what? :shock:[/quote]
What sort of legal action?[/quote]
Dont worry about it. Issue has been sorted. FW190 and I are working on some new rules for the site to keep members in line.
:shock:
Surprisingly enough IRONMAN you can only accuse th British Military of institutional racism and wilfull-manslaughter (though I think murder is a more accurate account of your charges) for so long before it becomes a matter for the legal system.
I do hope you made alot of money playing quake, I believe Libel cases can be quite expensive.
FUCKER!!! (can we get an umlaut put on this board, as I dont like to cause undue offense)
Have been discussing it with General Sandworm and since the board and it’s servers are hosted in the US then we are probably safe as no offence will have been committed under UK law (fortunately). US libel law (which would apply) is much looser and makes it much harder to demonstrate an offence occurred.
Had the site or servers been based in the UK, things would be a very different matter indeed (hence my original comment) - I can think of at least one case of an ISP being successfully prosecuted for libel due to the postings of a forum member in the UK.
No more libel that the comment about the White House. How silly. You blather anti-American chit and then expect someone to not respond to it? Ridiculous.
No more libel that the comment about the White House. How silly. You blather anti-American chit and then expect someone to not respond to it? Ridiculous.
As has been mentioned, I think you are taking the comment about burning the White House as being the “Fun part” totally the wrong way, and displaying a total lack of humour as a result.
Likewise, you seem to take everything that isn’t flag waving chest thumping pro-Americanism as “anti”; none of your fellow Americans on the board have mentioned feeling particularly ‘got at’ by the British contigent, have they? I suggest you are somewhat over-sensitive and you perceptions of what constitutes anti-americanism might be a bit skewed. I invite the other American members of the board to give their opinions on the existance of any anti-american sentiment on this board.
Personally, the over-sensitive attitude that you and a few of your countrymen display is the kind of thing most likely to foster anti-Americanism, in my opinion. I have met quite a few US servicemen, and some civilians, and most have been great. A few have shared your attitude on the outside world and unfortunately their vocal nature does the rest of the US no favours at all in shaping the rest of the worlds perceptions.
Edited for punctuation
I will concede that I may be a little over-sensitive. If I am, perhaps it is with good reason. The events of the last 15 years have caused Americans to be the recipients of an abundance of anti-Americanism anf hypocricy (complaining about American involvement in Iraq when their country is in the war with us), even from people who are our allies, and it is unjustified. Furthermore, Americans don’t sit around saying the same kind of things about those people to a degree that could in any way be comparable.
But you cannot deny that a comment like the one in question would have stirred a bunch of spittle thrown in my direction. I guarentee you that it would have. Surely you can see that. So why do you expect that such a comment would not stir me to respond?
There has in fact been anti-Americanism here, and it does not help that a few of the British who post here wear their nationalistic slogans and mottos on their sleeve and used them for signatures while they are making anti-American comments.
What this boils down to is intollerance - something that Europeans love to scream about. Some here make anti-American comments relatively freely, but if you respond to it in kind, YOU are the ass. That is simply perposterous. A comment that is anti-American is still anti-American, whether it’s slipped into another comment or made blatantly. Using it in jest does not make it invisible. It was rather insensitive to use an anti-national comment in jest or otherwise. Why you cannot see that I do not know. Again, I ask you to consider if I had made the comment, even if in jest. It would indeed have prompted others to respond. The sheer volume of what has been subsequently said shows that to be true.
You seem to be expecting me to apologize for responding to anti-Americanism. It is as though you think I should feel sorry for not being willing to just take such commentary without feeling offended. I suggest that others be a bit more considerate and not so willing to use comments like that. While I may be a little over-sensitive, it was similarly insensitive to make that comment. This is not a comedy hour. It’s a forum. You cannot expect commentary made here to carry the same jovial “Oh! ha ha ha! Yea, that was a funny thing you said about my country!” kind of sentiment. These are only characters on a screen. There is no goofy looking comedian sitting at a “news desk” reading what is pretended to be the evening news for the purpose of making others laugh.
I appreciate the calm, resonable amanner of your post. You are being far more respectful than others have been, and more than I have been after being drawn into such unnecessarily heated volleys of words.
