I don’t believe that there have not been times when American soldiers have taken cover and not returned fire because they did not know where the fire came from. I am sure that it happens often - much more often than not, especially when they are on foot.
You are comparing a video of British soldiers on foot in the streets being shot at from who knows where to video of American soldiers in a convoy being shot at in the open on the road as they try to race down toward safety. What kind of comparison is that???
Are you saying that when American soldiers are walking down the streets and are fired upon that they indescriminately open fire at anything and empty their mags at the buildings ahead of them? Are you saying that British soldiers in a convoy that is being shot at do not return fire of fire into the air to create the impression of heavy retaliation to give them more time to get past the insurgents?
Come on man. Really. Americans are not a bunch of “Coyboys with MG’s” who shoot indescriminately when fired upon. US soldiers have no more of a wish to injure innocent civillians that British soldiers do. It’s not like British soldiers don’t attemept to locate the fire and return it when fired upon, and it’s not like Americans just shoot from the hip at the nearest window or man when fired upon.
Furthermore, I also don’t believe that there are not times when British troops don’t fire at points that seem to be the origin of fire even though they have not seen the man with the gun/launcher/rpg any more than I believe Americans fire indiscriminately unless the circumstances warrant laying down supressing fire.
[b]If you watch this movie carefully, you will notice that the soldiers in the Humvee are firing their weapons out of the window of the vehicle up into the sky. Watch the right side window. You can see that the weapon is being fired into the air. The smoke from their guns is going up at about a 35 deg. angle. It is not being fired at a building, or the streets, or anywhere except the sky. Why would they do that? I can only assume it is either to create the impression for the insurgents that they are shooting back to give themselves more time to dash away with less fire being directed at them, ot it is to scare pedestrians and drivers to get them to clear the streets so that they can move more quickly toward safety. Perhaps both.
Watch this slice from that video and notice the angle of the weapon’s smoke. It’s going up into the sky. The gun does not even move from one point to another. The weapon remains stationary the entire time, shooting into the sky.[/b] http://home.jam.rr.com/director/Ambush2.wmv
It seems to me that what you are saying is the result of liberals in the media who writhe their hands looking for any opportunity to make the US look bad, so the take a video without even carefully looking at it, and say, “Look! The Americans are firing at anything that moves!” when in fact they are shooting at clouds to make noise.
I would not continue, if I were you, to put as much stock as you seem to have been in what the media says, especially the European media. They dislike the US more than the media does in the US!
OK. I see that you are correct about that. My error.
If he had nothing to hide, such as things that related to the research and development of WMD, why did he repeatedly over a period of a few years agree to then dissagree to allow inspectors? Wht did he stop the inspectors repeatedly from inspectin one building after another once they started? A bluff? Hardly. It was to give himself time to hide or destroy evidence. Why would he want to bluff Arab neighbors when Iraq had not been at war with any of them for many years? No, he wasn’t trying to bluff anyone. He had no reason to and was not on the brink of war with any other Arab nation.
He was simply wasting time. The reason is obvious. However, here we are, still going after the US for going to war in Iraq. Why not let’s start a debate about the things the British did that could be considered wrong by some? Ever done that or anything like it on this forum? Nope. I have not seen a word about it. America: the big bad guy. :roll:
My opinion is that the was was justifiable because the UN passed a resolution that if Iraq refused to allow inspectore, or to allow them to do what they needed when they were there, and the US and britain took action before all time was lost.
IN FACT, AFTER SOME TIME OF STOPPING THE INSPECTIONS OF VARIOUS BUILDINGS, IRAQ STOPPED ALL INSPECTIONS COMPLETELY. SADDAM SAID, “THERE WILL BE NO MORE INSPECTIONS”. And he ordered the inspectors to leave Iraq.
Then he paraded an American child around on video camera in his palace, giving Americans the impression that if we tried anything, that child and perhaps others would die.
The fact that no WMD were found to me means nothing. After the years of wasted time and the stopping of inspectors repeatedly, he had time to do whatever he needed.
