[quote]hedo wrote:
Although being of French descent most likely would expose you to more anti-americanism then less, in my opinion.[/quote]
You obviously never met people like BHL.
Ok, maybe the fact that DeGaulle heavily warned you people about not going into Vietnam and Chirac not going into Iraq might contribute to the image of the anti-American French image. But, trust me when I say it’s absolutely non-existent nothing compared to the anti-Americanism in spain, Gaza, latin America or Indonesia.
Got your point. Your intervention in Afghanistan was not only justified, it was also necessary in my opinion. I never hid that position. I wouldn’t have budged had you overthrew the Al-Sauds as well (after all 15 out of the 19 were Saudis). And while you were at it, you could have also have taken down the dictator in Pakistan who harbors terrorists…err…wait, you can’t 'cause of the nukes and all.
Bottomline, Iraq was a devastated country that even with the whole West behind him couldn’t defeat an Iran that had just dissolved all of its military officers core. We were then told that same country that was coming out of a long and costly war against Iran, after having endured a destructive “desert storm” in the early 90’s and an embargo of more than a decade was suddenly supposed to constitute a big enough threat to your sovereignty that it would require a pre-emptive attack. Sorry, but it just didn’t add up. You probably have friends fighting there or was there yourself but you shouldn’t let that clog your judgement. Gratuitous violence towards others should be denounced as such.
I understand the risk of inaction but can also appreciate the double-standards so dear to the US foreign policy and the short attention span of Americans. I mean seriously, why is it that an attack by the US can never be a crime while reprisal by the attacked population is automatically condemned as terrorism? Oh, wait…that was a thread about liberties and France. Forget that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Although being of French descent most likely would expose you to more anti-americanism then less, in my opinion.
You obviously never met people like BHL.
Ok, maybe the fact that DeGaulle heavily warned you people about not going into Vietnam and Chirac not going into Iraq might contribute to the image of the anti-American French image. But, trust me when I say it’s absolutely non-existent nothing compared to the anti-Americanism in spain, Gaza, latin America or Indonesia.
I think a lot of the criticism of American policy is biased and one sided and fails to take into account the risk of inaction. I’ve seen a lot of it on these boards, particularly from the euro’s…hence my position to the contrary.
Got your point. Your intervention in Afghanistan was not only justified, it was also necessary in my opinion. I never hid that position. I wouldn’t have budged had you overthrew the Al-Sauds as well (after all 15 out of the 19 were Saudis). And while you were at it, you could have also have taken down the dictator in Pakistan who harbors terrorists…err…wait, you can’t 'cause of the nukes and all.
Bottomline, Iraq was a devastated country that even with the whole West behind him couldn’t defeat an Iran that had just dissolved all of its military officers core. We were then told that same country that was coming out of a long and costly war against Iran, after having endured a destructive “desert storm” in the early 90’s and an embargo of more than a decade was suddenly supposed to constitute a big enough threat to your sovereignty that it would require a pre-emptive attack. Sorry, but it just didn’t add up. You probably have friends fighting there or was there yourself but you shouldn’t let that clog your judgement. Gratuitous violence towards others should be denounced as such.
I understand the risk of inaction but can also appreciate the double-standards so dear to the US foreign policy and the short attention span of Americans. I mean seriously, why is it that an attack by the US can never be a crime while reprisal by the attacked population is automatically condemned as terrorism? Oh, wait…that was a thread about liberties and France. Forget that.[/quote]
I’m curious why you think the US should be concerned with world opinion any longer? Biotest provides a forum for you to vent your opinion but in reality to what end?
Why do you think US Troops “panic fired” into the crowd rather the “defended themselves”. Be honest with yourself and you’ll see your bias prevents you from being objective on the subject. Why is that? Cultural bias or learned behavior?
I am not middle easterner, I am Moroccan. There is nothing middle or even eastern about where I come from. My mom is French and I attended French schools. So, you can’t say I’ve been exposed to anything that would make me inherently anti-American.
