Appeasement

I don't have a news link, but you can probably find one fairly easily, and the story is ongoing anyways. Some terrorists captured three Japanese civilians in Iraq. They sent a message to the Japanese government: Pull all your troups out of Iraq or we'll burn them alive. The Japanese government said "No". Agree or disagree with their decision?

I remember that we had that discussion, where people said "Terrorists should be bargained with" and "If you can save human lives by giving in to their demands, you should do it". Well here we have a real-life example of a government not doing so. Personally, I agree with the Japanese government 100%.

Good. I'm glad someone is finally standing up to these punks.

What's three lives, or three thousand lives, or half a million lives compared to freedom? There is no price too great for it.

Good. I'm glad someone is finally standing up to these punks. --DocFrance

Nah, I think lots of countries have stood up to them, and are continuing to do so. You just see much more news about the few that don't. (Spain pulling out their troops, etc.) We've had good allies all along. Britain, Japan, lots of countries. Even the countries who aren't willing to go all the way still mostly stand up to the bad guys in most cases, by doing legal things, arresting people in their own countries, freezing money.

But yeah, it is nice to see someone really willing to do the right thing, like Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

Nah, I think lots of countries have stood up to them, and are continuing to do so. You just see much more news about the few that don't. (Spain pulling out their troops, etc.)

---

Good point, I forgot about that.

The last news I saw about that is that they will free the hostages even if Japan refused to take the troups out.

What made them change their mind? They used their brain, or maybe someone talked to them? I have no idea, but I hope they actually release them. I think they will, though.

And Spain has not retired the troops yet. Al Quaeda trheatened to keep attacking the country if the troups didn't leave this week. And they will not leave. So it's not like "the president is listening to the terrorist demands". The president is listening to the Spanish people demands, who never wanted the troops there and wants them out in June. Can you see the difference?

Plus, he promised to take the troops out in campaign, one of the reason people voted him. If he lies, he'll be in trouble, and he will be another traitor to the people, like our other president, who is hated by about...90% of the people I know (Right winged people too).

Al Quaeda trheatened to keep attacking the country if the troups didn't leave this week. And they will not leave. So it's not like "the president is listening to the terrorist demands". The president is listening to the Spanish people demands, who never wanted the troops there and wants them out in June. Can you see the difference? --Shadow Nexus

I do see the difference. A slow strategic withdrawl is the next best thing to Spain staying over there, I guess. Better than an immediate withdrawl, I agree.

In fact I prefer an inmediate withdrawal, or at least I did before the terrorists asked for the inmediate withdrawal. Back then, inmediate withdrawal was just leaving, but after the terrorists asked for it, it would look like we are giving up to their demands.

I just hope the hostages are all free and safe eventually. I really don't see how anyone who resorts to kidnapping and threatening murder can become so popular, even if some of their ideas strike cords with others. Where has the line between ideals and human morality gone?

Take care all.

Death is a part of war surely the japanese know this better than anyone terrorists are idiots for what they did

Bonzi and Kamikzie (spelling?) japanese invented these! horid! but at least they knew something that alot of us freedom fighters dont realize DEATH IS WAR how many was it? three? im not sure how it is over there but im assuming the japanese are helping us and in that case im all for it with their help we can take them down quicker which means less american and japanese deaths if they were to withdraw because of 3 japanese more americans would end up dieing.

Edited by Unne: That word (you know which one) is rather offensive, please avoid using it.

actually my point on all this is the fact the japanese arent ready for war. every other country trains their soildgers in combat, interrogation and how to survive it....in assasination and everything else.....but the japanese, due to their past, train their sooildgers in how to erct buildings and put out fires...barely any combat training at all and no actual experiance....i feel sorry for them. i dont have a love for the japanese because of their large violations against animal rights...but their current military is simply unprepared and untraind. they are great and exceptional at aid work and rescuing..but war. even their own people know this. if it were any other country...they could tuff it out....but sending the japanese soildgers is like sending kids, they are smart, but unexperianced and untrained...poor buggers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

the japanese arent ready for war the japanese, due to their past have barely any combat training at all and no actual experiance sending the japanese soildgers is like sending kids, they are smart, but unexperianced and untrained...poor buggers

---

sooooo...lets take over japan?

im sure japans tactical weaponry would have something to say about that....you dont have to be smart to push a button, the american president proved that

Pardon? what has bush done thats wrong? just because mtv and the media dont like him doesnt mean he is stupid, us americans hate everything! lol

The concept of not appeasing a sticky situation such as this I believe takes it's roots way back in Munich in 1938, when the European powers appeased Hitler. Ever since then, it's been common practice to NEVER negotiate with people who are deemed dangerous. So, really, Bush is just following a long line of not appeasing terrorists.

