# Re: Fucking Idiot American Patriots



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

I agree completely re 'shock and awe'. It is soooo annoying.

I also watched it on TV, & it rendered me speechless. I cannot help but think this tactic is more about warning other rogue nations not to even consider attacking the US, in addition to weakening the Iraqi defences...


----------



## Nik-S3 (Nov 6, 2002)

yep, cant help but feel this is a "look at what we can do, you foreign fucks"


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

although i do feel sorry for the people of iraq ,but if the yanks wanted to show what they could do they could flatten iraq instead of just going for palaces and goverment HQ's
this doensn't mean i like whats happening so dont give me a hard time plz


----------



## mother (Feb 6, 2003)

> You can not drop a bomb the size of the bombs they are dropping and not expect to go outside of the boudries of the so called targets.


The americans invented the term 'overkill' I think. 'better a dead civilian that a live terrorist ' type of shit.

I've just got two words for that fucking american sack of shit general... *Fidel Castro*. How d'you like them apples?


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

In fairness, they look to be very accurately aimed at specific targets. Innocents will be killed, but if they are killed in close proximity to military targets <or anything related to Saddam> they are no helping themselves...


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> In fairness, they look to be very accurately aimed at specific targets. Innocents will be killed, but if they are killed in close proximity to military targets <or anything related to Saddam> they are no helping themselves...


I guess this is where they live these people!! But again, they had to desert the town and run for their lives.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> What on earth are you talking about!? Â You sound just like the supporters of the terrorists. Â They said the same thing about the world trade centre. Â They said that the WTC was their target - and that all the people killed inside were a side effect.
> 
> Get this straight in your head man - THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN A CITY. Â It's densly populated. Â
> 
> ...


The WTC was a civilian target, no matter which way you look at it.


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

I was pretty shocked by the open admission of one of the military leaders (can't remember if he was American or British). He was discussing the initial 'opportunity strike' to kill Saddam. They were aware that Saddam was in a particular complex and at one point a specific building - however, by the time the orders had got through and the Cruise's were airborne - he had probably moved to a diff building.

They do believe he was injured and stretchered to a hospital. Then the guy just said 'so we bombed the hospital'. I know they want / need to get this man - but there's no excuse for that :'( :'(

Damian


----------



## Nik-S3 (Nov 6, 2002)

PhoTToniq

I think you have some serious anger management issues to deal with mate

Just a minor point, but whats this bollocks about kids playing in the streets?

You honestly believe that claptrap? Kids playing in the streets of Baghdad when its being bombed?


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2003)

> In fairness, they look to be very accurately aimed at specific targets. Innocents will be killed, but if they are killed in close proximity to military targets <or anything related to Saddam> they are no helping themselves...


Are you for real?


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Dont know what others think, but 3 deaths & 207 casualties from the onslaught we witnessed last night is a pretty good number. I would say that is very significant proof of the care that is being taken.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> shagging farm yard animal


you call this a flame??? : ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Dont know what others think, but 3 deaths & 207 casualties from the onslaught we witnessed last night is a pretty good number. I would say that is very significant proof of the care that is being taken.


How can you be so sure that the Iraqis do not tell us porkies?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LOL !


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2003)

> How can you be so sure that the Iraqis do not tell us porkies?


Cos Porkies aint Halal man!!!!!! :-/


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> aaaaaaahahahahahaa - your are CRAZY!
> 
> are you coming to the lake district cruise? Â Please say yes man!


Do you like crazy people around you then? You feel better with your own kind!! ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Cos Porkies aint Halal man!!!!!! :-/


I beg your pardon? I don't quite understand this. :-/


----------



## thorney (May 15, 2002)

I was against attacking Iraq (I reckon we should've given arms inspectors more time) but now its started I'm fully behind it. What was the alternative?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I was against attacking Iraq (I reckon we should've given arms inspectors more time) but now its started I'm fully behind it. What was the alternative?


Well they could all go home; Bush and Blair could humbly admit that they have made a horrible mistake and ask for forgiveness from the UN - who could then resume their job. A lot of lives could be saved.

Unlikely scenario. Since saving face and egos will come higher on B&Bs agendas at all costs. Pair of fucking eeeejiiits


----------



## thorney (May 15, 2002)

But then aren't we still left with Sadam all the problems he entails?