ROFLMAO!!!
[/quote]
The French actually don’t mind us at all. They based their government on ours, remember. The general public just hates Bush’s administration, not the country or the people themselves. At least, that was the impression I got from the many I’ve conversed with…
[quote]hedo wrote:
I’m curious why you think the US should be concerned with world opinion any longer? Biotest provides a forum for you to vent your opinion but in reality to what end?[/quote]
The US should care because it would prevent them from becoming isolated. No good can come of an isolated country that refuses to deal with the rest of the world. The more reasons when that country happens to be the most powerful in the world and calls the shot on virtually every single issue.
I didn’t think that. I said that the US troops were reported to have "panic-fired. That’s how it was described by people present at the scene. The London-based newspaper “The independent” used the term “panic-shooting”.
I heard an interview with Robert Fisk two days ago. The guy has seen more wars than you could ever imagine and knows exactly what he’s talking about when he uses words such as “panic-shooting”.
He described an incident on a highway during which the response of the Americans after being ambushed was “to kill everything in sight.” The commander then believed that every single car was a potential suicide bomber and ordered his men to shoot at every single one. Women and children were, of course, among the victims. Fisk then talked to the platoon commander who said “I had to defend my men; I’m sorry if innocent civilians get killed.”
I put myself in a US soldier’s position in Iraq. The guy has no clue what he’s fighting for. All moral values are therefore relegated and it becomes a fight for survival. In the hypothetical case that I’d be in their position, I’d very likely start shooting at everything that moves. It must be very hard on the nerves to not know where your enemy is and your survival instincts would probably kick in.
But if you insist on calling me biased despite the fact that I used “was reported” specifically to avoid these accusations, what more can I say?
[quote]hedo wrote:
I think a lot of the criticism of American policy is biased and one sided and fails to take into account the risk of inaction. I’ve seen a lot of it on these boards, particularly from the euro’s…hence my position to the contrary.
[/quote]
I do not think criticism of America’s foreign policy is biased. That fails to take into account how differently Europeans perceive the world. Americans don’t understand European perceptions, so they can’t understand the criticism.
Maybe you could say the same about Europeans, there are differences though. Consider the ideology that the Bush administration follows. The spread of Democracy in the middle east. The idea they have and what occurs are totally different. Hamas for example. Theocracy for example. They do not understand the culture or history of the middle east yet expect something similar to American style democracy with values Americans they can relate to take hold.
The battle against “evil”. How it must be eliminated. Sorry that will never happen. They must not really believe in evil to actually believe that it can be defeated. Policy based on this ideology will fail.
I would have more readily accepted(that doesn’t mean I think it is good or bad) that the Iraq war was a war to secure enrgy resources for the security of America. That at least would resonate with how most wars in history have been fought for(not including the 20th century). Governments most important job is to guarantee the security of its citizens. No safety, no freedom. Considering how they prepared for the aftermath of that war it is kind of hard to believe that was their intention(if they were gonna do it, securing energy should have been their main motivation). Democracy was not going to work well in Iraq. That would be to ignore how Iraq was created and the history of its ethnic factions. Keeping Saddam was probably the best choice among scenarios. That doesn’t mean it was a good choice. Just the best among bad choices. Europe recognized this, minus England.
Considering America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia I do not see why they have to promote freedom in the middle east. This does not mean I am against promoting rights and freedom for all people. It just seems there are limits to American power.
Broken states are the places that seem more attractive to terrorists because the governments can’t exercise power and guarantee safety. If America was to help these countries that would be good. I can’t really say Iraq was broken before it was invaded. Most people did not agree with how their society was run. But does that really matter in regards to security. Sure they didn’t have rights and were oppressed they were secure though. I think that is how Europeans viewed it. This is about geopolitics and security and the status quo was the best option they felt. It doesn’t live up the to the ideals many people have about freedom and rights. And it is awful that people must live under regimes like that. Though was the other option really any better? That is influenced by one’s perceptions. And perceptions are different from culture to culture. So if people criticize American foriegn policy it isn’t because the debate is biased or one-sided. It isn’t biased anymore than the argument in favor of American foreign policy. It is just the reality that people think differently, and those differences I feel are justified. They are not more wrong or right.