You are comparing a video of British soldiers on foot in the streets being shot at from who knows where to video of American soldiers in a convoy being shot at in the open on the road as they try to race down toward safety. What kind of comparison is that???
I will assume that my description was unclear.
Both attacks were grenade not rifle fire. Both were in vehicles, at the time of the attack the Brits were on foot by the vehicles. The US were not racing to safety but just travelling on rout from A to B, only after coming under attack did they RTU.
Are you saying that when American soldiers are walking down the streets and are fired upon that they indescriminately open fire at anything and empty their mags at the buildings ahead of them? Are you saying that British soldiers in a convoy that is being shot at do not return fire of fire into the air to create the impression of heavy retaliation to give them more time to get past the insurgents?
You have hit on the whole point, well done.
This is not one is better than the other, it is an understanding that one army does things different to the other. As to who is better than the other is a pointless trip.
You have gone down the road that I am trying to belittle the US force, which is not the case. This is about different operating procedures. British forces have spent 30 year dealing with terrorists. It is ingrained in troops to fire aimed shots, only fire at identified targets, only fire sufficient round to destroy the target. Do not get the wrong idea, this is peace keeping not war fighting and as Mr Morgan has said “The British distinguish between peacekeeping, counterinsurgency and peace-enforcing, and have techniques to match all.” You can see from the incident at Danny Boy that when it is required Brit troops will use heavy armour and fire power.
Make sure you read it, it is enlightening. Take the links to the media with a bucket of salt.
The US uses force protection as a tactic, Brit forces have ingrained in them from senior rank (general officer) to private that civilians are not targets. US forces when they come under fire will shot in all directions/possible enemy positions without identifying targets, this is from a US senior NCO with a Stryker BN.
Furthermore, I also don’t believe that there are not times when British troops don’t fire at points that seem to be the origin of fire even though they have not seen the man with the gun/launcher/rpg any more than I believe Americans fire indiscriminately unless the circumstances warrant laying down supressing fire.
Again this comes form 30 years of counting your round on returning from patrol. You are required to justify why you fired the round and the quantity you fired. Lost of a round in NI = 28 days in jail. This is engrained in the NCOs and covered by ROE. This does not mean that every round is counted but you must justify why you opened fire and at what target.
If you watch this movie carefully, you will notice that the soldiers in the Humvee are firing their weapons out of the window of the vehicle up into the sky. Watch the right side window. You can see that the weapon is being fired into the air. The smoke from their guns is going up at about a 35 deg. angle. It is not being fired at a building, or the streets, or anywhere except the sky. Why would they do that? I can only assume it is either to create the impression for the insurgents that they are shooting back to give themselves more time to dash away with less fire being directed at them, ot it is to scare pedestrians and drivers to get them to clear the streets so that they can move more quickly toward safety. Perhaps both.
This is again the point, firing wildly into the air (technically referred to as “Spray and Pray”) is not very professional and again shows the difference between the two tactic. I would also point out that the troop in the Brit example are infantry (the same unit as the link to Danny Boy, diffrent company) and the US forces are MPs who will probably be NG. The fire went on for 45 seconds as they moved out of the ambush area. All the fire you hear is from US forces, most probably from a SAW in 4-5 round bursts.
It seems to me that what you are saying is the result of liberals in the media who writhe their hands looking for any opportunity to make the US look bad, so the take a video without even carefully looking at it, and say, “Look! The Americans are firing at anything that moves!” when in fact they are shooting at clouds to make noise.
No. Again you are reading into this an attack on US forces where in reality it is a comparison in operating procedure.
I would not continue, if I were you, to put as much stock as you seem to have been in what the media says, especially the European media. They dislike the US more than the media does in the US!
What media?
My quotes have come from people involved in Iraq not the media, it is also based on my experience of 23 years as an infantry soldier with 8 years spent on operations. I listen to US forces involved in the actions in Iraq not what some media EXPERT who is not there and did not see what happens. Do not paint me with your predigests. You are going down the “you are all against the US” road again. STOP IT. You are seeing what is not there.