And am I the only one starting to get pissed off with the Yanks killing more Brits than Iraq ever did?


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Seems a little like history repeating itsefl.....
WHY are the superpowers so goddam stupid in that they seem to inflict the most casualties on themselves..

choppers going down, friendly fire takes out an RAF plane...helicopters collide.

How do the families feel about their "little soldiers" being taken out by incompitence and bad organisation. :-/


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

> But then aren't we still left with Sadam all the problems he entails?
> 
> And am I the only one starting to get pissed off with the Yanks killing more Brits than Iraq ever did?


no your not..see post above...

But B&B have kept mentioning evidence...and if there is its being kept very quiet I have seen no evidence to warrant this war and nothing the UN found is any different to any of the other nations around the world.

This crap started with chasing down terrorist links and B&B should have been very public about findings if they wanted public support.

So Iraq was the agressor in the Gulf war...but this time all we have is Bush's claim of evidence, this is one country using all its military might to assasinate a president.

I am having a lot of trouble seing a justification for this. :-/


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

All - discussion is good, but please don't start to make this thread racial or religious  Although there may be some aspect of religion in the war, do not make the mistake of stereotyping people.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

I just heard Bush asking the Iraqi's to treat the captured Americans soldiers according to the Geneva convention!!!

What a dummy......he's started a war which is regarded as completely illegal under international law, to overthrow a leader of another country (against the UN charter) and now he's talking about Geneva conventions.

Donald Rumsfield also mentioned that the captured soldiers were non combatants (as in Logistical support), isn't that the same term used to describe the people held at camp X-ray? Does the Geneva convention apply in both cases?

Anyways, it seems like the Iraqi's are telling less fibs then the Americans in this war. Pentagon totally denied they had any MIA until the Iraqis showed them on tv! Now Rumsfield is saying 10 soldiers are missing.

With regards to technology and accuracy of weapons, I don't believe a word these people say. Apparently some missiles have hit IRAN!!!???!!! hello, these things are supposed to be accurate. We're being told they can guide them into windows of buildings but it looks like they can't even get them in the right country let alone right city!!!


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Anyways, Â it seems like the Iraqi's are telling less fibs then the Americans in this war. Â Pentagon totally denied they had any MIA until the Iraqis showed them on tv! Â Now Rumsfield is saying 10 soldiers are missing.Â


Not entirely true. An american general <is it meyers?> gave a press conferance at around 13:00. At this point he said they believed <10 soldiers were missing.



> With regards to technology and accuracy of weapons, I don't believe a word these people say. Apparently some missiles have hit IRAN!!!???!!! hello, these things are supposed to be accurate. We're being told they can guide them into windows of buildings but it looks like they can't even get them in the right country let alone right city!!!


I dont think this is correct either. Some sources have suggested the missiles landing in Iran were of Iraqi origin.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

There just seems to be so many lies being told it's just difficult to know who to believe.

I just want this conflict to end.

I'd much rather watch a tag team wrestling match between Bush, Blair and Saddam, Tariq Aziz!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

This seems that will be a long war.

Before they started they were saying "Baghdad in 3 days".

Well, it doesn't look like it...the highly trained marines are in big shit trouble out there!!

Could this be like Vietnam? Â :-/


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Personally, I never thought this would be short. They are making amazingly swift progress, but this is at the expense of leaving small areas on insecure territory.

I think they will reach Baghdad pretty quickly, but things will probably grind to a halt at this point.



> Well, it doesn't look like it...the highly trained marines are in big shit trouble out there!!


I dont think they are. I think they know what they are taking on, & also how fast they will progress. I think the news reports are just stirring trouble. The Um Qasar town/city is a prime example. They secured the city days ago, but it will take many more days before all threats within the area will be neutralised. However, the news people seem to continually change their mind whether or not allied forces control the area or not. :-/



> I'd much rather watch a tag team wrestling match between Bush, Blair and Saddam, Tariq Aziz!


Lol, my money is on Blair. I think he is the youngetst, & so should be the fittest .


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

I think the US/UK were banking on Saddam Hussein and his army not having much support in the towns and cities. If the reports about 'loyalist militia' are true then the allied forces are, indeed, in shit street as they may have to embark on street by street, house by house urban warfare to mop up the 'resistance' in order to secure a new regime. Such action could take months and involve a lot of casualties!