[quote]hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
It’s indeed outrageous. Yet, I fear this is but a taste of what the liberties in France will endure if Sarkozy is elected next month.
Anyway, this reminded me of the US convoy in Afghanistan that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Sunday. The US troops responded by what was described as “panic fire”, killing many civilians in the process. The journalists present were ordered to delete any pictures and videos they shot of the scene. One of them was told by a US soldier to “delete them [the pictures] or we will delete you”.
Panic fire is what Arabs or other poorly trained soldiers do…like celebrating a wedding by shooting into the air. Have to be an idiot to think that’s a good idea don’t you?
Well trained troops return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants. You wouldn’t know that but that’s how it works.
Do you ever post anything that doesn’t have an anti-american message to it. Just curious…you’re getting kind of boring. Better yet perhaps it’s time to add you to the “why bother list” since the message never changes.
[/quote]
Ok, so let’s pretend, that’s the title of the thread isn’t it, so let’s pretend it wasn’t panic fire, because regular US troops don’t panic, so it couldn’t be panic fire. That’s fair.
Since it wasn’t panic fire, it must have been “return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants”.
Therefore, the logical assumption would be that all these “innocent bystanders” weren’t innocent civilians at all. They would have to be enemy combatants.
But I have just one question for you.
What if the exact same thing happened, the exact same situation.
With only one difference.
The soldiers were Arabs.
Or worse.
They were French.
And how would that impact on the status of the innocent bystanders? Would they still be considered “enemy combatants” ? ? ?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
lixy wrote:
It’s indeed outrageous. Yet, I fear this is but a taste of what the liberties in France will endure if Sarkozy is elected next month.
Anyway, this reminded me of the US convoy in Afghanistan that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Sunday. The US troops responded by what was described as “panic fire”, killing many civilians in the process. The journalists present were ordered to delete any pictures and videos they shot of the scene. One of them was told by a US soldier to “delete them [the pictures] or we will delete you”.
Journalists shouldn’t be allowed in combat zones to begin with in my opinion. War is a dirty business and the dirt required to win a war shouldn’t be seen by many. Journalists in a combat zone can affect the outcome of various battles based on what they print. Comabt journalism has to be regulated. I think no journalists should be allowed period.
If a journalist was carte blache when covering war, they should enter the war zone on their own and not under the protection of an army. Otherwise they are subject to that army’s rules.[/quote]
Exactly. Big difference between being in a war zone and being in a city in time of peace and catching the police putting a beat down on someone.
I am not middle easterner, I am Moroccan. There is nothing middle or even eastern about where I come from. My mom is French and I attended French schools. So, you can’t say I’ve been exposed to anything that would make me inherently anti-American.
ROFLMAO!!!
The French actually don’t mind us at all. They based their government on ours, remember. The general public just hates Bush’s administration, not the country or the people themselves. At least, that was the impression I got from the many I’ve conversed with…
[/quote]
The French have resented the US for decades. Both their people and government.
To blame Bush or the Iraq war is just the excuse of the day.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
It’s indeed outrageous. Yet, I fear this is but a taste of what the liberties in France will endure if Sarkozy is elected next month.
Anyway, this reminded me of the US convoy in Afghanistan that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Sunday. The US troops responded by what was described as “panic fire”, killing many civilians in the process. The journalists present were ordered to delete any pictures and videos they shot of the scene. One of them was told by a US soldier to “delete them [the pictures] or we will delete you”.
Panic fire is what Arabs or other poorly trained soldiers do…like celebrating a wedding by shooting into the air. Have to be an idiot to think that’s a good idea don’t you?