If he had nothing to hide, such as things that related to the research and development of WMD, why did he repeatedly over a period of a few years agree to then dissagree to allow inspectors? Wht did he stop the inspectors repeatedly from inspectin one building after another once they started? A bluff? Hardly. It was to give himself time to hide or destroy evidence. Why would he want to bluff Arab neighbors when Iraq had not been at war with any of them for many years?
Iran Iraq war?
Iraq invasion of Kuwait?
Attacks on Kurds?
You are missing the point, by not proving he does not have them it strengthens him. By being unable to prove it, and having the US confirm that he may have them strengthens his hand. He is strong until you can prove there are no weapons then he has lost his bargaining point and he is unimportant.
He was simply wasting time.
Correct, of course he was. By not being able to prove he had no weapons you prove he May have. I have absolutely no problem with removing him from power because he is a nasty bit of work. My problem is assuming I am an idiot by telling me some old flannel about WMD and attacks on the UK in 45 minutes. If we are going to attack them go for the right reason not one that looks good. If Blair had not used this as an excuse we would not have gone to war, nor would the US. You can convince yourself that the US would have acted alone if you like but you are deluding yourself. I am also quite aware that militarily the US does not need Great Britain, but politically they do as they bring the others.
My opinion is that the was was justifiable because the UN passed a resolution that if Iraq refused to allow inspectore, or to allow them to do what they needed when they were there, and the US and britain took action before all time was lost
.
This is the weakest of reasons.
A lot of countries have not acted on UN resolution and have not been invaded. What’s the difference? Iraq had WMDs? So does Israel and they have not complied with far more resolutions than Iraq. No invasions on the horizon are there? Israel also has WNDs, some stolen from the US.
The fact that no WMD were found to me means nothing.
Well it should do, as that was the point of the exercise. It was a con we fell into his propaganda. By defying the US he looks good with poor ill educated Arabs who can effect tottering governments. Sadam was working the Arab crowed not the US.
After the years of wasted time and the stopping of inspectors repeatedly, he had time to do whatever he needed.
Which is what?
Sadam was not a threat to us. If you think he was, let me know as I cannot see it. As an NBC instructor I know all about WMDs so do not lecture me on a chemical threat.
Both were in vehicles? The British were on foot by the vehicles? Please, make up your mind. I don’t see how it would matter. As you have undoubtably seen from examining the video, the soldiers did not shoot indescriminantly into the civilian environment as you implied. They fired their rounds into the air.
Ofcourse it is not a “better than” thing. I have not implied that it is.
I am trying not to see these commentaries as anti-Americanism disguised as intellectual discussion. You keep saying that American soldiers shoot like cowboys when fired upon without retraint or concern, and I have seen nothing to support what seems to be a falicy. If you think that I will believe that American soldiers do not use “aimed shots” or “only fire at targets”, or do not “only fire sufficient rounds to destroy”, then I think you are mistaken.
I am CERTAIN, that there are times when any military force, British, US, or other, comes under such heated fire that survival depends upon firing at your best guess, especially in tight streets on foot. But I have seen no evidence that supports a theory that US troops conduct themselves in a way that is either traditionally or habitually as such. I do believe, however, that your misconception of this supposed practice of “wild” and unaimed fire is based partly on the fact that British soldiers more tedious about firing thasn any other army, and perhaps because you are influenced by the liberal press, which you have made obvoius by citing the opinion of a harshly liberal Internet rag as some kind of supposed evidence to support this misconception.
I cannot give any credo to a source that is outspokenly liberal, even flamingly so, such as the site you posted a link to. I was afraid of that. You are a liberal yourself, and you get your information and influences from sites that spout such things as:
“Medical marajuanna to cancer patients: Drop dead.”
