We will never win the hearts and minds of afgfhani's with the american army there

[ticatfan3]

What the **** is wrong with your people that command your soldiers.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=95f41e73-ad07-4e13-a945-bedf5efa9891&k=62653
JALALABAD, Afghanistan — U.S. Marine Special Forces fleeing a militant ambush involving a suicide car bomb and gunmen opened fire on civilians in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, wounded Afghans said. Up to 16 people were killed and 34 wounded in the violence.

More than a half dozen Afghans recuperating from bullet wounds told The Associated Press that the U.S. forces fired on cars and pedestrians along at least a five-kilometre stretch of one of eastern Afghanistan’s busiest highways.

“They were firing everywhere, and they even opened fire on 14 to 15 vehicles passing on the highway,” said Tur Gul, 38, who was standing on the roadside by a gas station and was shot twice in his right hand. “They opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot.”

After the suicide attack by an explosives-filled minivan, the Americans treated every car and person along the highway as a potential attacker, though none of the people showed hostile intent, said Mohammad Khan Katawazi, the district chief of Shinwar.

Maj. William Mitchell, a U.S. military spokesman, said militants launched a “complex” attack, shooting gunfire at the coalition forces from three different points after the suicide bomb. Forces fleeing the area fired in self defence, a military statement said.

“We certainly believe it’s possible that the incoming fire from the ambush was wholly or partly responsible for the civilian casualties,” he said.

The casualty tolls varied widely. The U.S. military said 16 civilians were killed and 24 wounded “during the initial attack.” A U.S. soldier was also injured. The incident was under investigation, the military said.

Nangarhar provincial health chief Ajmel Pardus said eight people were killed, including a woman and two boys, and 34 were wounded. Four of the wounded were in a critical condition, he said.

The gunfire from Americans sparked angry demonstrations in the region — just 50 kilometres west of the Pakistan border. Hundreds of Afghans blocked the road and threw rocks at police, with some demonstrators shouting “Death to America! Death to Karzai,” a reference to President Hamid Karzai.

At the Jalalabad hospital, several victims said an American convoy approached them on the highway and opened fire. As the convoy neared, many cars pulled over to the side of the road, but were still hit by gunfire.

“When we parked our vehicle, when they passed us, they opened fire on our vehicle,” said 15-year-old Mohammad Ishaq, who was hit by two bullets, in his left arm and his right ear. “It was a convoy of three American Humvees. All three humvees were firing around.”

Ahmed Najib, 23, lay in the next bed, hit by a bullet in his right shoulder.

“One American was in the first vehicle, shouting to stop on the side of the road, and we stopped. The first vehicle did not fire on us, but the second opened fire on our car,” Najib said, adding that his two-year-old brother was grazed by a bullet on his cheek. “I saw them turning and firing in this direction, then turning and firing in that direction. I even saw a farmer shot by the Americans.”

NATO and U.S. forces are often accused of firing at Afghan civilians they fear may be about to launch an attack. Though officials say the shootings are done in self defence, they often injure or kill innocent civilians. On Dec. 3, British troops speeding away from a suicide bomb attack in Kandahar city opened fire on cars, killing one civilian and wounding six others.

© Associated Press 2007

[uppy]

When you get hit with a ambush the SOP is for every one to open fire

in the direction of the people ambushing you giving you cover to move

out of the kill zone

[ticatfan3]

When you get hit with a ambush the SOP is for every one to open fire

in the direction of the people ambushing you giving you cover to move

out of the kill zoneIt seems to me they went a littl;e to far by tring to kill eveyone around. To me this is a lack of disapline. Now I have never been shot at,but proper training should help that. Everyone elses soldier are getting ambushed like that but do not start shooting everybody in site. Our soldiers have shot some cilvilians in the past but nothing like that. Our military and goverment are also trying to set up that the poppies be sold to drug companies thru a marketing board, which will give the farmers more money and help out with the hearts and minds, but the british and american are totally against the idea. Just burn everything. Afghanistan should be under canadian control with all soldiers being led by canadians. And then we will see some progress.

[г]

Afghanistan should be under canadian control with all soldiers being led by canadians.

When are you signing up ?

[uppy]

Ticat when I was in we where trained to lay down as much fire as possible

to get out of the killing zone of a close ambush

Maj. William Mitchell, a U.S. military spokesman, said militants launched a “complex” attack, shooting gunfire at the coalition forces from three different points after the suicide bomb. Forces fleeing the area fired in self defence, a military statement said

The Major said the fire was comming from three differnt points so the guys

in the kill zone needed to surrpress the fire from these points....it sounds

to me they where just doing what was needed to get out of the kill zone.

[Green Lantern]

Ticat when I was in we where trained to lay down as much fire as possible

to get out of the killing zone of a close ambush



The Major said the fire was comming from three differnt points so the guys

in the kill zone needed to surrpress the fire from these points....it sounds

to me they where just doing what was needed to get out of the kill zone.

I thought good guys only shoot at bad guys. SOP is to fire in the direction of the incoming fire, in a city, with civilians around?

[uppy]

Collateral Damage

[Green Lantern]

Collateral Damage

Nice.

[Green Lantern]

Collateral Damage

Does that work for police in the US too?

[uppy]

Does that work for police in the US too?

Are the police in a war zone facing highly trained well armed terrirosts ?

[Matt]

Highly trained, well armed?

This isn't "Air Force One", we're talking about here.

You're looking at Muslim gang bangers with Cold War Era weapons.

[Green Lantern]

Are the police in a war zone facing highly trained well armed terrirosts ?

We are guests there now. It is not a war zone, it is a city with terrorists.

The whole point of the post is that we will not win any supporters if we are not cautious enough around those we are there to help.

Helping citizens by killing them is very odd.

[uppy]

You need to defend your self when attacked thay did as trained.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Ticat when I was in we where trained to lay down as much fire as possible

to get out of the killing zone of a close ambush



The Major said the fire was comming from three differnt points so the guys

in the kill zone needed to surrpress the fire from these points....it sounds

to me they where just doing what was needed to get out of the kill zone.

The major is a lying POS whose words are directly contradicted by scores of witnesses.

[uppy]

You're looking at Muslim gang bangers with Cold War Era weapons.

Thanks for that info

[Green Lantern]

You need to defend your self when attacked thay did as trained.



one question at a time and I will start with a hard one first:

Is it ever OK to kill innocent people?

[Matt]

One wonders if they'd attack us if we weren't, you know, there.

[uppy]

The major is a lying POS whose words are directly contradicted by scores of witnesses.

I will trust a US Officer before I trust the scores of witnesses

[TheGoodShepherd]

Either way, it just shows you how pathetic the state the American army is....they're losing to an enemy whose main weapon is a glorified pipe bomb.

LOL...too funny.

[uppy]

One wonders if they'd attack us if we weren't, you know, there.

We wouldn't be there if people didn't fly planes into our buildings

[TheGoodShepherd]

I will trust a US Officer before I trust the scores of witnesses


Good for you. It's a good thing your anayltical and logical abilities are amazing. :rolleyes2

And I know you don't mean what you just said.

Otherwise, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

[Matt]

I will trust a US Officer before I trust the scores of witnesses

Didn't these get some people in trouble like seventy years ago in Germany?

[uppy]

You love that glorified pipe bomb line Chimpie don't you ?

[Green Lantern]

We wouldn't be there if people didn't fly planes into our buildings

Actually, we wouldn't be there if the President went to the World Court and filed charges against Bin Laden.

[Matt]

We wouldn't be there if people didn't fly planes into our buildings six years ago

Fixed that for ya.

[TheGoodShepherd]

We wouldn't be there if people didn't fly planes into our buildings

Maybe they wouldnt fly planes into your buildings if you could just keep your slimy American hands to yourselves and away from other nations rescources and strategic points.

[uppy]

Didn't these get some people in trouble like seventy years ago in Germany?

Only because they lost ;)

[Matt]

Only because they lost ;)

Well that's true. War's fun when you know you're going to win. Ethical on the other hand...