Well trained troops return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants. You wouldn’t know that but that’s how it works.
Do you ever post anything that doesn’t have an anti-american message to it. Just curious…you’re getting kind of boring. Better yet perhaps it’s time to add you to the “why bother list” since the message never changes.
Ok, so let’s pretend, that’s the title of the thread isn’t it, so let’s pretend it wasn’t panic fire, because regular US troops don’t panic, so it couldn’t be panic fire. That’s fair.
Since it wasn’t panic fire, it must have been “return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants”.
Therefore, the logical assumption would be that all these “innocent bystanders” weren’t innocent civilians at all. They would have to be enemy combatants.
But I have just one question for you.
What if the exact same thing happened, the exact same situation.
With only one difference.
The soldiers were Arabs.
Or worse.
They were French.
And how would that impact on the status of the innocent bystanders? Would they still be considered “enemy combatants” ? ? ?[/quote]
Yes. Pakistani peackeepers or Indian troops, or the French in a peacekeeping mission. Armies generally considered well trained, would probably react in the same way. Ambush soldiers in a combat zone and you will get shot. Stand around to watch it and you might also catch a stray bullet.
Because they are Americans is the only reason your kind rallies against them.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
I’m curious why you think the US should be concerned with world opinion any longer? Biotest provides a forum for you to vent your opinion but in reality to what end?
The US should care because it would prevent them from becoming isolated. No good can come of an isolated country that refuses to deal with the rest of the world. The more reasons when that country happens to be the most powerful in the world and calls the shot on virtually every single issue.
Why do you think US Troops “panic fired” into the crowd rather the “defended themselves”. Be honest with yourself and you’ll see your bias prevents you from being objective on the subject. Why is that? Cultural bias or learned behavior?
I didn’t think that. I said that the US troops were reported to have "panic-fired. That’s how it was described by people present at the scene. The London-based newspaper “The independent” used the term “panic-shooting”.
I heard an interview with Robert Fisk two days ago. The guy has seen more wars than you could ever imagine and knows exactly what he’s talking about when he uses words such as “panic-shooting”.
He described an incident on a highway during which the response of the Americans after being ambushed was “to kill everything in sight.” The commander then believed that every single car was a potential suicide bomber and ordered his men to shoot at every single one. Women and children were, of course, among the victims. Fisk then talked to the platoon commander who said “I had to defend my men; I’m sorry if innocent civilians get killed.”
I put myself in a US soldier’s position in Iraq. The guy has no clue what he’s fighting for. All moral values are therefore relegated and it becomes a fight for survival. In the hypothetical case that I’d be in their position, I’d very likely start shooting at everything that moves. It must be very hard on the nerves to not know where your enemy is and your survival instincts would probably kick in.
But if you insist on calling me biased despite the fact that I used “was reported” specifically to avoid these accusations, what more can I say?[/quote]
Do you mean this Robert Fisk???
“In the British journalistic tradition of the foreign correspondent, Fisk has developed a personal analysis of the foreign affairs that he covers and presents them in that light, often with trenchant criticism of the British government and its allies. His admirers take this as a sign of his depth of knowledge; his critics take it as confirmation of his incorrigible bias. Fisk is a consistent critic of what he perceives as hypocrisy in British government foreign policy.”
He is a reporter. His CV does not list any military service. He hasn’t seen any wars as a soldier so his knowledge is as a spectator. Have you read anything he’s written? He is proudly biased and not bashful about it in the least.
If you’ve never seen combat, your perception of what a soldier thinks, let alone a US Soldier, is pure seculation and utterly off the mark.
