kallend 2,027
Recommended Posts
goose491 0
QuoteSo how many years did you serve in the military? Sounds like you know exactley how it works.
A mere 2 and a half years in the Canadian reserves. But you know what? I didn't have to do any of that to understand that when you get activation orders, you go.
QuoteI never said activation orders are illegal.
I said soldiers have no say when they get activation orders and you said soldiers have every right to question an order if it is illegal. I said activation orders are not illegal.
QuoteTHey will be told as soon as they get there what is going on and know damn well exactley what is expected from them when they get there.
I said we have a right and the duty to question illegal orders. Meaning if I get to another country and they tell me to shoot somebody, they also should have told me long before I got there why I am there and why I am shooting at that guy. There are laws that must be followed dring war and if a slodiers orders do not follow the laws of war or the mission objective and hand then they are illegal and should not be followed.
I understand, and I'm sorry for having my fun with you but we are dancing around some words here. People are asking "why invade Iraq"... I present that no soldier is more privy to the answer. And that those that say they know why, say so from their own speculation. All of the offence you are taking does not apply. The war in Iraq is not "Illegal", if you are told to shoot somebody, it is not "illegal" and you will shoot.
And if you are telling me that no American Soldier has ever received activation orders without knowing the grand scheme of things then I will call bullshit time and time again.
QuoteIt's laughable that you argue about this... as if it matters. Again, I present, you fight because you are told to. You cannot question it. And if you think you know the "why", well good for you but you'd be the exception, not the rule... and it still wouldn't matter.
It is not laughable at all. You say we fight because we are told to. That is to simplistic of an answer! Soldiers are not robots that just follow orders.
I am not calling you a robot but please don't pretend like the Army is some democracy... I know it ain't. If you don't agree with the orders you receive, you will carry them out regardless or you will be court marshaled. (disclaimer: unless that order was illegal)
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Michele 1
Morning, Goose.
I have some opinions about that, but there are still tons of unanswered questions. I'll try, however....
I think there are several levels to the answer.
1. America is the one who, despite the cooperation of the UN, was perceived as the interloper who kicked Hussein out of Kuwait, sullied the sacred sites with women in the military, and so forth. The issue seems to stem more from a religious point rather than a convenience point, if you take into consideration who is the one who backed Israel (the great "but for..." question. But for the Brits, there would be no Israel. And but for the US's backing of Israel, Israel would not have been able to survive until now).
2. Israel has an immediate response mechanism in place - the shoot first/ask later concept. They are closer to the region, and they have more boots on the ground (ie intel) then we do in the hotspots. They would be able to retaliate in time to prevent any 'escaping', should any be need to be done (although they - OBL and the head guys - were well away before any of that.).
3. Israel is used to, sadly, handling terrorism. Consider El Al, consider the daily bombings. The impact would be far less - both in terms of death as well as destructon - if one would attack Israel. The attack had less of a chance to fail if it were with the US. Additionally, what large, high profile building was in Israel that would be similar to the WTC? None, really.
4. The softness of the targets here, the surprise and "shock and awe" would be far more if one attacked the US. Furthermore, how many countries have cameras trained on large buildings, which would immediately flash the footage around the world? We had never suffered this sort of thing, and to be able to pull it off would provide "street cred" to AQ as an organization, as well as promote OBL as the head of the jihad, the most effective terrorist, and one who deserved more funding, more people, and more respect.
I think it's a combination of the above, as well as the "glam" aspect of the primary target (NYC) and the political and public insanity which would occur if the last two planes did the damage they were intended to (Pentagon, White House). Additionally, keep in mind the original death estimate was something on the order of 50,000; the Towers were able to withstand, for the most part, the initial attack, and allowed thousands upon thousands to flee the buildings before they collapsed. Had they immediately - or shortly - collapsed, indeed, the death toll would have been 50,000 or thereabouts. Imagine that. OBL imagined that...thank God it didn't happen.