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

> I think the US/UK were banking on Saddam Hussein and his army not having much support in the towns and cities. If the reports about 'loyalist militia' are true then the allied forces are, indeed, in shit street as they may have to embark on street by street, house by house urban warfare to mop up the 'resistance' in order to secure a new regime. Such action could take months and involve a lot of casualties!


Garvin,

I have to agree with you again. Surely the US have learnt that taking a town or city against its will means street by street fighting? Forget the smaller towns, Baghdad is going to be literally a mine field (in more ways than one) of individuals aimed at preventing the US from suceeding.

This is a long term war whatever anyone says.

.. and the bloody US still took out our Tornado jet (which I've worked on) - no lessons learnt from 12 years ago :-/

Moley


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> ......... no lessons learnt from 12 years ago Â :-/


If anything should have been learned it is .......... to go nowhere near any Americans with weapons ...... but we still go to war with them ........ and they still do for more of our countrymen than the enemy ....... but we're not particularly picked on .... it was the Canadians they took out last time IIRC


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

> If anything should have been learned it is .......... to go nowhere near any Americans with weapons ...... but we still go to war with them ........ and they still do for more of our countrymen than the enemy ....... but we're not particularly picked on .... it was the Canadians they took out last time IIRC Â


... but one of the main thrusts of military technology devlopment is the Identity Friend or Foe (IFF) - it hasn't worked and the US have a lot to answer for.

Don't get me wrong - mistakes happen - accidents happen (our 2 Sea Kings off Ark Royal for example), but FFS we are still repeating what happened 12 years ago.

Moley


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Perhaps it was a "trigger happy" american who didn't want to wait to identify the Tornado first.


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

> Perhaps it was a "trigger happy" american who didn't want to wait to identify the Tornado first.


Possibly - when they're shiting themselves about an incoming Scud - they forget to use their technology to differentiate a friendly aircraft from a missile - basic mistake. A reason why our forces are reluctant to work with them - at all levels.

The real shit about these deaths is that it WAS AVOIDABLE FFS.

Moley


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

The Americans feel very bad about the Tornado accident. The Patriot Missile Unit attempted to i.d. it but did not get the required response.

Who knows what really happened, but there is an enquiry underway and it's findings will be made public.

Unfortunately, in the fog of war, shit happens.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

> George 'i was shagged as a little boy and now im taking it out on the world' Bush and Donald 'i shag little boys' Rumsfeld - you stupid bastard wanker shitkicking turd eating dense moronic bitches - get a life and cut it out. Â Â And if you DON'T cut it out someone is definitely going to bitch slap you.


You complete twat.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> But then aren't we still left with Sadam all the problems he entails?


No he is not our problem - never has been. Â We have no interest in the oil and Iraq has no record of Western terrorism acts, Osama hates him and any AQ links are tenuous. Â The UN is there for human rights in Iran and we are(were) Â represented and had full support of international community.

We will never know due to Bush's trigger happy stance, but all the indications were that weapons inspections were working. Â It took a year for SA to get out of their nuclear program to staisfaction of UN.

Actually the US is left with the Saddam problem - since they want the oil and reconstruction contracts - and If they want disregard the UN and ivade, Â they may have to actually deal with the other real issues of their interventionalist middle eastern policy and blind support of Israel.

The Arab nations can deal with Saddam if left alone and if the Palestine issue is properly addressed.

And there are always covert operations and hit opportunities to take him out. Â These take time and patience. Â Something Bush does not have.

Quite why they didn't do it in '91 baffles me.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> And there are always covert operations and hit opportunities to take him out. Â These take time and patience. Â Something Bush does not have.


This I strongly agree with. It might take a little longer, but doing it this way would also send a much stronger message to the world, that no dictator is safe. However, I suspect the legal case for this would be much weaker than invading a country to rid them of WMD by regime change. A hit on a dictator might not topple the regime, would not disclose WMD, & would probably still cause massive muslim outrage. :-/


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Muslim outrage seems to be a feature of he current effort...

I guess the ideal way would be to get him alive and put him on trial in the Hague for crimes against his people - as they have with Milosevic. At such point plenty of witnesses would surely come out of the woodwork where they are too scared to presently speak against him.

Then they could shoot him or arange a suicide/accident..


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

> The Arab nations can deal with Saddam if left alone and if the Palestine issue is properly addressed.


Not too sure about that m8.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Muslim outrage seems to be a feature of he current effort...
> 
> I guess the ideal way would be to get him alive and put him on trial in the Hague for crimes against his people - as they have with Milosevic. Â At such point plenty of witnesses would surely come out of the woodwork where they are too scared to presently speak against him.
> 
> Then they could shoot him or arange a suicide/accident..


I so like the idea of 'losing' him. Picturing a really happy looking Blair addressing the nation, stating that they have lost Saddam, but he is not believed to be a threat anymore, followed by a really obvious wink .

Now that would be television!


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

> You complete twat.


That was not very nice now was it? I forgive you though.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Not too sure about that m8.


Well they (the Arab Nations) certainly have to support Iraq for as long as any muslims are casualties within the current conflict.

He is a thorn in the side of the majority (and all the powerful) Arab nations. Most of these have the death penalty for transgressing islamic laws if it could be proved he was acting in an anti islamic fashion and persecuting his people.

Of course while he has control over his peoples free speech, proof will be hard to find. I dunno - it's all a bloody mess.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

That was my point though - they may have the power but he's been killing and leading a reign of fear now for long enough that if they were going to do something it should have been done a long time ago.

Oh well, I guess we'll see in the next couple of weeks the outcome :-/


----------



## thorney (May 15, 2002)

Am I the only one to see the bitter irony of the fact that most of the captured soldiers seem to come from Bush's home state? :-/

And I have to say from the interviews I'd read, seen etc, the film Three Kings is remarkably accurate on its portrayal of the average US grunt.


----------



## thorney (May 15, 2002)

You know the one............when they're looking for gold bullion he thinks they're looking for soup ;D


----------



## ccc (May 7, 2002)

Isn't that The Clangers? ;D


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2003)

ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR !!!!!!

YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER BUT A PENCIL MUST BE LED !_Stan Laurel_


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

Apparently the russians may have supplied some rockets to Iraq....that could explain the shooting down of the Apache helicopter.....

Remnants of the Cold War come to mind.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Apparently the russians may have supplied some rockets to Iraq....that could explain the shooting down of the Apache helicopter.....
> 
> Remnants of the Cold War come to mind.


I must confess to being quite confused by this. The news showed an Iraqi farmer armed with a rifle, claiming to have downed what is one of the most formidible weapons around...

A missile certainly makes a lot more sense...


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

> I must confess to being quite confused by this. The news showed an Iraqi farmer armed with a rifle, claiming to have downed what is one of the most formidible weapons around...
> 
> A missile certainly makes a lot more sense...


... or more probably, a mechanical failure - there doesn't seem to be any damage to the exterior of the airframe from the footage I've seem - yet another mess up.

Moley


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

The Apache probably came down because of mechanical failure... one quote I saw the other day was "helecopters and sand do not mix very well"
Can't see AK47's being able to bring down an Apache :-/

Witht he break up of the Soviet empire, Russian weapons are being sold to anyone who wants them by the army.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Witht he break up of the Soviet empire, Russian weapons are being sold to anyone who wants them by the army.


Where can I buy some? I need to somehow install a few in my car so I can remove enemy (police) vehicles when encountered.


----------



## NIIK_TT (May 7, 2002)

What gets me is that in any war there will be casualties. People die its called war. So when they go on about the fatalities on whoevers side thatâ€™s what to expect in a war. Donâ€™t get me wrong its sad but when they continue to go over again and again about the casualities what about all those that die each day from malnutrion?

Also they say they want to help the Iraqi people. Fair enough. But these people will preach pro Amercian lyrics the moment the regime is dust. At the moment its Sadam is hero Sadam is the saviourâ€¦. Pleaseeeeeâ€¦â€¦


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Something which annoyed me was the scenes where the soldiers were giving out aid yesterday.

Some of the Iraqi's were chanting something like 'Go home America, go home Britain...', & yet they were accepting aid from them. Sorry, but those people should not be given anything...


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

are you seriously saying thirsty, hungry people shouldn't be given what they need if it's available, no matter what they are saying?

put yourself in their position and you might be "conflicted" too! ;D


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

oh yes - i note the yanks are now shooting at themselves instead of bruts, canadians etc like they usually do...


----------