In an ambush, the way to survive is to attack the attacker. It’s a basic small unit tactic. The enemy does not wear uniforms and blends in with the civilians. The civilians do not always discourage this. Best way to avoid getting shot when you are a civilian is to stay out of the way of the two fighting forces. The US doesn’t deliberately attack civilians. The opposition does. Blame the enemy who initiates an ambush in civilian areas. I know this is a reality based alternative so it will not appeal to most in the Middle East who find blaming others much easier.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
It’s indeed outrageous. Yet, I fear this is but a taste of what the liberties in France will endure if Sarkozy is elected next month.
Anyway, this reminded me of the US convoy in Afghanistan that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Sunday. The US troops responded by what was described as “panic fire”, killing many civilians in the process. The journalists present were ordered to delete any pictures and videos they shot of the scene. One of them was told by a US soldier to “delete them [the pictures] or we will delete you”.
Panic fire is what Arabs or other poorly trained soldiers do…like celebrating a wedding by shooting into the air. Have to be an idiot to think that’s a good idea don’t you?
Well trained troops return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants. You wouldn’t know that but that’s how it works.
Do you ever post anything that doesn’t have an anti-american message to it. Just curious…you’re getting kind of boring. Better yet perhaps it’s time to add you to the “why bother list” since the message never changes.
Ok, so let’s pretend, that’s the title of the thread isn’t it, so let’s pretend it wasn’t panic fire, because regular US troops don’t panic, so it couldn’t be panic fire. That’s fair.
Since it wasn’t panic fire, it must have been “return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants”.
Therefore, the logical assumption would be that all these “innocent bystanders” weren’t innocent civilians at all. They would have to be enemy combatants.
But I have just one question for you.
What if the exact same thing happened, the exact same situation.
With only one difference.
The soldiers were Arabs.
Or worse.
They were French.
And how would that impact on the status of the innocent bystanders? Would they still be considered “enemy combatants” ? ? ?
Yes. Pakistani peackeepers or Indian troops, or the French in a peacekeeping mission. Armies generally considered well trained, would probably react in the same way. Ambush soldiers in a combat zone and you will get shot. Stand around to watch it and you might also catch a stray bullet.
Because they are Americans is the only reason your kind rallies against them.
[/quote]
Brilliant analysis. And…
you just analyzed Wreckless in a few lines — well done!!
[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s indeed outrageous. Yet, I fear this is but a taste of what the liberties in France will endure if Sarkozy is elected next month.
Anyway, this reminded me of the US convoy in Afghanistan that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Sunday. The US troops responded by what was described as “panic fire”, killing many civilians in the process. The journalists present were ordered to delete any pictures and videos they shot of the scene. One of them was told by a US soldier to “delete them [the pictures] or we will delete you”.
I Know I’m late to commenting on this but I just saw it. Having been a soldier caught in an ambush situation I’m pretty confident I know or have an idea as to what these soldiers felt. You on the other hand live in a country thousands of miles away and continue to bash the US and our fine service people from a country to scared to take sides in any armed conflict. When a bomb(ied in this case i’m sure) goes off and disables any vehicle in a convoy and intersecting fields of fire start hitting your area, you are going to attempt to identify the threat and at the very least lay down SUPPRESSING fire so the enemy will stop shooting at you. Panic fire is what terrorists and the likes lay down until their magazines are empty and then they reload and repeat.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Your a middle easterner going to school in the west (big suprise) so I don’t expect you to be anything else but anti-american. It’s all you’ve ever been exposed too. But stop trying to portray yourself as something besides biased and self indulgant. Please don’t claim you are not vehemently anti-american, it’s silly based on your avalanche of postings to the contrary.
hedo,
I am not middle easterner, I am Moroccan. There is nothing middle or even eastern about where I come from. My mom is French and I attended French schools. So, you can’t say I’ve been exposed to anything that would make me inherently anti-American. What I have voluntarily exposed myself to are history books, places around the world and people with different point of views from my own. I know many Americans critical of Israeli actions who have been labeled anti-Semitic because of that (Ironically, some of them are Jews). The same thing seem to be catching up every time someone criticizes decisions of Washington.
I often said it and will repeat it if necessary: America is a great country with many great things. What I find unbearable is the aggressive foreign policy and the hypocrisy of your media towards that.
If I ever offended you in one of my posts, rest assured that it wasn’t intentional. My beef is with your elected reprentatives, not with you and not with your culture. Your way of life is another issue as it’s unsustainable by Earth ecosystem. It would be more constructive to make your point without resorting to ad-hominem attacks.
Being critical of American policies isn’t anti-Americanism. It is precisely because I believe in the greatness of your political system that I even bother. I know that you can influence your government if you really wanted to. A right that not every body is lucky enough to have. It just pisses me off when half of Americans don’t even bother voting in the most powerful land the Earth has ever seen.
I wear American clothes, read mostly American books, use American hardware, ride an American bike, hang out on American sites, watch exclusively American TV and bulk up using American supplements. Saying that I’m anti-American is simply not correct. It just pisses me off that the people who can do something about the mess that is your foreign policy end up hailing and applauding it.
Have a pleasant evening,
lixy
[/quote]
In regards to your last paragraph, so did Atta and the 18 other hijackers until they crashed planes into buildings…
Snipeout and hedo, here’s what my most recent post said;
Granted, I have no military experience so it’s purely speculative. But is it that far from reality?
I didn’t mean to smear the whole US army core. I know that there are heaps of very courageous, idealistic and selfless people belonging to it but there are novices, criminals and scumbags too. To the best of my knowledge, the requirements for new recruits have never been lower.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
In regards to your last paragraph, so did Atta and the 18 other hijackers until they crashed planes into buildings…[/quote]
And so did Tim McVeigh.
The crushing majority of world population sees your foreign policy as hostile and belligerent. The US (along with Israel) regularly tops polls among countries that threaten world’s peace. I just happen to agree with that viewpoint.
Anyway, what point were you trying to make associating me to a bunch of whacky criminals?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Snipeout and hedo, here’s what my most recent post said;
I put myself in a US soldier’s position in Iraq. The guy has no clue what he’s fighting for. All moral values are therefore relegated and it becomes a fight for survival. In the hypothetical case that I’d be in their position, I’d very likely start shooting at everything that moves. It must be very hard on the nerves to not know where your enemy is and your survival instincts would probably kick in.
Granted, I have no military experience so it’s purely speculative. But is it that far from reality?
I didn’t mean to smear the whole US army core. I know that there are heaps of very courageous, idealistic and selfless people belonging to it but there are novices, criminals and scumbags too. To the best of my knowledge, the requirements for new recruits have never been lower.[/quote]
Don’t you think it’s difficult to speculate on something you know nothing about. Wouldn’t that be akin to me speculating on a botched surgery. Sort of like me saying well he had 12 years of schooling how could that have happened. With out me knowing the circumstances of the situation or condition of the patient or furthermore having never performed surgery myself.
[quote]lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
In regards to your last paragraph, so did Atta and the 18 other hijackers until they crashed planes into buildings…
And so did Tim McVeigh.
The crushing majority of world population sees your foreign policy as hostile and belligerent. The US (along with Israel) regularly tops polls among countries that threaten world’s peace. I just happen to agree with that viewpoint.
Anyway, what point were you trying to make associating me to a bunch of whacky criminals?[/quote]
Point being, that just because you partake in American luxuries doesn’t mean you can’t hate the US and want to see it destroyed.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Point being, that just because you partake in American luxuries doesn’t mean you can’t hate the US and want to see it destroyed.[/quote]
I think we all knew that already.
My concern is whether you preconise a preemptive attack and should I be worried?
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Don’t you think it’s difficult to speculate on something you know nothing about.[/quote]
Here’s something that’s been bothering me for quite some time now, and I believe that you’re in a position to shed some light on that; Do US soldiers ever stop to think about why they are in Iraq? If so, please enlighten me as to what the dominating sentiment is. I’d appreciate it very much.