I WILL try to be less sensitive. I hope also that others will try to be more sesitive.
Just a few points;
The events of the last 15 years have caused Americans to be the recipients of an abundance of anti-Americanism anf hypocricy (complaining about American involvement in Iraq when their country is in the war with us),
With regards to this issue, it is perfectly possible for a British Citizen to criticise the US involvement in Iraq on many levels.
Firstly, I do not (in hindsight) think that the reasons of the US and UK for going to war were correct. (I took various claims by our Government at the time to be true, which have subsequently proved to have been deliberate lies.) On this basis, I can criticise the US for going to war, and I criticise my own Government for it too. I may choose to criticise the US in a given conversation without always adding the qualifier that I feel the same about my Government too, as I would assume it to be self evident. I do not feel it is essential to support any war merely because my Government has chosen to take the country into it. (I still support our armed forces though, even if I believe them to have been given a bad task to do.)
Secondly, the British and US have gone about operations in Iraq, especially since the end of conventional hostilities in very different ways. Thus I feel I could criticise US tactics and strategy in the war whilst not criticising UK methods (as they are different) for example. Similiarly, other aspects of our involvement in the war and operations therein are different too, and this clearly allows me (as an observer) to criticise the US despite my own Governments/countries involvement.
Furthermore, Americans don’t sit around saying the same kind of things about those people to a degree that could in any way be comparably reciprocal.
Maybe not, but then the US seems to have developed a very anti-French sentiment since they disagreed over Iraq, for example, which seems fairly comparable.
Many of us in Europe resent the attitudes and assumptions that many Americans seem to have about Europe, our languages and culture. I have met Americans who were surprised to learn that we have MP3 players, CD’s and suchlike in Britain. I have also met some who thought that the Beatles were an American band, because they were so famous!! There seems to be a presumption amongst some that everything good/fun/famous must have originated in the US, which is patently false. This kind of cultural arrogance which sometimes seems to be displayed is not necessarily intentional, but it does happen, and it does piss us off sometimes!!
But you cannot deny that a comment like the one in qustion would have stirred a bunch of spittle thrown in my direction. I guarentee you that it would have. Surely you can see that. So why do you expect that such a comment would not stir me to respond?
I’m sorry to say it, but other things that you have said on this site, and the persona you put across, would have meant that, coming from YOU, that would have happened. Others on here, such as Gen Sandworm, who have demonstrated a greater sense of humour, could have got away with it. I’m afraid that you have fought yourself into a difficult corner by some of your previous posts.
A comment that is anti-American is still anti-American, whether it’s slipped into another comment or made blatantly. Using it in jest does not make it invisible.
Perhaps we have a different understanding of “in jest”. If I say something “in jest” then I do not mean it. If I make a joke about Americans being Deliverance style hillbillies, then would you think that I truely believed that that was true?? :? Similiarly, I think the point about burning the White House being the “fun part” was that it was not an object of the war, or something planned, merely that it was an ancilliary part of the fighting in Washington, and perhaps done to make a bit of a point. I’m fairly sure the original poster was not saying that he would want to burn the Whitehouse down for fun! Also, in the context of the time and relations between Britain and America then, burning down the Whitehouse, or 10 Downing Street, is a different thing to today. At that time we were being anti-Americans and you being Anti-British, we were at war!
Again, I would invite other Americans on the board to maybe discuss how they feel about any anti-Americanism on this board, or about British nationalistic slogans. For what its worth, I do not feel you are any less nationalistic in you manner, and thus cannot really criticise.
As to the heated nature of debates on here, I’m afraid to say that in my opinion you bring it on yourself a lot of the time, much of the animosity arose due to your manner and some of your comments which were frankly insulting. Your reply to me above is reasoned and calm; maybe more efforts in that direction on your part would ensure a better forum for us all.
Well said. And not just just to IRONMAN but to all. Its tough sometimes but try and keep a cool head.
That’s pretty much the norm though. I have not seen a single comment by a member who is British that is critical of Britain untill this thread. However, once you see a number of anti-American comments and none that relate to britain, a pattern begins to reveal itself.