Take care all.

And if i remember my world history Great Briton was the country who did the most appeasing

Probably, but they had their justifications at the time. Sure, in hindsight, appeasing Hitler was probably the greatest mistake of the 20th century, but at the time, most of Europe actually respected what Hitler had done in Germany and didn't realize what a madman he was.

What Hitler did that befuddled the rest of the world was:
He actually told the truth in public, and lied in private when other leaders would question him. No one had ever thought of this sort of tactic before really.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

actually my point on all this is the fact the japanese arent ready for war. every other country trains their soildgers in combat, interrogation and how to survive it....in assasination and everything else.....but the japanese, due to their past, train their sooildgers in how to erct buildings and put out fires...barely any combat training at all and no actual experiance....i feel sorry for them. i dont have a love for the japanese because of their large violations against animal rights...but their current military is simply unprepared and untraind. they are great and exceptional at aid work and rescuing..but war. even their own people know this. if it were any other country...they could tuff it out....but sending the japanese soildgers is like sending kids, they are smart, but unexperianced and untrained...poor buggers

---

Actually, the Japanese army is one of the most trained armies in the world, with some of the best techonology and personnel. Do not underestimate the Japanese when it comes to war - they have a past rich in that.

sorry War, but all my points came from teh japanese themselves...the soildgers, the public and their government. i dont doubt that their weaponry is topnotch, but their soildgers by their own admition have been improperly trained due to teh stigma of the past that over shadows them. it's not my fault if thats their own oppinion of themselves.

samurai werent much better either for that matter, that was a whole messed up situation.

your right guys, britian did indeedtry working thinks out with the nazis and come to a peaceful solution as every government should, but it was hitler who came to us first and asked for our hand in freindship to rule earth togeather. that was when churchill told him to sod off and WE began to fight not only for england but for europe against an awsome enemy with cutting edge technology.....unlike the USA who recently let loose on a poeple with barely any weaponry and plenty of stones. Britain shamefully helped too, despite teh overwhelming reluctance of it's people.

Peacefull solution? The Brits just looked the other way as someone whom they told that they could only have so many boats no planes and just so many soldiers mounted their forces beyond their limits. They were too cowardly to back up their words with force and look where it got us. They pissed them off in the first place by humilliating them then they couldnt even back up what they said before! The US knew it was a bad idea to piss them off but the Brits ignored us! NOW your saying OUR rulers are stupid!?

EDIT: Happy Soul Ice?

Quote:

---

Peacefull solution? you just looked the other way as someone whom you told that they could only have so many boats no planes and just so many soldiers mounted their forces beyond their limits. You were too cowardly to back up your words with force and look where it got us. You pissed them off in the first place by humilliating them then you couldnt even back up what you said before! The US knew it was a bad idea to piss them off but you ignored us! NOW your saying OUR rulers are stupid!

---

why are you blaming Snowman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

unlike the USA who recently let loose on a poeple with barely any weaponry and plenty of stones.

---

I guess Kalashnikovs, Rocket-Propelled Grenades, and Mortars are considered stones, right?

I know I'm getting in on a debate a little late but this is interesting.The entire situation boils down to this- are the needs of many above the needs of few or vice-versa. If the japanese pull out, than the 3 men live and the Japs cant help Iraq gain freedom anymore. If the 3 men are killed, than thats -3 for Japan and hopefully a shot at helpin the Iraqis.

I'd have to take into consideration what Snowman said however, that the Japs may not be ready for war. The fact is, they just got a military privelidge back. In WW2 They lost the right to have a military. How prepared they are is questionable, so pulling out may not be a bad idea after all.

I'd have to agree too, with Talus in his previous statement. The US didnt foolishly attack Iraq. They had a legit. reason. If the Iraqis didnt fight back with "stones", than the death rate would stop and peace might come about.

Case and point: Although the Japanese dont want 3 men to die, it might be neccecary in order to continue in the Iraqi Peace Program with the US.