[Green Lantern]

Only because they lost ;)

How do Nazi's make it into the US military, one wonders.

[TheGoodShepherd]

You love that glorified pipe bomb line Chimpie don't you ?

Only because it's true.

If it wasn't, I wouldnt use it.

Who woulda known...the achilles heel of the American army, the so called greatest the world has ever seen, is a pipe bomb and a determined arab soul.

I guess the army architects must have forgot to take that into their equations.

LOL

[uppy]

Maybe they wouldnt fly planes into your buildings if you could just keep your alimy American hands to yourselves.

Maybe thay wouldn't have US troops in there citys if thay keeped their hands

to them selfs :)

[uppy]

How do Nazi's make it into the US military, one wonders.


We don't have nazi's in the US Military

[TheGoodShepherd]

How do Nazi's make it into the US military, one wonders.

It's actually pretty easy.

When Germany was defeated all the German intelligence officers who specialized in counter insugency all flooded or were recruited into the CIA.

How else do you think the CIA learned such expertise.

The Germans were combating the french and other underground resistence movements for years under Nazi occupied Europe. So obviously the CIA needed people with such experience.

[uppy]

one question at a time and I will start with a hard one first:

Is it ever OK to kill innocent people?

The US military does not kill innocent people...and there will always be

Collateral Damage in war

[TheGoodShepherd]

The US military does not kill innocent people...and there will always be

Collateral Damage in war


Ummm yes they do.

[Green Lantern]

The US military does not kill innocent people...and there will always be

Collateral Damage in war

I'd prefer one step at a time.

Yes or no, or don't play.

[Matt]

The US military does not kill innocent people...and there will always be

Collateral Damage in war

Contradiction.

[uppy]

Ummm yes they do.

Your opinion doesn't make it true Chimpie

[uppy]

I'd prefer one step at a time.

Yes or no, or don't play.


NO...

[Green Lantern]

Contradiction.

You will learn that Upstart believes in something called a "battle of terminology". He thinks that if you phrase something some way, you will win the debate based on that advantage.

[uppy]

Contradiction.

How so ?

[Green Lantern]

NO...

Thank you.

Killing innocents is wrong, you kill an innocent, you are wrong.

That does not mean anything other than that you are not perfect. But at least own up to it.

[uppy]

Thank you.

Killing innocents is wrong, you kill an innocent, you are wrong.

That does not mean anything other than that you are not perfect. But at least own up to it.

The US does not kill innocent people

[Green Lantern]

The US does not kill innocent people

No. The US does not kill innocent people ON PURPOSE. I think that is what you mean. What you said is clearly proven wrong by facts.

[Matt]

That's the distinction. But that's also debateable, I think.

Unless you are of the belief that every man or woman executed in the United States has been guilty of the crimes committed, and that no person at Guantanamo is innocent.

In order to honestly believe that the US does not and has not ever had the intent to kill innocent people (on occasion), then you have to discount the first half-century of this nation's existence in respect to slavery and the result of some of the Japanese detention camps during the Second World War. And the dropping of the Atomic bombs in Japan. On non-military targets. Etc.

In respect to some of these things I know you can argue their necessity -- especially the atomic bombs. But the bottom line is war is ugly, and the United States does not have a track record of going about it in any more honorable a way then any other nation.

[TheGoodShepherd]

The US does not kill innocent people

Yes they do.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Your opinion doesn't make it true Chimpie

No, but my opinion is a lot closer to reality than yours.

[uppy]

Your opinion doesn't make it true Chimpie

[uppy]

No, but my opinion is a lot closer to reality than yours.


You know nothing about reality

[TheGoodShepherd]

You know nothing about reality

I know more about it than you do.

At least I dont go around acting stupid and pretending I had a combat role in the military like you do.

Face it, you're a fake.

Oh and the US does kill innocent people. In fact, it's killed more innocent people in the past 50 years than any nation on Earth.

[uppy]

I know more about it than you do.

At least I dont go around acting stupid and pretending I had a combat role in the military like you do.

Face it, you're a fake.