I’m sorry, but that site is not a suitable source for information that is not heavily slanted anbout anything whatsoever. They have an agenda, and the agenda is to make the US, the war in Iraq, and anything remotely conservative or moderately moderate look as much like a fuming pile of horse droppings as they can. A casual and quick clicking through that site reveals that virtually every article on that site is motivated by that agenda. I cannot put one ounce of stock in anything that site or any like it says. Sorry. I just cannot. I am neither gullible nor easily swayed from the truth of things.
But US troops are careless, irresponsible, and unprofessional in their tactics eh? US forces shoot in all directions when coming under fire?
Firstly, you cite a video that was not what you thought it was, or what you were told it was by an author on that flamingly liberal web site from which you got that idea. Secondly, you have provided nothing but the blogging of an outspokenly liberal Internet rag site author who has an agenda of scarring the US if he can. it does not matter if he is an American or not. Surely you don’t think that there are no Americans that seek some way to put down America, or the same of Britain.
Please don’t provide such garbage spewers as material to support your claim. I think from examination of the video you referred to (that he spoke of on that site) you can see that his word is not worth 2 cents.
Furthermore, I also don’t believe that there are not times when British troops don’t fire at points that seem to be the origin of fire even though they have not seen the man with the gun/launcher/rpg any more than I believe Americans fire indiscriminately unless the circumstances warrant laying down supressing fire.
Come on man. You are referring to the best trained military force in the world: the US Marine Corps. They are a highly trained, effective, and coordinated force. They do not “spray and pray” as policy or habit. They use “tap and turn” tactics to retreat while providing surpressing fire. They use all of the same tactics the British military does.
You are in effect aluding that the British military is professional in action and US troops are a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys. It’s perposterous!
Because US soldiers do not count their rounds is not evidence of any kind of “wild and unaimed” firing practice. Your assertion does not provide evidence that US troops fire indescriminantly as habit or policy. Frankly, your insinuation is beginning to be offensive. I do not want to create a rift here, as we are discussing this like gentlemen and I like that very much! But it is begining to rely on the circumstancial and wishful thinking so much that I am not sure as to whether you are simply mistaken because you count on sources such as the liberal, slant-oriented Internet rag that you read or if it is because you yourself have the same agenda as they and those like them, and such sources only feed your tendancy.
If you watch this movie carefully, you will notice that the soldiers in the Humvee are firing their weapons out of the window of the vehicle up into the sky. Watch the right side window. You can see that the weapon is being fired into the air. The smoke from their guns is going up at about a 35 deg. angle. It is not being fired at a building, or the streets, or anywhere except the sky. Why would they do that? I can only assume it is either to create the impression for the insurgents that they are shooting back to give themselves more time to dash away with less fire being directed at them, ot it is to scare pedestrians and drivers to get them to clear the streets so that they can move more quickly toward safety. Perhaps both.
Let’s not get started on who is and who is not acting professionally in Iraq. I could if I wished provide things that you would CERTAINLY think were anti-British if mentioned. But really now - Sparay and pray??? Dude, they fired into the sky without even moving the barrel of the weapon. They did not “spray and pray”. Now I am really starting to wonder about you. You saw the video, then have the audacity to say that pointing one’s weapon into the air motionless is “spray and pray”???
It seems to me that what you are saying is the result of liberals in the media who writhe their hands looking for any opportunity to make the US look bad, so the take a video without even carefully looking at it, and say, “Look! The Americans are firing at anything that moves!” when in fact they are shooting at clouds to make noise.
I am not wanting to see it as anti-Americanism. I’ll assume for the time that it is not. But the only proof of the claim that US soldiers “spray and pray” that you have provided is completely unreliable. How about quoting something from Jane’s, an international military monitoring organization (public, not private) or some other truly credible source, and not an outspokenly liberal Internet rag? Then you will really have my ears standing up! All I have heard so far is a perposterous claim that the highly trained USMC uses ridiculous “spray and pray” firing tactics when under fire in urban environments. And it simply isn’t so. I can provide you with, if you like, dozens of videos off the Internet that show US soldiers diligently aquiring their targets and going after them. They are everywhere on the Net. Why don’t you take a look at some of them.