"They had a legit. reason."

Did they though? Surely, the USA had reasons, but they've all been proven to be far from legit. I'm not debating as to whether or not going in their to help the people was right, or that Saddam shouldn't have been removed, but our "reasons" for going in were far from legit.

Take care all.

The decision of the Japanese is probably cultural as well as practical. The Japanese believed that death in battle was the most honorable way to go, as well as death in service of one's lord and country. The terrorist tactics which would probably work well on America (our citizens would be up in arms if the government allowed an American hostage to be killed despite our "we do not negotiate with terrorists" creed) because the Japanese, due to their culture, would be more likely to accept such a thing and honor the sacrifice of their armies, though it may not sit well with the younger members of the population.

Quote:

---

I guess Kalashnikovs, Rocket-Propelled Grenades, and Mortars are considered stones, right?

---

You forgot the T-62s, 72s, and 80s, the SCUD missiles, and the chemical\biological warheads.

You mean Iraq resistance groups have chemical and biological warheads? Woah. And I don't know what "80s" is, but it makes me thing about a Boy George-shooting cannon.

Quote:

---

If the Iraqis didnt fight back with "stones", than the death rate would stop and peace might come about.

---

Maybe if another country invaded your country, bombed your houses, killed your family and ruined your life, you would not have too many reasons against fighting back with "stones". Anyone who was not expecting resistance to show up in form of terrorism is preety naive. And this war was supposed to be "against terrorism", but I can't see a decrease in terrorism....

actually Pies, the reg's that stipulated no military were formed by europe and the UK, not soly britain. and hitler built that military over years, training children to ride gliders so that they could later become pilots. like teh rest of nighbouring eurupe we were delayed by hitlers greatest skill - propoganda which also fooled the usa. but when they began making a move it was the british who held them off with teh assictance of underground european forces....the yanks couldnt put down their dicks untill it was all over.

no Talus, that would be the small ordiance that both america and the UK sold to them. if iraque had half the weaponry that america and Blair propaganderd they had the war would have been alot harder considering that there was almost NO protection against bilogical weaponry provided for UK military untill AFTER the war. the filters were even missing offa our tanks.

Vince.....the whole premise was WMD, which there was NONE of. if they now claim it was simply because of a evil dictator...theres planety of them around which bush takes no interest in..zimbabwe for example.

then again bush is now trying to cover up the actual amount of US casualties, we should have been out of there long ago.

i wonder if the fact that american soildgers over there pass jokes about the food being crap to the extent that a burgerking has flown over there, the fact many refuse to pick up teh local direlect and the extra point that many soildgers have pleaded that they are mentally unfit to fight there and the militarys response was to give them drugs like dope......i wonder if america is now oppressing iraque, or would that come from bush's need to convert them to christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

no Talus, that would be the small ordiance that both america and the UK sold to them. if iraque had half the weaponry that america and Blair propaganderd they had the war would have been alot harder considering that there was almost NO protection against bilogical weaponry provided for UK military untill AFTER the war. the filters were even missing offa our tanks.

Vince.....the whole premise was WMD, which there was NONE of. if they now claim it was simply because of a evil dictator...theres planety of them around which bush takes no interest in..zimbabwe for example.

then again bush is now trying to cover up the actual amount of US casualties, we should have been out of there long ago.

i wonder if the fact that american soildgers over there pass jokes about the food being crap to the extent that a burgerking has flown over there, the fact many refuse to pick up teh local direlect and the extra point that many soildgers have pleaded that they are mentally unfit to fight there and the militarys response was to give them drugs like dope......i wonder if america is now oppressing iraque, or would that come from bush's need to convert them to christianity.

---

I don't see a single fact among that. To me, you're just spouting a bunch of unbased crap in a vain attempt to make a point. It usually helps if your "facts" are true before you try to argue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

then again bush is now trying to cover up the actual amount of US casualties.

---

Explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

i wonder if the fact that american soildgers over there pass jokes about the food being crap to the extent that a burgerking has flown over there, the fact many refuse to pick up teh local direlect and the extra point that many soildgers have pleaded that they are mentally unfit to fight there and the militarys response was to give them drugs like dope......

---

What the hell are you talking about?

Lol he doesnt know what he's talking about. He thinks all of our troops are dope smokers, insane, and dropping like flies overseas.

"I don't see a single fact among that. To me, you're just spouting a bunch of unbased crap in a vain attempt to make a point. It usually helps if your "facts" are true before you try to argue."

The fact I do see is the WoMD claim. If there are ever are WoMD in that country, I have to believe America or a nation other than Iraq helped them get the weapons. If I recall history correctly, we aided Saddam when he attempted to take over Iran, because we felt that if we supported this, perhaps he wouldn't go against us. Once again, appeasing a dictator failed, but we did provide aid and information to help this attack, though it ultimately didn't pan out.

However, until some are actually found, then I'd agree we went into war until false pretenses. Even if your eventual goals are noble, that's no justification for lying to get in there to begin with. Rather, had the Bush Administration just said, we're going in to get rid of Saddam from the get-go, I would have probably been less critical and perhaps even admired their ambition to go in there.

Most everything else is just speculation at this moment, I do agree.

Take care all.

Vince.....the whole premise was WMD, which there was NONE of. if they now claim it was simply because of a evil dictator...theres planety of them around which bush takes no interest in..zimbabwe for example.

Those were both reasons. The US did originally go in to get rid of WMD, which they didnt find. Saddam however did threaten the us, thus beginning the war to overthrow the dictator. Yes, there are other evil dictators in the world, such as Iran. HOpefully the US will go after them too- of course only if the soldiers want to, right Talus? :D

Just because we didnt find any doesnt me there werent any.

You mean US soldiers get drugs for free? Woah, now that sounds really good, I'm thinking about joining the US army now! Welcome to Baghdad, an orgy of sex and drugs!

OK, seriously, truth is I have heard the whole drugs thing before, to make soldiers more effective on combat. However, I haven't seen any real evidence of this, it's more like a rumour.

Quote:

---

Yes, there are other evil dictators in the world, such as Iran. HOpefully the US will go after them too

---

Democratically elected dictators count, too?

"Just because we didnt find any doesnt me there werent any."

That's a tricky thing to say. You cannot say that you want facts with everything, yet when you cannot find a fact to support your side, say it isn't needed. It needs to work both ways. If facts arise about the drug thing, then one would assume that it is true. However, I haven't actually seen any proof, so I don't believe it either. To say that there might have been WoMD in Iraq, well, are there now? If there were but aren't now, then, how did they pose a threat to us right at that moment?

To me, that's like saying, there was Nazism at one time in Germany, so we should occupy them in case it ever arises again. Yes, we must learn from the past, but we cannot allow our future to be defined by it.

What I think people fail to understand is that there isn't a correct point of view. There are just differing ones. What seems to happen is that we just disagree entirely instead of seeing that we actually do agree in parts and have debates when really, our opinions aren't that far apart. I believe Saddam was a threat to the world, and should have been taken out of power, however, you need real justification in this day and age for any sort of backing. To claim something just to get support is the equivalent of purposely leaving facts out of a question to get the desired result. The ends don't always justify the means is what I think. If Bush had actually rationalized why Iraq needed to be invaded: for the well-being of Iraqis, not only Americans, then I'd have less of a gripe.

Take care all.

hey it's up to you guys if you dont want to belive me....but everything ive said has come from both BBC and Channel four news Over here in the united kingdom.

Tal, for my explanation. when the innitial attack on iraque was finished, according to leaked reports which britain, being anti war was happy to soak up, bush had given the go ahead to publically announce a death figure for american troops which was three times smaller than reality. recently the military saked a female officer who took photographs of loads of american dead being hounherd on a warship.....these pictures managed to get to teh american and british press and suddenly this story erupted how bush wasnt trying to falsyfy american death numbers but be sympathetic to those greaving familys....as a govenment Psycheatrist said however....EVERYONE in america needs time to greave and understand teh losses they are suffering and it was obvious bush is trying to protect his electoral position.

froum teh mouths of US soildgers themselves to channel four news they admitted they are on drugs to keep calm during operations in iraqe. one soildger said that he had asked the military medical guys not to be sent to iraqe because he wouldnt be able to cope, they tore up his papers in his face and said stop being a pussy, sent him out and now he's taking whatever he can find just to keep his trigger finger stable. im not saying all US soildgers are going through this, but it seems the american press is a hell of alot more censored than teh british press. heck it even showed that thursday night is disco night in iraque and in the US base, formerly one of saddams strongholds 50 US officials were filmed disco dancing on saddams huge light up star on teh floor which intelligance claims he and his sons used to use for killings, but then not many know this since the huge concreate walls hide this from iraques, the BBC had to sneak a camera in to catch it.

thats the problem vincent...when bush pushed saddam actually backed down, but bush wasnt happy because all HE WANTED was a war, thus he dared to shout down teh united nations like teh manical dictator he is. Blair has finally given up the WMD protest..having tried changing the way he prhased it untill everybody was kicking his arse. in zimbabwe at teh mo they are trainginchildren how to torture, they are recouting women for rape, they publically beat, and murder any form of protest.

as i said before...it really doesnt bother me if no one belives me because everything ive said was aired nationally on british televistion on a number of channels....and many reports came from teh people fighting out there themselves and filmed footage. but eveyones entiltied to belive what ever they want....some wouldnt open their eyes if it was sticking a gun to their heads

"as i said before...it really doesnt bother me if no one belives me because everything ive said was aired nationally on british televistion on a number of channels....and many reports came from teh people fighting out there themselves and filmed footage. but eveyones entiltied to belive what ever they want....some wouldnt open their eyes if it was sticking a gun to their heads"

Hmm, that is an interesting possibility. The American media is notorious for not showing an event from both sides. Often time, unless it bestows American glory, the whole story won't be shown. From interning at CBS for a while now, I can tell you from experience, that most news events get so drastically censored and watered down, that the true nature of a story is often completely lost, and only a small detail is left to become the entire topic.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

hey it's up to you guys if you dont want to belive me....but everything ive said has come from both BBC and Channel four news Over here in the united kingdom.

Tal, for my explanation. when the innitial attack on iraque was finished, according to leaked reports which britain, being anti war was happy to soak up

---

Allow me to doubt the validity of your news, you just said they were anti-war and would "soak up" stories that would support their view. Being so blatantly biased, I don't doubt they fabricate these bizarre stories that you take up as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

bush had given the go ahead to publically announce a death figure for american troops which was three times smaller than reality. recently the military saked a female officer who took photographs of loads of american dead being hounherd on a warship.....these pictures managed to get to teh american and british press and suddenly this story erupted how bush wasnt trying to falsyfy american death numbers but be sympathetic to those greaving familys....as a govenment Psycheatrist said however....EVERYONE in america needs time to greave and understand teh losses they are suffering and it was obvious bush is trying to protect his electoral position.

---

Wow, I can't believe a story could be manipulated so much. It has always been the policy to protect the privacy of service members and their families, releasing those photographs was a direct violation of the policy.

It disgusts me that the media wants to get juicy pictures of our dead to further their agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

froum teh mouths of US soildgers themselves to channel four news they admitted they are on drugs to keep calm during operations in iraqe. one soildger said that he had asked the military medical guys not to be sent to iraqe because he wouldnt be able to cope, they tore up his papers in his face and said stop being a pussy, sent him out and now he's taking whatever he can find just to keep his trigger finger stable.

---

Saying, "I can't cope." won't get you out of a deployment. Sounds like straight up cowardice, turning his back on his country when the call comes. If he gets caught taking narcotics then he can expect to be prosecuted for violating UCMJ and will be punished severly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

im not saying all US soildgers are going through this, but it seems the american press is a hell of alot more censored than teh british press..

---

No, our news might be biased in one direction, but your news is just as biased only going the opposite way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

heck it even showed that thursday night is disco night in iraque and in the US base, formerly one of saddams strongholds 50 US officials were filmed disco dancing on saddams huge light up star on teh floor which intelligance claims he and his sons used to use for killings, but then not many know this since the huge concreate walls hide this from iraques,

---

Sometimes, they bring out movies and let soldiers watch videos. I mean, who do these people think they are? How dare they try to bring a little enjoyment to the men and women who serve?

If "disco dancing" gets these guys through the day, then go for it, they earned it. So what's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

the BBC had to sneak a camera in to catch it.