I wonder how you mean. I see the forces of both nations performing search & destroy missions. I see both investigating the locations of terrorists and going after them. Surely you’re not going to suggest that the US is using cluster bombs on civilian locations or something like that.
But they did not dissagree to force Iraq to submit to inspectors, or to use force if Iraq would not comply. Furthermore, it is documented and the UN has agreed, France included, that Sadam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people in the early 1990’s. I can only imagine that if France or any other country (in some strange alter-reality) were having it’s citizens gassed with MIG’s dropping nerve gas on them, that they would not only hope, but expect the US to interveine.
Like many Europeans, you have conveniently forgotten the riots and public outcries in France where hateful anti-American balther was yelled on the streets and in thier press, and American products and flags were buned on the pavement and such. Those are the things that prompted Americans to change the name of “French fries” to “fries” or “American fries”, and other such things. Very much like the anti-Americanism that has been existing here in this forum, and my reaction to it. So too were those events.
Many Europeans also conveniently forget that the UN, France included, passed a resolution giving the UN members the right to:
- Inspect Iraq from top to bottom for WMDs
- Use force if Iraq would not comply.
So the US let Hussein play his cat and mouse game of agreeing then disaggreeing at the last moment to allow inspectors for several years. After several resolutions and years of wasted time, the US did what the UN agreed could be done. Then the French raised hell that we did it. Hypocricy.
My reaction to anti-Americanism is not and cannot be converted into the instigative commentary that I responded to.
I thin you are not quite understanding something. I agree that a little of that occurs here. But it is not arrogance, and certainly not to the degree that you imply. We are lands seperated by an entire ocean, European nations are not. You can drive from France to Germany to Poland and back. You cannot visit Europe by car from the US. There are some Americans who are ignorant of the fact that society in much of Europe is just as advanced as it is here, and that Europeans have all of the same things that Americans do. But it is ignorance caused by an inability to know what European culture is like because they cannot visit. Most Americans have only seen Europe on the TV. Those relative few who might be so ignorant as to think MP3 players are rare in Europe are not in any way a reasonable sample of America. No more than a European who thinks that America is a country which is full of nothing but sports-loving, beer drinking blue-collar workers who can’t wait to take a gun over to some foreign country and shoot Arabs while singing a Toby Keith song. Europeans misunderstand Americans every bit as much as Americans misunderstand Europeans.
I would agree with that to some degree. I am a bit more reactionary than some others. However, I am not the cause of the anti-Americanism that I have seen here. it was here and I saw it before I ever got deeply engrossed in a single discussion on this forum.
Honestly, I had not read that statement before writing my comment above: (No more than a European who thinks that America is a country which is full of nothing but sports-loving, beer drinking blue-collar workers who can’t wait to take a gun over to some foreign country and shoot Arabs while singing a Toby Keith song.)
It is indeed a false stereotype amongs Europeans. Enough so that it gets reiterated to make a point. I don’t think most Europeans actually believe it though. I think many of them use it as blather to further their sentiments. I do not believe you mentioned it for that reason however.
I disagree with that.
I agree that I am a bit more reactionary than some others. But I dissagree that my reactions were based upon jest that was purely harmless. As I said, I say anti-Amreicanism here prepetuated by a few people regularly before I began getting invloved in anything more than a simply comment on a subject.
As I have stated however, I will strive to be less reactionary. I hope that others will take similar steps. Let us hope also that I can poke fun at Britain without it being seen as anti-British. I doubt that would be possible now, and I doubt that it ever would have been. Therefore, I will try not to do it.
Well said. And not just just to IRONMAN but to all. Its tough sometimes but try and keep a cool head.[/quote]
Thank you Sir. I will continue to try to be calm and less reactionary.
Ale wrote:
Secondly, the British and US have gone about operations in Iraq, especially since the end of conventional hostilities in very different ways. Thus I feel I could criticise US tactics and strategy in the war whilst not criticising UK methods (as they are different) for example.IRONMAN
[quote]I wonder how you mean. I see the forces of both nations performing search & destroy missions. I see both investigating the locations of terrorists and going after them. Surely you’re not going to suggest that the US is using cluster bombs on civilian locations or something like that.