I would not continue, if I were you, to put as much stock as you seem to have been in what the media says, especially the European media. They dislike the US more than the media does in the US!
The outspokenly liberal Internet collumnist you quote, who thought the video showed US soldiers using wild and unaimed firing tactics? The one that we watched and saw was not a sample of such afterall?
What you have provided is the quote of a man who’s article is on the site you poted a link to, and a video that has proven to be exactly NOT what you said it was.
We have already established that your “expert” is a liberal internet rag writer. However, these US soldiers that you listen to would do well to post their support of this “spray and pray” practice that you claim on the Internet on a military based web site so that I could read their words for myself! But if it’s on a liberal rag site, I don’t care who supposedly wrote it. It might be completely made up, it might not be. But it certainly is not a reliable source.
Let’s not forget that you are also comparing a force that is used in Iraq primarily as peace keepers to one that is primarily used as S & D. I think that is significant in it’s own right.However, I am not attempting to paint this as anti-American blather, although it is begining to look that way, whether you mean it as such or it is because you unkmowingly respected unrespectable sources and they have influenced you.
But for crying out loud, please provide some kind kind of substanciable source, and don’t provide videos of US troops firing into the sky to get people to clear the road as they speed down an avenuse while under grenade and MG attack! If you cannot provide anything better to support this ridiculous claim, then do not continue to to make it, please. You are accusing the USMC of using tactics that would be like one would expect from a group of bullet crazy rag-tag, untrained goons. You are not at all describing the US Marine Corps or the US Army, and you have not provided anything that does anything but discredit your claim.
I suppose if I were to use the same kind of logic you are using, I could claim that British soldiers are too cautious to be effective because they count their bullets and have to answer for every round they fire, that they are not trusted by their officers to use firepower responsibly or suppressing fire with restraint. But I don’t think that, and I am not implying such. I think you see my point.
I think you are interpreting the extreme caution used by the British as a measure, and thereby incorrectly assuming, like some others, that this means US forces act with wreckless disregard. Show me video of consistent “spray and pray” and I will believe it. I know this much: I can provide lots of videos that show that the tactics you claim are used, are indeed NOT used. They are everywhere on the Internet.
I realize that you and I will never agree about Iraq and the WMD issue, so I propose that we leave it alone. I really don’t want to argue about it, although I think I have legitimate rebuttle for your assertions. I think that most Americans and most Europeans will never agree on it. I realize that some in the US feel the way that you do too, but I think the better part of the moderate left feel about it as I do. But I think it would be unproductive to discuss it. I respect your opinion in the matter, and i know that a lot of people share your opinion.
And no, I do not think you are an idiot, and I have not said so.
To be fair, the Iraqi WMDs were (would have been had they existed) against the ceasefire agreement for the 1991 Gulf War. While legally this may not be the case, as far as I’m concerned if one side is going to violate a ceasefire the other ought to be at liberty to do so as well.
So far as I’m aware, the only Israeli WMDs are their nuclear weapons. These would only be illegal if Israel had signed the NPT as a non Nuclear Weapons state (same applies for Chemical and Biological weapons - they’re only illegal if the country has signed the treaty banning them or some similar treaty). Since Israel has never signed the treaty, their weapons aren’t illegal (if not legal either!).
The Israeli UN resolutions were IIRC passed under a different chapter of the UN charter to the Iraqi ones - as I understand it the Iraqi ones were passed under the chapter that authorises armed force and the Israel ones were passed under one that does not (the US would presumably have vetoed them otherwise).
One concern I have related to the “fireing off into the air” tactic Ironman was on about is: what about gravity?
What goes up must come down, yes? Which means that someone a few thousand metres away gets an FMJ shower, not perhaps as much of a problem with relatively light 5.56 but IIRC 7.62 is used for long(ish) range indirect fire at quite high angles and Browning .50 is so bloody heavy (46g) that it’s probably lethal at free-fall.