---

Wait wait wait, the BBC infiltrated into this compound, sneaking past battle-hardened soldiers to get this footage? BS.

im glad you understand Captain. in the same manner i can point out how the USA media was happy to the point of obsesstion to show footage and facts about princess diana which the UK was too scared to. i think the US was RIGHT to do this if the people were interested. personnally i dont care, but if others want to know the truth.....why should it be hidden.

thats up to you Tal, but teh BBC is world reknowed for being professtional and telling teh truth, but then it could be said you are also biased, judgin by your avvie etc.

it was argued that those photographs were aired and taken to pay homage to the brave american warriors who died fighting for what they belived was right. after all how many people watched footage of September 11th to better understand the plight of newyorkers and the horrors they felt they endured. to see brave firemen in action saveing lives.....for many that would be the last glimpse they would see of their sons. Dont you want to pay tribute to teh brave who died in your name and your familys, that was their intention.....but it didnt fit bushs propoganda.

he wont be convicted because half teh guys out there are in a similar situation.....and what right on earth do you have to call someone else a coward when they are actually out there..what makes you such a heroic standad of braveery Tal. should we throw away our lives when we dont belive in teh cause. ive fought for my life a number of times, and ive been in the position to kill in combat, hell my grandfarther was a commando in WW2 and i know that life is damn precius and any nutcase who starts shouting about cowerdace and teh flag, even on my side, is the first person i shoot because they are dangerous in battle.

hey tal, if dancing in decadence on teh bloodstaned tiles of innocents is what floats your boat...
belive what you want, but the facts are on film.

*sigh* I'm not even going to bother responding. You're obviously too wrapped up in your own propoganda to even begin to understand the concepts of duty, honor, and sacrifice.

duty and honer do not always walk hand in hand, if you lived by them you would understand. neither is it honerable to slag off a fellow warrior and acuse them of cowerdace. but then here you are judging me Doc.
It isnt propoganda if it's real. the facts are the facts.

Anybody who takes everything they read/watch/hear in the media as absolute fact is going to end up seriously misinformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

duty and honer do not always walk hand in hand, if you lived by them you would understand. neither is it honerable to slag off a fellow warrior and acuse them of cowerdace. but then here you are judging me Doc.
It isnt propoganda if it's real. the facts are the facts.

---

Oh, and I'm sure you know *so* much more than me about duty and honor. Please, enlighten me, as to how it came to pass that you know so much more than I do about such hallowed concepts.

Slagging on a fellow warrior? Malarky. This man *volunteered* to serve in the armed forces. When the same man refuses to perform his duty and to fight alongside his comrades-in-arms, which he *swore* to do, for some bullcrap reason like "he can't cope," then he deserves to be branded a coward.

But of course, what do I know about duty? Please, tell me I'm wrong, because you know so much more than I, o enlightened one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

he wont be convicted because half teh guys out there are in a similar situation.....

---

Half? Come on now, you can create more believable "facts" than that. I guess if you're going to fib a little you might as well go all out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

and what right on earth do you have to call someone else a coward when they are actually out there..what makes you such a heroic standad of braveery Tal.

---

Because when I gave my oath of enlistment I meant it damnit. When Uncle Sam told me I'm going to be spending a minimum of 14 months overseas, I didn't turn my back on my brothers. Hell, I have 4 more days with my family before I report back for mobilization.

So I view a soldier that wants to dip out on his brothers and take up narcotics a coward. He needs to spend a few years in Fort Leavenworth prison and dishonorably discharged.

just this minite on channel four news there was a report about something an american news network uncoverd, a former rpison camp of saddams, now taken over by the american military has been discoverd to be torturing iraque prisoners. photo's were taken of prisoners stripped naked and beaten with american soildgers stood beside them grinning and holding their thumbs up. one picture shows an iraque standing on a cardboard box, forced to where a bag over his head and wires tied to his thumbs. he was told if he fell off the box he would be electricuted. when this went publick in the US the military admitted it was all true. good for them they didnt try to hide it and made no excuses other than what teh hell went down there was wrong.
certainly media blows many things out of proportion...but they also uncover facts that certai people didnt want us to see.

i never said you know nothing about duty or honer or chivalry Doc...your a very uptight paranoid person, but your certainly gullable if you place your life and the lifes of others in teh hands of people who dont give a crap. my duty, honer and every chivalrus aspect of my being is to those i love and family as well as myself. you dont know me and you havent fought beside me or else you would understand my sense and being of houner. it's a laugh hearing you say that here when i hear exactly the opposite from teh mature studants i teach and those ive lived with. but each to their own. Im happy to know my actions in life have shown me what im made of.

Tal, if i was fibbing i would say that the american military from teh very start of this operation in iraque proved how uterly useless they are by the fact that the first casualties were british and teh americans caused it by crashing choppers and a noteable rogue pilot who blew the :love::love::love::love: out of one of our tanks, killing the crew except for teh gunner. The DETAILS of what i just said were in fact true, however i DIDNT mention the large humanitarian effort of both the US soildgers and britsh in aiding teh everyday iraque's. how about teh fact that at one point the military dropped a new type of cluster bomb which they mistakenly coloured the eexact same colour as aid parcels, which led to reports from teh font lines of children picking them up and being blown up...yet again not another fib but an actual accident.

im glad for your family Tal that they have a loyal son, but my brothers mean exactly trout to me compared to my lovedones, as for your uncle sam and my queen, a leader must lead by example to inspire my loyalty, simply because someone talks the talk wont make me walk the walk. Whats more i know from experiance that not everyone is abel to fight let alone stand up to war.....if you want to take people in who wont be able to look after your back your a bigger fool than i gave you credit for. what a nice person...happy to punish others for their weakness, what a bright star you are. glad im not american.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

Whats more i know from experiance that not everyone is abel to fight let alone stand up to war.....

---

Then they shouldn't join the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman

what a nice person...happy to punish others for their weakness, what a bright star you are. glad im not american.

---

No, you got it backwards, that man is punishing us. By using drugs he's letting down everyone he works with. Trying to bail on his battle-buddies during a time of need, that's punishing his unit, they would have to carry the extra burden because he "can't cope". There is no room for that sort of "weakness" when it's life or death.

If you accept the behavior of cowardice and drug addiction, then I'm glad you're not American also.

You know snow, its funny how you talk about all these resources that you get all this "information" from but you dont even give us a site link. You just talk about your countries magazines and new junk. We wouldnt even know it EXISTS man

what about all the military services, especially teh navy, which dont require the combat skills as highly as technical abilities, medical, catering, intelligance etc. Im not saying they all have to be steven segal, ex navy seals turned cook's lol.

i accept and understand that not everyone is as strong of mind and body as i am. Smoking is as much a liability as a soildger who takes differing forms of drugs because, like alchohol, it weakens your body and mind without even taking into account all teh research into cancers etc. he's a liability HAVING him there, do you want someone whos in such a state he guns down a load of kids, :love::love::love::love:s up his gun and shoots you, hell he could even drop a granade after he pulled the pin out, see what his comrades think then when they dont have ankles anymore. If someone is mentally unfit then you dont take them into combat. we dont know anything about him, there could be a psycheatric reason which the militarys oldschool manner wouldnt pick up on.
Im not just mouthing off, ive fought in groups and had to rely on people having my back or i would end up with a spear shaft through it...ive seen whats happend to people who just didnt pay attention. hell the mix of ages and adults i get to tutor in combat come with all sorts of asorted problems. Your right theres no room for a warrior with those kind of problems on teh feild of comabt, so perhaps the psyche guys should have payed more attention to those they sent out.

Pies, your welcome to check out CBS's offical website and see if they have the latest news, frankly the last news bullitin has been on every channel over here and it was discoverd by americans so if you havent seen it.....change the channel, try the BBC (youve herd of them right). But the photographs of naked israle prisoners piled on top of each other five high with a female officer leaning on their bare butts smiling while they have sacks over their heads speak for themselves. thankfully the military has since suspended them....one of them even came out with teh fact that thye were autherrised to do it, they do it all the time and so do most US military prison camps and teh FBI use the same tactic just down teh road. Im shocked because it means if the US military is doing this then the British military KNEW about it and did nothing.
I DONT search the web for news bullitins or note worthy sites, like teh majority of people i watch teh news at ten over here, i havent mentiond a single magazine yet. As far as i know you can get BBC in the US. hence why i come online and look at a final fantasy site. why i spend most of my short online time on ebay. if you want some neat links to some illustration sites ive got loads, legal and rude, if you want some british and american proffestional models i have them, but they have nothing to do with this topic. Everything ive said about swordfighting is my 22 years of being involved with it, winning compitions, fighting battles including the oldschool nutters who wanted to take your head off and now teaching...what links can i give you tere when it's all in my hands.
If you know anyone in the UK ask them to watch the news.

Democratically elected dictators count, too?

If your referring to bush, he isnt a dictator. Plus the fact that he doesnt torture people like the middle eastern dictators do. They treat citizens horribly in order to get their opinions across.

Anybody who takes everything they read/watch/hear in the media as absolute fact is going to end up seriously misinformed- hooters

Which explains snowmans story. HOw do you know it was the us that beat them up? I dotn think the military is capable of doing that under the jeneava (sp?) convention.

If you look at the thread below this one entitled, "God Bless America's Finest", you'll see that the USA is more than capable of the cruelty that we often look down upon.

The Geneva Convention isn't like the UN, we can't decide to ignore it if it doesn't suit us.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

The Geneva Convention isn't like the UN, we can't decide to ignore it if it doesn't suit us.

---

Or else... what? People will think America sucks? That's nothing new. People would attack America? Nothing new there either.

Fact is, you can ignore anything you want when it comes to international affairs - as long as you can withstand the price, the consquences, and the outcome.

If they truly are beating Iraqis I hope they DO get in trouble, however I doubt its true. I love everybody, even the Iraqis. Peace should come, be it by any means nececcary. I sincerely doubt the beatings are real.

"Or else... what? People will think America sucks? That's nothing new. People would attack America? Nothing new there either.

Fact is, you can ignore anything you want when it comes to international affairs - as long as you can withstand the price, the consquences, and the outcome."

For one thing, if America ignores the Geneva Convention, then I bet every country with American POW's will ignore it as well, and that will only make matters worse.

As for the second part.. that concept scares me frankly, as that sort of mentality usually leads to someone along the lines of Hitler coming to power, rallying support to overturn international agreements because they can. Not saying you are anything like Hitler, I know for a fact you are not, but that concept sounds eerily like something a dictator would preach.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

then I bet every country with American POW's will ignore it as well, and that will only make matters worse.

---

Errr... they already do. Big time.

Quote:

---

Not saying you are anything like Hitler, I know for a fact you are not

---

Yeah, I didn't die 60 years ago, so I'm probably not him.

Anyway - in the international arena, when you haven't got that many players, and certain players are substantially stronger than the others - the will use their power to their advantage. America can impose solutions on other countries, mediate, or make its own decisions on things. That's only because it's the world's power, and no-one can challenge them (yet) on that title. The UN can talk it all it wants, but that's all it can do - talk. Possibly, the only way to hurt a super-power without starting a war (which you would lose), is through financial means (boycotts, etc). I don't see however anyone stopping trade with the USA - do you? I guess it's not that important to them.

Frankly, I think you should be glad America is running things, and not, say, Nazi Germay or Soviet Russia. It could've happened that way, you know.

VINCENT06...it's all over the news, the US military has copped to it. in fact they sacked a number of officers for it, Bush himself said it was abhorant (first real reaction ive seen him have) and that it isnt teh way america does things. unfortunatly for him it is because they were told to do it by senior officers. Photographs were taken OF US military officers pointing and laugh at their naked penis and bums. im sure i saw another thread around here about it. Now iraque has seen it and it's fueling terrorism...gee man i dont know how you could have missed it.....try any NEWS websites, it's all over here and the US broke the story.
I think it's frankly nieve to NOT think that this kind of crap goes on during war. it's wrong, but this happend in veitnam....and now it will happen again, it is happening again.

actually angel, while germany certainly has a growing ressurection of Neo-nazi, it isnt controlled by them, france is - the national front. And soviet russia isnt like during teh american paranoia of the kennedy days, they couldnt even afford to shoot a gun let alone run the world, they are dropping into economic crisis, that said i would take them anyday over the USA. pretty much america is turning into the new ROME/NAZI land of today with it's policy of america is always right and we are the best. Every country is alloud to pollute by a certain percentage, all the EU countries and japan come under that percentage, so america actually BUYS all those extras percents and that allows them to be the BIGGEST polluter on this planet. But of course bush said in his inner bred manner, "hell lets get out of these green talks" and turned his back on teh fact because he wanted to go and blow up some piss poor country. interesting how the US in history to today always starts wars with countries who are technologically and economically infeiror to them.

how tragic *no sarcasm*

"Frankly, I think you should be glad America is running things, and not, say, Nazi Germay or Soviet Russia. It could've happened that way, you know."

Indeed. All I am saying is that, if we decide that we can make our own policies and reject others just because we can, we're going down that path of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Take care all.