[/quote]
Both Nations perform “search and destroy missions,” a term I think I will have to get used to hearing, but I beleive that the main difference is the behaviour of troops in other aspects of soldiering, Patrolling is not just about going into contact and bugging out, its a means of gaining trust and co-operation from the local population therby lessening the chances of the local population supporting insurgents and denying the insurgent a base of operations.
Gaining the trust of the locals is not about shooting terrorists, In Malaya in the 1950’s the British army fought a counterinsurgent war remarkably akin to the Vietnam war, It was in Malaya that the principle of Hearts and Minds was spawned.
In Iraq today you will see Anzacs and Brits (both of whom were involved in malaya) in regimental headdress parolling in shirt sleeve order in open backed Wimiks, now although they patrol differnet geogrpahica regions I defy you to say that they were not at risk.
The US forces are patrolling in strykers armoured humvees sunglasses and lids. I have not seen a single photograph of a US serviceman on patrol with his soft hat on and how do you trust someone whose eyes you cant see behind Govt issue tinted lenses.
Different approaches to soldiering do not only affect “search and destroy missions” but all contact with the local population will affect the manner in which the war is fought and it does seem that the British and US forces have markedly different approaches.
The Brits “won” malaya, with Hearts and Minds
The US in Vietnam did not hold the hearts and minds in Vietnam, the result is known
but,who had better military,malaya or vietnam?
ERWIN
Both were backed by head honcho Commies from China.
Both were guerilla forces hiding in the general population.
Both had small arms caches and operated in small cells.
The Viet Minh, Niet Cong Malayan insurgency were all much of a muchness, lessons learned in Malaysia were undoubtedly passed on to the rebels in Vietnam which happened 15-20 years later, so a direct comaprison is impossible the tactics used in Malaysia were developed for Vietnam, making the VC more potent, however the Americans had the same popportunity to learn from Malaysia when they entered vietnam so… Its another topic was merely a point to demosntrate different approaches to soldierng outside of “search and destroy” (a very minor part of a soldiers role but the bit that sells computer games)
IRONMAN
Many Europeans also conveniently forget that the UN, France included, passed a resolution giving the UN members the right to:
- Inspect Iraq from top to bottom for WMDs
- Use force if Iraq would not comply.
That is definately remembered, it is a double standard to approach the UN for backing go through UN chnnels demanding the RAQ adhere to the mandates of teh UN, then trun from your UN obligations and invade IRAQ aggaisnt hte wishes of the UN security counsel.
I do not beleive tony should have let George take my country to war. As a soldier however I would have to fight their anyway becasue that is where the queen wishes her forces to be deployed. A soldier is an apolitical being, it requires a level of thought you have not illustrated, but as a person I objected to the war in IRAQ prior to its start, now however as a soldier my duty is to do what I am told and fight. That is what soldiers do Moral Quandries aside I have sworn n oath to an Apolitical head of state and as a result act at her behest not his.
(Interesting to note that we are not a Royal Army to prevent us being a tool against the people, and we are swear an oath to the Queen to prevent us becoming a tool for the state)
I see that you are missing some information. Your comment seems to be a symptom of the “ignorance about what Americans are about” syndrome that I have mentioned (not is those words). And here, you have just made a negative comment about Americans because of it! I have seen plenty of that on this forum too.
Allow me to explain how you have commited an error - one that is partly to blame for the not wholly unjustified reactionary attitude that I have been carrying.
You might like to know that American soldiers, not the US government, have done wonderful things to earn the respect of the Iraqi people. For example, they have paid for American veteranarians to be flown to Iraq to care for the hundreds of pets that have become strays due to the war. They collect them, take them to the base where a liscenced veteranarian cares for them, they are photographed, and then American soldiers put their pictures up on corkboards and knock on doors to see if the citizens would like to adopt a pet!
American soldiers also help to build housing for Iraqi people that had poor housing even before the war began and distribute tons of clothing and goods donated by a Americans and charity organizations to people who are in need! They also visit the citizens of Iraq to see if they are desperately in need of things that the US could provide. The US has spent billions of it’s own dollars to rebuild not only infrastructure that has been destroyed by war, but to add it where it did not exist, such as electricity and water systems to provide water to communities that had none before the war!
There are other things that we are doing as well. It is incomprehensible to Americans that so many Europeans and others suffer from this, “American’s did something I don’t like, so all that they do is bad” syndrome. Their memory is selective.
I am not saying that US soldiers dont do those things.
Im just providing examples of where the Modus Operandi of the two allies differ. We “appear” to act with less hostility.
Sunglasses, Lids, etc
American soldiers use the best equipment they are provided. I cannot see that good soldiering can be confused with aggression. When you are soldiering, you are aggressive. When you are knocking on doors to see if a family is in need of bottled water of food, that is what you are doing. I don’t think American soldiers kick anyone’s door in and demand to view the pantry. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lets not go into what is aggreseive and what isnt.
You asked how the US and the British tactics differed
I explained, that is all.
If you want me to talk to you about acceptable levels of aggression I can go all the way back to Sun-tzu with my feelings on the matter. Which incidentally I haven’t displayed. Please dont second guess where I stand on the issue, I have the opportunity of military service as an officer ahead of me therefore it is exactly that sort of thing that I have given alot of thought to - from a position of islotaion as you are I do not expect you to have devoted as much thought to it.
Anyway that conversation can happen in PM if you want t to happen at all. In the mean time let us leave it at
- The US and Britain use differemt tactics when dealing with the public in theatre.
I cannot see that good soldiering can be confused with aggression. When you are soldiering, you are aggressive. When you are knocking on doors to see if a family is in need of bottled water of food, that is what you are doing.
Whatever your opinion of the man, read General Tim Collins speech o nthe eve of the invasion, that will tell you everything you need to know about what good soldiering is.
I think you’re missing what they’re saying. Both US and UK troops are trying to do all these good things for the Iraqi people. US troops do it wearing hard hats and sunglasses. UK troops do it with soft hats (or no hats) wherever possible, and without sunglasses. In one method, the people trying to help you look remote due to lack of eye contact or even recognisable human features beneath all the kevlar, uniform and gear and sunglasses. Trying to gain the trust of someone without making eye contact is not the best thing in the world. Made even worse by the only bit of human visible being the bit of skin beneath the sunglasses and above the collar!
Nobody’s saying the intent to help Iraqi’s isn’t as genuine.
BTW - the British Army even used such attention to detail in a TV recruitment campaign. The ad shows a bunch of African militia seen through a soldier’s eyes. Captions tell us the soldier wants to use the well to get him and his patrol water. The leader of the African militia whose well it is is ranting and raving, shaking his AK in the air… Caption asks what to do? Gives a couple of options… final option… TAKE YOUR SUNGLASSES OFF! Then we see from the UK soldier’s eyes what he would see as he takes his sunglasses off. Making eye contact, the militiaman calms down. Suddenly he’s dealing with a human, not just the faceless tool of some Western country’s foreign policy. Sure, the add is all a little quaint - but there’s a ton of research out there on broader communication, suggesting successful communication is as much about eye contact and body language as about what you’re saying.
EDIT for silly transposing of US and UK.
I understand your, (and the Head Shed’s,) idea about using sunglasses, but must hold with the Septics here.
While it is a downer for the eye contact part of hearts & minds to be hidden behind eyewear, it is due to the protective nature of modern shades rather than a ‘Yanks on Tour’ attitude.
In fact the first country to issue compulsory eye-protection wasn’t the States but one of those usually thought of as a UN participant, the Danes.
They discovered early in the Yugoslav situation that the majority of debilitating injuries were to the eyes.
While Oakley, Wiley, etc supply UV restricting clear lenses, if you’ve ever tried to use them in the sandpit you’ll find that the glare continues and you end up looking like a shitting Jap.
It’s also been ‘shown,’ (as much as any scientific investigation into immediate psychology can ‘show’ this,) that civvies meeting soldiers wearing clear lenses have nearly the same pos/neg reaction as when they’re wearing tinted ones.
It is DEFINITELY a better idea for the individual soldier to wear this eye protection than to keep the eye contact for the hearts & minds part of the Op.
Even secondary projectiles can finish a youngster’s career in the Army, and I’d rather lose a little contact with the locals than have to casevac a lad with home no eyes.
As Festamus says, in a personal discussion one can always remove the shades for the convo.