Oh and the US does kill innocent people. In fact, it's killed more innocent people in the past 50 years than any nation on Earth.


LOL

What ever you say chimpie

[shiva2999]

The US is the world's #1 rogue nation.

It does what it wants.

No rules where American interests are concerned.

[comericatigers]

"Maj. William Mitchell, a U.S. military spokesman, said militants launched a “complex” attack, shooting gunfire at the coalition forces from three different points after the suicide bomb. Forces fleeing the area fired in self defence, a military statement said."

Sounds like the U.S. military did what it had to do. Maybe the civilians should help the U.S. military more so they are not used as human shields by the terrorists.

[uppy]

America keeps the peace ,with out the US the world would be in Turmoil

[comericatigers]

Either way, it just shows you how pathetic the state the American army is....they're losing to an enemy whose main weapon is a glorified pipe bomb.

LOL...too funny.

GS you are pretty pathetic to think that the US military couldn't lite up that whole ****ing place and make it a sheet of glass. The U.S. military is fighting like in Vietnam with their hands tied behind their back against an enemy that is to weak (also known as Radical Muslim) to fight in uniforms away from civilians.

[Green Lantern]

GS you are pretty pathetic to think that the US military couldn't lite up that whole ****ing place and make it a sheet of glass. The U.S. military is fighting like in Vietnam with their hands tied behind their back against an enemy that is to weak (also known as Radical Muslim) to fight in uniforms away from civilians.

You think a nuke is possible? Really? We could not light that place up and make it a sheet of glass.

[TheGoodShepherd]

GS you are pretty pathetic to think that the US military couldn't lite up that whole ****ing place and make it a sheet of glass. The U.S. military is fighting like in Vietnam with their hands tied behind their back against an enemy that is to weak (also known as Radical Muslim) to fight in uniforms away from civilians.

Earth to comerica. The US has been trying to "light it up" as you suggest. They're losing. They can't do anything but sit there and take the daily IED up their collective American asses. The US has idiots for leaders; your enemy does not. That's the real difference - capable leadership.

One side has it, the other doesn't.

The US is fighting with both hands actually. In fact, your own generals continously utter assurances of the army being stretched to it's limit.

That does not, and I repeat does not sound like a glowing endorsement of anyone's hand being tied behind anyone's back. Rather it sounds like you need to do more readings on the current state of the so-called greatest military the world has seen.

The fact is the US is fighting their enemy with all it has. And no one gives a shit if the enemy is in uniform or not. In fact, you'd think uniform or not, the "greatest military" the world has ever known could overcome such an enemy. :rolleyes2

Face it. The US is losing and losing badly.

And when you paper tigers pull out, and trust me you will, I will laugh and laugh hard at yet another devestating loss for the most militarily overrated nation on earth.

[comericatigers]

You think a nuke is possible? Really? We could not light that place up and make it a sheet of glass.

We could but we won't use nukes. The point GS made was that the US is basically losing to pipe bombs making the military pathetic. If you want to talk bombs, the US has nukes--once again won't use them for several reasons--and I don't want the US to use them. However use some MOAB's and getting rid of these ridiculous US rules of engangement would go along way in achieving stability.

[shiva2999]

America keeps the peace ,with out the US the world would be in Turmoil

:rofl:

[Matt]

We could but we won't use nukes. The point GS made was that the US is basically losing to pipe bombs making the military pathetic. If you want to talk bombs, the US has nukes--once again won't use them for several reasons--and I don't want the US to use them. However use some MOAB's and getting rid of these ridiculous US rules of engangement would go along way in achieving stability.

I disagree with this. The United States military beat Afghanistan and Iraq up and down the theatre in 2003 and 2004. They won the invasion. The problem with the United States military now is not it's inadequacy or that they have their hands tied -- it's that there is no clear or promising exit strategy. And there never was. And that was a big mistake.

[comericatigers]

Earth to comerica. The US has been trying to "light it up" as you suggest. They're losing. They can't do anything but sit there and take the daily IED up their collective American asses. The US has idiots for leaders; your enemy does not. That's the real difference - capable leadership.