I can imagine that falling bullets could kill. However, I can also imagine what it must be like to have your Humvee destroyed by an RPG. I think firing a few rounds into the air to clear the streets is worth trying to prevent this from happening to you:
WARNING: Graphic. Forgive the bullcrap text in the video. It seems to be made by the insurgents.
Ironman, I think the the Mpeg you posted showed an IED attack as the expolsion was beneath the Hummer ( correct me if I am wrong). IED’s are remote detonated so random fire from a moving vehicle is unlikly to deter the attackers who will have good cover and be out of range.
Random fire is more likley to incurr civilian casualties, antagonise the population and increase the ranks of the resistance fighters. The US experience in Vietnam and the British experience in NI has proven this as a fact. The prosecution of the conflict in Iraq will only succeed with the support of the civillian population and the ablilty to gather quality intel from them. If you keep killing them you dont get either.
Well, the fire was not “randon”. They aimed at nothing, except the sky. You watched the video, right? So what’s random fire about holding your gun still and shooting bullets into the sky to drop one or two miles away? Nothing. Random fire would be “spray and pray”. That’s not what they did, as the video shows.
Obviously they were making noise so pople would clear the road and to prevent additional would-be attackers who might be on road-side from taking the chance of running up toward the road to fire on them. That makes a lot of sence actually. It sounds a lot better than doing nothing at all. If they were shooting for any other purpose, they would have trained thier guns on someone or something, but they did not.
But it was not random fire. It was rounds shot into the sky or or two miles away. Antagonize the population? Listen to yourself. They were under fire from grenades and gunfire for crying out loud. So what are the British doing in Iraq if it’s antagonistic? I see than now that it has been revealed that the video does not show “spray and pray”, you are criticizing the soldiers for firing harmlessly into the air to clear the road. Next you’ll be saying they were driving to fast.
Seriously, what I am hearing is:
“When fired upon, do nothing.”
“Make sure cars block the road so that your slow speed insures you get hit by something worse than a grenade.”
“Don’t shoot back. It might antagonize the civillians.”
Good Lord man. Listen to what you are saying. In case you didn’t know it, what’s going on over there is war, and those bastards were trying to kill the soldiers in their vehicles. I cannot imagine soldiers doing nothing at all in such a situation. Obviously, you’d want to get the living hell out of there too.
“Excuse me Mr. Iraqi civillian, is it OK with you if I make a bit of noise with my AR as I shoot into the sky? I don’t mean to disrupt your pleasant Sunday afternoon stroll down the boulevard, but you see, we’re under fire right now. Is it OK if I fire off soume rounds harmlessly into the sky to get these cars the F*CK OUTTA MY WAY so I don’t get shredded by an RPG? It is? Great. Thanks a bunch!”
True, sounds like the Colonel’s Rules of Gun Safety have been violated, Rule Four to be precise.
While this can be understood, (to a certain extent,) in a war fighting phase, in PSO it is inexcuseable.
I know that there are a number of incidents involving coalition members from different countries in which civilians have been hit, it does little to assist winning the hearts and minds of the locals, a vital move towards the ultimate goal of stability and peace.
True, sounds like the Colonel’s Rules of Gun Safety have been violated, Rule Four to be precise.
While this can be understood, (to a certain extent,) in a war fighting phase, in PSO it is inexcuseable.
I know that there are a number of incidents involving coalition members from different countries in which civilians have been hit, it does little to assist winning the hearts and minds of the locals, a vital move towards the ultimate goal of stability and peace.[/quote]
You just went into fantasy land now dude. You’ve made it clear that you want to criticize US troops more than use reason. I think it’s rather sad. Perhaps soon we’ll have video of the Brits doing something like this under fire. I suppose then you’ll say, “Oh that’s different! Can’t you hear the guy firing his MG in the background?”
it’s obvious that now that you have abandoned reason so very far that you are seeking an outlet for your dislike of the US military. It is sad that you are willing to make such a ridiculous statement to do so.
Enjoy this video of an AC-130 gunship taking out insurgents, and conciously chosing NOT to shoot a moque that a guy ran into for cover, so he would not upset the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.
Listen carefully for one soldier say to the other, “Watch that mosque over there too. He went into the mosque.” “Clearing the mosque.”
Enjoy! Stick that into your anti-American hat dude. :lol:
Ironman the Mpeg you posted did not show anyone firing into the air or anyone firing at the target. That was an IED ambush. the crew could,ve fired into the air all day it would have made no difference.
Iraq is now a terrorist action ( target specific )rather than the war of liberation ( target rich ) and tactics (ROE) have to change to meet the current requirements.
Iraq is currently no safer now than it was at at the start of the invasion ( not my words but Donald Rumsfeld’s)
I’m not anti-American I want to see democracy in Iraq but the current tactics are not working.
In a terrorist action your main concern has to be the reaction of the civillian population to your presence and your impact on their daily lives.The more you piss them off the less chance you have of success.
:?: Pretending to see something other that what is in that high resolution video does not change what is in it. It’s quite clear. Either put on your reading glasses or don’t lie blatantly. I don’t know which you are trying to do. Perhaps you think that people do not watch the video but read what you say will believe your words instead of taking a moment to watch it?Anyone who has seen it sees it for what it is, anf that makes you look like a sad individual for saying what you have just said.
The soldier in the Humvee is firing his weapon stationary at about a 35 deg. angle into the sky. You put your reputation at stake saying such about what is clearly visible.
Maybe not. But the cars ahead of them are not moving fast enough under those circumstnaces, that is for sure!
So now you resort to other things to try to put down the US since your bogus crap about what is clearly visible in the video is not working?
Dude, you are looking like a hate monger now. Get yourself together before you claim the soldier in the video were shooting cannons from their SUV’s.
Bullshot. Nobody could look at that video or say what you have said and not have an agenda. You have completely discredited yourself now. You have sacrificed your believability for your agenda, and such a sacrifice is not only fruitless, but self-demeaning.
No, what you want it to degrade the US. You have an agenda. The lie you have made about video is not working, so now you are on your 2nd unrelated attempt to put down the US. You really need help if your personal opinions motivate you to lie about what is in a video for all to see. Such a motivation is similar to a drug addiction. You need to cut it out of your life before it ruins your mind and soul.
Yea. Shooting into the air to clear the road while under attack is gonna scare the neighbors, so why concern yourself with your life and those of your men? Just let the insurgents kill you so you don’t have to worry abbout scaring the old man in his 1979 Carolla out of your way.
Listen to yourself. You are infected with liberal hate. It is making you look very bad.
Let me quote my Canadian friend who read this thread tonight. I just got off the line with him:
“War is not a video game. There is no reload button in Iraq. If the British are counting their bullets, it must be that they are not fighting the real thing. Besides, they are not where the heavy action is, like the US forces. Such thinking is nuts.”
I agree with him. You’re nuts, and infected with an anti-American agenda that causes you to lie about what is clearly visible. No comment about the other video where Americans chose not to blow a mosque from the sky eh? No comment?
You have accomplished the following:
Blatantly lied about what is clearly visible in the video
Made it clear that you are willing to lie about it
Established that you are gullible enough to think that if you lie about what is clearly visible in the video, it will magically delicious carry more wreight than someone actually looking at it for themselves
Established that you hate the US and are willing to lie to attempt to put it down
Made it clear that you are infected with liberalism to the point that it effects how you allow yourself to think for yourself.
I don’t blame you for the last one. You were brought up thinking that such crap is justifiable. You will spend the rest of your life trying to prove that US soldiers use wreckless disregard in war, and you will only prove that British soldiers count their bullets and answer for each one because they fight war like a PC game.
Ofcourse, we could start talking about Basra, and the way the Britsh use ridiculously excessive force there with gunships and such, killing lots of civilians and firing indescriminantly. But then, that might make you feel a little like a flaming hypocrite. It’s a thought though. :lol:
