insulting of other posters when they are right and you’re wrong, that has people on your case.
Trying checking facts before posting opinions as the truth.
Opinions, yours, mine, anyones, are just that, opinions.
They are not facts."
So in this instance, your rant was totally unjustified, mild or wild.[/quote]
Alright. Let me review some facts here. Someone said that the Governor -General of New Zealand had the power to discharge or disband or some such action, the Parlaiment of Australia, and that he was a direct representative of Britain. My contention was that this could hardly be so, since I did not believe that the representative of one country, Commonwealth or not, would have the authority to discharge the Head of State (or President, or Prime Minister) or members of Parlaiment of another nation, Commonwealth or not.
It was also contended the the Queen has the authority to terminate the Governor-General of New Zealand.
Now, having investigated this per your request, I have discovered that:
"The limited form of this representation was explained in a 1988 Constitutional Commission report, that concluded “the Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal instruments relating to it”.[2]
Although the Governor-General and the Queen occasionally observe certain formalities, in practice the Governor-General carries out his constitutional responsibilities without reference to the Queen. In 1975, the Queen, through her Private Secretary, wrote that she "has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia
OK. So we have established that while the Queen may appoint this official, she in fact has no authority over his action and may not dictate them. Continuing.
"The Governor-General of Australia is a position established by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act to sign legislation into law, appoint judges and ministers and perform many other important duties. In terms of protocol, the position is higher than any other Australian office. The Governor-General is President of the Executive Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces.
According to the literal text of the constitution a “Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth . . .” The literal text also allows the Governor-General to exercise control over the federal government and veto legislation. These extensive powers are regulated by a convention (unwritten rule) where the Governor-General takes advice from the Prime Minister of Australia and other government ministers. In almost every situation, the advice must be followed, so in practice, the Governor-General rarely makes important decisions and never decides to veto legislation."
OK. So we see that the Governor-General is an official of Australia, and not of Britain or New Zealand. While appointed by the Queen, and surely responsible for promoting her agenda and expressing the concerns of Britain through her in the government of Australia, the Queen in fact has no authority over his actions, and may not dictate them.
Now, we have established that:
the Governor-General is an official of Australia, not New Zealand as was stated
the Governor-General of Australia, once appointed, is not subject to termination or dictation by the Queen, but only councel, which is not legally bound to act upon by the Constitution of Australia.
I do not see how I am wrong about my contention that Britain or New Zealand had the authority to discharge anyone in the Australian government. If I am wrong, I will admit it with an apology. However, according to the above facts, I do not see error on my contention that the “Governor-General of New Zealand” does not have the authority over the govenrment of Australia, for the Governor-General is an officer of Australia, and not of new Zealand or any other country.
What I think is that this debate is the product of an incorrectly stated contention, and I, going on what was said and not what was not said by someone who said something incorrectly or in some incorrect way, contended that it was not so. by the original assertion, I am indeed correct as fas as I can see. Perhaps it was simply that the person who made the statemnt incorrectly made it and intended to say it a different way.[/quote]
Sorry Ironman, I’m afraid the only person making incorrectly worded contentions is yourself.
Here’s the original post on this particular issue from Crab to Be :
[i]To say that Commonwealth is only a word suggests that your understanding of it extends as far as the correct spelling and little further. To save me reproducing entire websites, I direct your attention to www.thecommonwealth.org . I didn’t realise how much it actually did - most impressive.
And finally, the powers of the Queen. I wish I had as little political authority as the Queen. To get start, she can dissolve the parliaments of (to name a few) the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ at will. No need to refer to elected officials at all. In 1975, the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General of Australia, dissolved the Australian parliament (without, I believe referring back to Her Maj. first, which ruffled a few feathers on both sides of the globe). A quick investigation reveals that the Governor-General in New Zealand can be even more specific, having the authority to fire Prime Ministers, refuse to allow an election and block legislation. The Queen’s political powers are actually an important safeguard on the democratic nature of the UK, her Empire and Commonwealth.
Again, to prevent misunderstandings: I state now that I know I have cited the greatest powers the Queen has. In other Commonwealth countries she has varying degrees of authority, often none at all. [/i]
(My highlighting)
No one suggested the Governor General of New Zealand had any powers over the Government of Australia.
Nor did anyone suggest the Queen had the power to dismiss the Governor General of either country, but their respective Parliaments.
She does not hold this power as British Head of State, nor as Head of the Commonwealth, and the British Government is not involved in any way.
She holds this power as Head of State of Australia and New Zealand respectively.
I think you may have confused your thinking with your own following post, where you stated :
I guess if we parked an aircraft carrier on the coast of New Zealand, the Governor-General in New Zealand would not show up for work either.
When you say :
I do not see how I am wrong about my contention that Britain or New Zealand had the authority to discharge anyone in the Australian government. If I am wrong, I will admit it with an apology. However, according to the above facts, I do not see error on my contention that the “Governor-General of New Zealand” does not have the authority over the govenrment of Australia, for the Governor-General is an officer of Australia, and not of new Zealand or any other country
you are quite right, but no one has suggested that to be the case.
Again, you are confusing Great Britain (ie the British Government) with the powers of the Queen as Head of State of Australia.
As for the above, both Australia and New Zealand have separate Governors General.
Not for small targets. Good Lord. They didn’t in Iraq 1, what makes you think they’ve gone back to old technology. You’ve being intentionally silly now. :roll:[/quote]
Ironman Iron bombs are still being used every day in theatre, its a technology that has never gone away:
So, on 8 occasions A-10’s targeted you with Mk-82 or Mk-84 bombs? I don’t see anything strange about that. However, just because you see an A-10 fly over does not mean you are targeted. They might just be having a look first. BTW, they don’t drop a note from the plane to tell their target that they are targeted to ask them first if they are friendlies of not. But they will likely call command about it first.
So 8 times you had A-10’s fly over and that means you were targeted by them? That means that they flew over without dropping a bomb on you even though you were targeted? They fly over once first always before getting the OK to drop? They always target without flying over? 8 times you saw one in the air nearby and that means that you were targeted?
8 times they flew over and didn’t bomb you once? 8 times they observed you and did not drop? Those damned USAF cowboys! How wreackless and careless and uinaiming they are!
Or eight times A-10s lined up on a bombing run and were called off at the last minute by someone who knew what they were doing (aka - a Brit) on the ground. When I was in Iraq, they had to issue all of our civillian vehicles with A4 Union flags to put in the front windscreen when approaching convoys because there had been that many cases of Americans opening up on them. The American general in charge of the Corps we came under (his name was Tommy something) even sent out intructions on how to work out which unit had just shot at you from their number plates, so you knew who to report.
Yea, ground troops are supposed to do things like that I guess sometimes. 8 times flown over and not bombed. Damned wreckless cowboys. That’s a crappy record. What’s happened to the USAF? They used to be so good. What kind of British plane was it that recently bombed it’s own? I don’t think they said. It was on the news just recently. Do you know which kind it was?
So now you know about bombs, you choose to ignore the fact that you said dumb bombs were never used anymore. And you then try and justify indiscriminate shooting at vehicles.
One thing is for sure, by the indisriminate shooting at vehicles the US forces have got themselves into a quandry now. They have alienated all others by it, but now cant stop it because the vehicle may just be a car bomb.
So what is your solution now Iron man? What do the forces in Iraq need to do to turn things around?
Friendly fire is unfortunate, but it’s a symptom of war. The British have been doing it too you know. That could be turned around too. Get over it. Didn’t you say that 8 times you were observed but not bombed? I guess that dissapoints you.
No it wasn’t, he didn’t have a cap badge you could land a helicopter on, that Tommy Franks is some special forces guy isn’t he? You could land a frigging Puma on his hat anyway, this was a different Tommy.
And when and where did this British plane bomb British troops? Nothing’s been reported here, on tv or on the internet (including on British Army messageboards).
No it wasn’t, he didn’t have a cap badge you could land a helicopter on, that Tommy Franks is some special forces guy isn’t he? You could land a frigging Puma on his hat anyway, this was a different Tommy.
And when and where did this British plane bomb British troops? Nothing’s been reported here, on tv or on the internet (including on British Army messageboards).
Or did you just make that up?[/quote]
Tommy Franks is the only US general in Iraq with the name “Tommy” that I have heard of. I suppose it could be a diffewrent Tommy, but I don’t think there are many generals named Tommy in Iraq. Not many Generals at all actually. I suppose there is a chance it’s a different Tommy.
As for the repot, it was sketchy info. Maybe I heard it wrong. Maybe it didn’t happen. I guess I should not have posted a word about it since I didn’t have proper info. If I hear more I’ll say so.