And lastly, OBL has a tendency to finish what he started. There had been several failed attempts at terrorist attacks which he later came back to repeat. An example is the USS Cole - there was an attempted and aborted plot to do the same thing to either another ship or to the Cole previously. Since it didn't work the first time, he did it again. Same thing with WTC.
Israel was not as easily attacked, would be more harshly defended, and would have had far less value on several levels than NYC. I do honestly believe that the plan was originally just NYC, but was expanded to include the Pentagon, White House, and possibly other targets as well.
Does that help clear up my position a bit, Goose?
Nope, "fuckwad" is my way of saying as much as I have researched and learned and read and watched and thought about things, I just can't get into OBL's head sufficiently to know, for sure, what his motivations are. Someone may have killed his goldfish when he was four, and now he's a fuckwad. I don't "know" - and I could be completely wrong about absolutely everything...
Ciels-
Michele
edited to add the fuckwad part (I forgot to add it earlier. Sorry)....
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteBut fail to understand where he ultimately choses to Attack the U.S. over Isreal because of the size/power of and the willingness to use their army?
I have some opinions about that, but there are still tons of unanswered questions. I'll try, however....
I think there are several levels to the answer.
1. America is the one who, despite the cooperation of the UN, was perceived as the interloper who kicked Hussein out of Kuwait, sullied the sacred sites with women in the military, and so forth. The issue seems to stem more from a religious point rather than a convenience point, if you take into consideration who is the one who backed Israel (the great "but for..." question. But for the Brits, there would be no Israel. And but for the US's backing of Israel, Israel would not have been able to survive until now).
2. Israel has an immediate response mechanism in place - the shoot first/ask later concept. They are closer to the region, and they have more boots on the ground (ie intel) then we do in the hotspots. They would be able to retaliate in time to prevent any 'escaping', should any be need to be done (although they - OBL and the head guys - were well away before any of that.).
3. Israel is used to, sadly, handling terrorism. Consider El Al, consider the daily bombings. The impact would be far less - both in terms of death as well as destructon - if one would attack Israel. The attack had less of a chance to fail if it were with the US. Additionally, what large, high profile building was in Israel that would be similar to the WTC? None, really.
4. The softness of the targets here, the surprise and "shock and awe" would be far more if one attacked the US. Furthermore, how many countries have cameras trained on large buildings, which would immediately flash the footage around the world? We had never suffered this sort of thing, and to be able to pull it off would provide "street cred" to AQ as an organization, as well as promote OBL as the head of the jihad, the most effective terrorist, and one who deserved more funding, more people, and more respect.
I think it's a combination of the above, as well as the "glam" aspect of the primary target (NYC) and the political and public insanity which would occur if the last two planes did the damage they were intended to (Pentagon, White House). Additionally, keep in mind the original death estimate was something on the order of 50,000; the Towers were able to withstand, for the most part, the initial attack, and allowed thousands upon thousands to flee the buildings before they collapsed. Had they immediately - or shortly - collapsed, indeed, the death toll would have been 50,000 or thereabouts. Imagine that. OBL imagined that...thank God it didn't happen.
And lastly, OBL has a tendency to finish what he started. There had been several failed attempts at terrorist attacks which he later came back to repeat. An example is the USS Cole - there was an attempted and aborted plot to do the same thing to either another ship or to the Cole previously. Since it didn't work the first time, he did it again. Same thing with WTC.
Israel was not as easily attacked, would be more harshly defended, and would have had far less value on several levels than NYC. I do honestly believe that the plan was originally just NYC, but was expanded to include the Pentagon, White House, and possibly other targets as well.
Does that help clear up my position a bit, Goose?
QuoteIs this where the 'fuckwad' part comes into play?
Nope, "fuckwad" is my way of saying as much as I have researched and learned and read and watched and thought about things, I just can't get into OBL's head sufficiently to know, for sure, what his motivations are. Someone may have killed his goldfish when he was four, and now he's a fuckwad. I don't "know" - and I could be completely wrong about absolutely everything...
Ciels-
Michele
edited to add the fuckwad part (I forgot to add it earlier. Sorry)....