One side has it, the other doesn't.

The US fighting with both hands actually, in fact, your own generals continously utter assurances of the army being stretched to its limit.

That does not, and I repeat does not sound like a glowing endorsement of anyone's hand being tied behind anyone's back. Rather it sounds like you need to do more readings on the current state of the so-called greatest military the world has seen.

The fact is the US is fighting their enemy with all it has. And no one gives a shit if the enemy is in uniform or not. In fact, you'd think uniform or not, the "greatest military" the word has ever known could overcome such an enemy. :rolleyes2

Face it. The US is losing and losing badly.

And when you paper tigers pull out, and trust me you will, I will laugh and laugh hard at your devestating loss.

You honestly think the US is fighting with it's maximum arsenal. Are you kidding me? If this was true every American enemy would be mobilizing as we speak and preparing to attack.

The US is figthing with its ALLOWED maximum arsenal. The world and the media is watching every move the U.S. makes to spread it's anti-American hatred.

[TheGoodShepherd]

We could but we won't use nukes. The point GS made was that the US is basically losing to pipe bombs making the military pathetic. If you want to talk bombs, the US has nukes--once again won't use them for several reasons--and I don't want the US to use them. However use some MOAB's and getting rid of these ridiculous US rules of engangement would go along way in achieving stability.

Use MOABS?

Wow, I've never known someone who had no clue as to the utility of the MOAB until you posted.

The MOAB is only really used to demoralize an enemy or clear rocky or wooded areas.

It does NOTHING AND I REPEAT NOTHING AGAINST well entrenched MOUNTAIN defenses. That's probbaly why it HAS YET to be used against any enemy.

It is virtually useless to employ against an insurgency and waaaay too costly to mass produce.

I'm done talking to you as you have no clue as to the functions and uses of your own arsenal.

[comericatigers]

I disagree with this. The United States military beat Afghanistan and Iraq up and down the theatre in 2003 and 2004. They won the invasion. The problem with the United States military now is not it's inadequacy or that they have their hands tied -- it's that there is no clear or promising exit strategy. And there never was. And that was a big mistake.

Yeh, I'll give you exit strategy as well. The military is not a peace keeping force.

[TheGoodShepherd]

You honestly think the US is fighting with it's maximum arsenal. Are you kidding me? If this was true every American enemy would be mobilizing as we speak and preparing to attack.

The US is figthing with its ALLOWED maximum arsenal. The world and the media is watching every move the U.S. makes to spread it's anti-American hatred.

WOW. Your posts just get more bizarre by the minute. First of all, the US does not care what the the world thinks. And secondly, there is nothing in the above post indicating you have any knowledge about anything other than pure shit.

The US is fighting.

The US is losing.

Your soldiers are weak.

Your country is weak.

Your weak.

And I cant wait to see your bare American asses run out of Iraq.

[uppy]

We could but we won't use nukes. The point GS made was that the US is basically losing to pipe bombs making the military pathetic. If you want to talk bombs, the US has nukes--once again won't use them for several reasons--and I don't want the US to use them. However use some MOAB's and getting rid of these ridiculous US rules of engangement would go along way in achieving stability.

Well said Sir,the 1ID and 82d is in Bagdad today if the US wanted thay could

wipe that city out in hours.But the thing is we are trying to bring stability to

the to the people in that area.If it was up to me the ROE would change and

with in weeks it could be a huge inprovement.

Lets not forget in the rest of the country things are peacefull

[comericatigers]

Use MOABS?

Wow, I've never known someone who had no clue as to the utility of the MOAB until you posted.

The MOAB is only really used to demoralize an enemy or clear rocky or wooded areas.

It does NOTHING AND I REPEAT NOTHING AGAINST well entrenched MOUNTAIN defenses. That's probbaly why it HAS YET to be used against any enemy.

It is virtually useless to employ against an insurgency and waaaay too costly to mass produce.

I'm done talking to you as you have no clue as to the functions and uses of your own arsenal.

Even though this thread is about Afghanistan it counts with regard to the war on terror and it was used in Iraq

[TheGoodShepherd]

Well said Sir,the 1ID and 82d is in Bagdad today if the US wanted thay could

wipe that city out in hours.But the thing is we are trying to bring stability to

the to the people in that area.If it was up to me the ROE would change and

with in weeks it could be a huge inprovement.

Lets not forget in the rest of the country things are peacefull

Chalk up another stupid theory to uppy and the good ole boys.

You know what Rangers? You can tell your dealing with sore losers when they bring up such a vacuous point.

The "America can destroy anyone if it wanted to" is the dumbest thing ever said.

That's like saying the Russia could beat the US if it "wanted to," considering the Russian nuclear arsenal is unmatched by any other rival on Earth.


LOL...hey everyone....Did you hear? The Bills could have won the Superbowl if they "wanted to!"

[uppy]

Comericatigers Chimpie is a roustabout whos goal is to try to piss off

Americans.....take him with a grain of salt ;)

[comericatigers]

WOW. Your posts just get more bizarre by the minute. First of all, the US does not care what the the world thinks. And secondly, there is nothing in the above post indicating you have any knowledge about anything other than pure shit.

The US is fighting.

The US is losing.

Your soldiers are weak.

Your country is weak.

Your weak.

And I cant wait to see your bare American asses run out of Iraq.

Easy there GS. The U.S. does care what the world thinks. The war on terror is a PR and diplomatic disaster right now. Image and military might is everything with regard to diplomacy and relations.

[Matt]

Yeh, I'll give you exit strategy as well. The military is not a peace keeping force.

The exit strategy is simple so far as I see it: Exit.

The United States should be as concerned with world interests that have the potential to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction to insurgents and terrorists as they are with insurgents and terrorists themselves.

Focusing so many resources and attention on the potential possibility only temporarily defuses a problem. This is why the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan for a decade. If you want the world to be a safer place, you cut it off at the root. The last three years have displayed clear evidence that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the root.

The United States, in my opinion, needs to focus on improving it's ability to garner reliable intelligence so that society can regain a little confidence in its future endeavors.

Right now I just don't see any reason to believe anything the United States intelligence community says, and I don't think "You just should. You just ought to," is a good enough reason anymore.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Even though this thread is about Afghanistan it counts with regard to the war on terror and it was used in Iraq

Link?

Because I've only read it was shipped to Iraq, not actually used seeing as insurgents don't control any airports or group together in large formations.

I think you're lying or really really mistaken.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Comericatigers Chimpie is a roustabout whos goal is to try to piss off

Americans.....take him with a grain of salt ;)


Hey, if the US wasn't succumbing to glorified pipe bombs I wouldnt say shit about the pathetic American fighting ability.

[comericatigers]

Link?

Because I've only read it was shipped to Iraq, not actually used seeing as insurgents don't control any airports or group together in large formations.

I think you're lying or really really mistaken.

I'll eat the crow on that one. However it could be used.

[uppy]

Hey, if the US wasn't succumbing to glorified pipe bombs I wouldnt say shit about the pathetic American fighting ability.

I respect your right to have a opinion Chimp...I find it entertaining for the

most part and I enjoy the "pathetic American" gig you spew.

Keep it comming Kid,you make me laugh my ass off.

[pmoon6]

Hey, if the US wasn't succumbing to glorified pipe bombs I wouldnt say shit about the pathetic American fighting ability.Hey ****head, how's it hanging?

How's your fighting ability?

[Green Lantern]

We could but we won't use nukes. The point GS made was that the US is basically losing to pipe bombs making the military pathetic. If you want to talk bombs, the US has nukes--once again won't use them for several reasons--and I don't want the US to use them. However use some MOAB's and getting rid of these ridiculous US rules of engangement would go along way in achieving stability.

Can't/Won't is symantics. Don't threaten it as a course of action if you know we can't/won't do it.

The pussy in the White House set the rules of engagement. Complain to him.

[ticatfan3]

I don't blame soldiers for what is happening, it is the training of the american forces need to be changed. Other armies are going thru the same thing and are not killing everything that moves, they just seem to know how to fight there way out without the mass killing of civilians. I think your officers seem to think that we are the biggest that we can not do no wrong. The insurgents are playing your army like fools. They know how to pull your strings and get the most effect out of it. America has won alot of battles but not the war .Maybe it is time for america to admit that they might learn something from the smaller more successful armies over there like ours No disrepect here ,just do not like seeing us spend so much resourses over there only to have the american army ruin all the advances we have made in a matter of minutes.

[SpikedLemonade]

A better question Ticat is why are we ruining our good Canadian worldwide reputation by being involved with the Americans?

[ticatfan3]

A better question Ticat is why are we ruining our good Canadian worldwide reputation by being involved with the Americans?
We are getting it back spike. We are carrying our load again. We are doing our thing to make this world a safer place. You libs and your ''we are peacekeeper ''shit is BS. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Take a look at the liberal peacekeeping record for the last 13 years, it non existant. It was so bad the UN quit asking. And spike lets remember this is a UN/NATO mission, not a american mission. And lets not forget everything america has done for the world thru the years, don't shit on their whole history becasue they had a couple of bad moments and voted for GW twice. And our rep is intact, the world does not even know what we are doing.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=02793b8c-0a8a-4a40-bee7-c47b4fb9983e&k=80395

[shiva2999]

"A couple of bad moments"?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[SpikedLemonade]

"A couple of bad moments"?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Yeah, when I read that I shot my coffee through my nose like a fountain.

[ticatfan3]

Yeah, when I read that I shot my coffee through my nose like a fountain.Hope it was good and hot lol. I was referring to the american people voting for GW twice.

[35Pete]

What a bunch of armchair whiny pusses.

A three-way crossfire, in a killing zone, yet they can't return fire because civilians might get hurt. So, they run, and they die getting shot in the back. No one cares, no one on this board, but if they defend themselves they are either a.) heartless, b.) incompetent, or c.) maniacal killers.

Some of you guys need to get a life.

Tell you what. If I were in that situation, and some of you were in those cars, I probably wouldn't be able to ascertain if you were hostile or not. Fire coming from THREE directions would lend me to have to react in ALL those directions.

So I'd actually wind up shooting you on accident. That would suck. And I'd feel like total shit. But I get to go home. Doubt in that instance sends me home with a flag drapped over me.

[shiva2999]

No one asked them to put themselves in that situation Pete.

[Green Lantern]

What a bunch of armchair whiny pusses.

A three-way crossfire, in a killing zone, yet they can't return fire because civilians might get hurt. So, they run, and they die getting shot in the back. No one cares, no one on this board, but if they defend themselves they are either a.) heartless, b.) incompetent, or c.) maniacal killers.

Some of you guys need to get a life.

Tell you what. If I were in that situation, and some of you were in those cars, I probably wouldn't be able to ascertain if you were hostile or not. Fire coming from THREE directions would lend me to have to react in ALL those directions.

So I'd actually wind up shooting you on accident. That would suck. And I'd feel like total shit. But I get to go home. Doubt in that instance sends me home with a flag drapped over me.


My point is that they should not be there at all. That way, we would not have to shoot civilians in an attempt to "defend" ourselves during our occupation after our INVASION of another country.

[uppy]

Thankyou Pete

[uppy]

No one asked them to put themselves in that situation Pete.

Please just stop

[35Pete]

My point is that they should not be there at all. That way, we would not have to shoot civilians in an attempt to "defend" ourselves during our occupation after our INVASION of another country.

Give me a break. This is AFGHANISTAN. They WERE harboring Al-Quaeda. They refused to cooperate and turn them over so they are considered culpable in an attack on our country. This is tricky as the populace hates the Taliban. But under other circumstances if you attack my country then I want our military to retaliate with such a vicious fury that no DNA of any species is in existence when we are done. Call it the doomsday policy. Want to avoid it? Don't attack us. I for one would advocate nuclear weapons use on any nation found culpable in a mass death attack on the US. Kill 100,000 of us? We'll kill 5,000,000 of you. Think twice before doing it. Don't do it and it will never happen. That's a fair deal. Proportionality? My ass. Guaranteed anhillation as the deterent. MAD worked. It will work again.

The rights and wrongs of Iraq are another subject for another thread and are not germaine to this topic. The Taliban are sworn enemies to the US and complicit in 911. We have a right to invade them and kill every last ****er dead. Leave the Afghan people alone (this case was an ACCIDENT) but turn the existence of the Taliban into a legend that never happened.

[Green Lantern]

Give me a break. This is AFGHANISTAN. They WERE harboring Al-Quaeda. They refused to cooperate and turn them over so they are considered culpable in an attack on our country. This is tricky as the populace hates the Taliban. But under other circumstances if you attack my country then I want our military to retaliate with such a vicious fury that no DNA of any species is in existence when we are done. Call it the doomsday policy. Want to avoid it? Don't attack us. I for one would advocate nuclear weapons use on any nation found culpable in a mass death attack on the US. Kill 100,000 of us? We'll kill 5,000,000 of you. Think twice before doing it. Don't do it and it will never happen. That's a fair deal. Proportionality? My ass. Guaranteed anhillation as the deterent. MAD worked. It will work again.

The rights and wrongs of Iraq are another subject for another thread and are not germaine to this topic. The Taliban are sworn enemies to the US and complicit in 911. We have a right to invade them and kill every last ****er dead. Leave the Afghan people alone (this case was an ACCIDENT) but turn the existence of the Taliban into a legend that never happened.

they agreed to turn bin Laden over, just not to us...and only when we brought proof to court.

[comericatigers]

Where the hell did the thank you go? Thank you 35Pete!

[35Pete]

they agreed to turn bin Laden over, just not to us...and only when we brought proof to court.

Not good enough. We as a nation paid for his head with the suffering of over 3,000 families grieving their dead. They knew what he was up to. They had a chance. There was no diplomacy offered. Do it or we come after you.

It was the right thing to do. And you know it too.

[Green Lantern]

Not good enough. We as a nation paid for his head with the suffering of over 3,000 families grieving their dead. They knew what he was up to. They had a chance. There was no diplomacy offered. Do it or we come after you.

It was the right thing to do. And you know it too.

Actually, I am still waiting for the proof Bush said existed back in 2001. He gets no support for any thing he says or does until he does what he promised, release the evidence.

We have still seen no proof in 6 years and have invaded two countries.

[ticatfan3]

Give me a break. This is AFGHANISTAN. They WERE harboring Al-Quaeda. They refused to cooperate and turn them over so they are considered culpable in an attack on our country. This is tricky as the populace hates the Taliban. But under other circumstances if you attack my country then I want our military to retaliate with such a vicious fury that no DNA of any species is in existence when we are done. Call it the doomsday policy. Want to avoid it? Don't attack us. I for one would advocate nuclear weapons use on any nation found culpable in a mass death attack on the US. Kill 100,000 of us? We'll kill 5,000,000 of you. Think twice before doing it. Don't do it and it will never happen. That's a fair deal. Proportionality? My ass. Guaranteed anhillation as the deterent. MAD worked. It will work again.

The rights and wrongs of Iraq are another subject for another thread and are not germaine to this topic. The Taliban are sworn enemies to the US and complicit in 911. We have a right to invade them and kill every last ****er dead. Leave the Afghan people alone (this case was an ACCIDENT) but turn the existence of the Taliban into a legend that never happened.
Sorry pete ,that is not how it is done. Soldiers are the ones that are supposed to die so civilians don't. This policy of kill eveything in sight when attacked is going to be our downfall over there. There is a difference between a disiplined soldier and just a bunch of scared kids with guns and that is way they are acting. Our forces have had there share of ambushes because we are the only ones still moving on the ground since we have no hele's. And you do not read canadian soldiers slaughtering everyone in sight when attacked. IMO Your training of your soldiers needs to be rethought or you will never have any success. Just like the other day another bomb dropped on a house and a bunch killed ,don't be afraid to check it out before you bomb it. You have to wonder if the american commanders are getting a little yellow.