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
goose491 0
Quote
Does that help clear up my position a bit, Goose?
Good morning Michele. It certainly does clear up your position, thanks
I'm still curious though as to why America is the Target.
But for Britain, there would be no Isreal... why not attack Britain? It is not the British way of life that is so scandalous. They are not "the great evil".
I still can't wrap my head around the whole, "We need to destroy Isreal, but they are far too powerful, let's go for their backup, America!." No one is more powerful that the States right now. That may be personal oppinion but I doubt many would argue that Isreal is a tougher target to take down than the U.S.
Now if you said: "they were trying to have us all running around like chickens with our heads cut off while they attacked Isreal.", then perhaps it would make sense. Would OBL not fear retaliation from Isreal if he blatantly attack their support and the only reason was because he found Isreal to strong at the moment?
Does the man not have history with your country? What of OBL' work with the CIA? Isn't there a little bit more?
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Michele 1
Goose, my friend, if you have an opinion, please share it. I've given you my perspective, and if yours differs, please don't hesitate to discuss it. I have to get to my office now, but I look forward to reading your opinion - just my answering it and discussing it may not happen til tonight.
Ceils-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Ceils-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
goose491 0
That's just it. 'Discussion' does not always mean "My oppinion, then yours, then his, then hers." sometimes, we ask questions.
I was very intrigued by what you had written and asked for elaboration... I thank you very much for what you typed... but have more questions.
I do not wish to share my oppinion on the matter.
Please do not take any of my posts as disrespectful. If I ask you about OBL' history with the USA, it's because I wish to know what you think of it.
Thanks again, have a nice day. If you chose to post anew, I shall jump to it to see what you've said.
Kind regards,
Nick
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
I was very intrigued by what you had written and asked for elaboration... I thank you very much for what you typed... but have more questions.
I do not wish to share my oppinion on the matter.
Please do not take any of my posts as disrespectful. If I ask you about OBL' history with the USA, it's because I wish to know what you think of it.
Thanks again, have a nice day. If you chose to post anew, I shall jump to it to see what you've said.
Kind regards,
Nick
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Michele 1
Hi, Nick. You're not being disrespectful. I thought that perhaps you were looking for an opening, so I asked directly. If you don't want to share your opinion, that's all good.
I do have some thoughts on it, but if you noticed, I didn't name any administration - with the exception of a comment about Reagan - and specifically did not because I was more looking at the reasons things are happening from a long view, from a regional perspective - macro v. micro. In something like this, I have found most people know micro (last 5 years generally), but are not aware of the macro influences, the combination of factors, and the historical background which lead up to certain things (in any kind of thing, not just terrorism or 9/11).
I will spend more time tonight, if it's what you want, addressing this if you want. Question me all you like, as long as they're honest and real questions - it stimulates my thought process.
If I am to understand your question, it is "Did the CIA's actions in the Afghan war circa 1979-189 contribute to OBL's selection of targets in 2001". Is that correct?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
I do have some thoughts on it, but if you noticed, I didn't name any administration - with the exception of a comment about Reagan - and specifically did not because I was more looking at the reasons things are happening from a long view, from a regional perspective - macro v. micro. In something like this, I have found most people know micro (last 5 years generally), but are not aware of the macro influences, the combination of factors, and the historical background which lead up to certain things (in any kind of thing, not just terrorism or 9/11).
I will spend more time tonight, if it's what you want, addressing this if you want. Question me all you like, as long as they're honest and real questions - it stimulates my thought process.
If I am to understand your question, it is "Did the CIA's actions in the Afghan war circa 1979-189 contribute to OBL's selection of targets in 2001". Is that correct?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
goose491 0
Quote
If I am to understand your question, it is "Did the CIA's actions in the Afghan war circa 1979-189 contribute to OBL's selection of targets in 2001". Is that correct?
[Touches nose]
Blues
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
QuoteAnd I'll tell you what is disrespectful of the deaths - the fact that our soldiers were sent over there on false pretences in the first place.
They are not your soldiers, you are a British citizen, you made your first 50/60 jumps here but returned to the UK as a member of Team Pumpkin. Lets not call American soldiers yours.
Pretenses does not have a "c" in it.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteAnd I'll tell you what is disrespectful of the deaths - the fact that our soldiers were sent over there on false pretences in the first place.
They are not your soldiers, you are a British citizen, you made your first 50/60 jumps here but returned to the UK as a member of Team Pumpkin. Lets not call American soldiers yours.
Pretenses does not have a "c" in it.
I thought an alliance was an alliance. They are all "ours".
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteThey are not your soldiers, you are a British citizen, you made your first 50/60 jumps here but returned to the UK as a member of Team Pumpkin. Lets not call American soldiers yours.
Well there's this little thing that the US administration has built called an "alliance" (albeit a small one) which includes both US and UK soldiers.
And by the way, I live in the US and only about 100 of my jumps were made outside the US.
QuoteQuoteThey are not your soldiers, you are a British citizen, you made your first 50/60 jumps here but returned to the UK as a member of Team Pumpkin. Lets not call American soldiers yours.
Well there's this little thing that the US administration has built called an "alliance" (albeit a small one) which includes both US and UK soldiers.
And by the way, I live in the US and only about 100 of my jumps were made outside the US.
Thank you! Makes my job easier.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
The topic of this thread is "Dead Americans"
QuoteThe rules of the Dropzone Forums are pretty simple. There's not many of them, but they'll be enforced.
The rules are:
1) No personal attacks. None.
2) No jokes or references to paedophilia. None.
3) No advertising
4) Stick to the topics in the topical forums
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
b1jercat 0
Here ya go, 500 dead and there's plenty more where they came from. I really dought if Bush gives a ratsass about some nobody G.I. Joe in Iraq. The name of the game is giving out billion dollar contracts to his buddies, who in turn contribute to his reelection campain fund, so he can cut their taxes, get rid of environmental restrictions, and get the SS moneys out where they can get their hands on it.
AS always this is just my opion of the cocksucker in the oval office, your results may vary.
blue skies
Jerry
AS always this is just my opion of the cocksucker in the oval office, your results may vary.
blue skies
Jerry
Jimbo 0
Quote) Stick to the topics in the topical forums
Dude, this is Talk Back - it is NOT a topical forum. Not even close.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
kallend 2,027
QuoteThe topic of this thread is "Dead Americans"
QuoteThe rules of the Dropzone Forums are pretty simple. There's not many of them, but they'll be enforced.
The rules are:
1) No personal attacks. None.
2) No jokes or references to paedophilia. None.
3) No advertising
4) Stick to the topics in the topical forums
Thank you, I shall. Now, about OUR dead soldiers... If you wonder why they were sent, all you have to do is read the 2003 State of the Union Address. Uranium from Niger, Sarin factories...
Spell "pretenses" however you will, they were still false.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Michele 1
Hey, Kallend? How many Brits were killed? I haven't a clue where to look for that info, and was just wondering, for clarity's sake, what the number is.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
benny 0
QuoteHey, Kallend? How many Brits were killed? I haven't a clue where to look for that info, and was just wondering, for clarity's sake, what the number is.
Ciels-
Michele
it looks like 57, try doing a google search for "british fatalities iraq war" or just click here
Gee Michele for such an avid source hound... well, I'll leave it at that
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Michele 1
QuoteGee Michele for such an avid source hound... well, I'll leave it at that
Yep, leave it at that. Every once in a while I don't have time to play sleuth, or would rather someone else provide me with the data. Deal with it, Benny. But thanks for the link. I have bookmarked it for future reference, should it ever need to be brought back again.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Jimbo 0
QuoteGee Michele for such an avid source hound... well, I'll leave it at that
Benny, don't be an ass.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
kallend 2,027
About 10% of the UK fatalities have been "friendly fire". A Patriot took out a Brit. fighter plane, and an A10 took out two Brit LAVs.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
And there I was thinking they hated us because our troops are occupying their countries and our government is supporting Israel. Silly of me.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites