Arrogant Americans

[websman]

No doubt inspired by their north american brothers taking back the USA!

The American Indians do run most of the casinos now...

 

[websman]

Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.

I'd take the Aussies over the British any day......

 

[happytown]

...

united states knowingly kills civilians

Recent example?

Other than part of a larger operation.

insert lenghty factual recent example

Of course they've 'knowlingly' killed civilians, as part of attacks against legitamite targets.

...

if you agree entirely with the premise that the united states knowingly kills civilians, why did you need a recent example?

You're right, we shouldn't have tried to kill the leadership. Much better to just kill the non decision makers. You should apply to the Government to be a Defence analyst.

what makes you think that my lengthy factual response in anyway makes the argument that leadership targets should have been off limits

what i was doing was contextual

showing what was quite clearly, at the time, policy

cheers

btw back on topic, have been to the us, enjoyed the people and arrogance is not a geographical trait (see my posts)

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc

 

[trainspotter]

The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Too late my spurious little Vulcan. Too late. Apparently 8% of the population has laid claim to 90% of the country. Read about it here ........... http://www.nlc.org.au/html/land_native.html. ............ Eddie Mabo ... bloody legend!

 

[prawn_86]

Too late my spurious little Vulcan. Too late. Apparetnly 8% of the population has laid claim to 90% of the country. Read about it here ........... http://www.nlc.org.au/html/land_native.html. ............ Eddie Mabo ... bloody legend!

Off topic, but an interesting side note: over 25% of AFL players are indigenous, compared with aboriginals making up 8% of the total population.

 

[Sean K]

if you agree entirely with the premise that the united states knowingly kills civilians, why did you need a recent example?

HT, I thought the original intent of your post was regarding the deliberate act of killing civilians, like Al Qaeda do. ie, the motive is to kill civilians. The US do not do this. They attack the belligerents. Unfortunately, the enemy does not wear a uniform and hides amongst civilians, so, civilians get killed accidently. From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission. Like there has been in any war. Otherwise, we would not be able to win, defeat the enemy, and return to a world that we (the governments representing us and thus, we) want to live in.

How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

I suppose you think it might be to negotiate, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?

 

[trainspotter]

Off topic, but an interesting side note: over 25% of AFL players are indigenous, compared with aboriginals making up 8% of the total population.

And here is why ....... http://www.clontarffootball.com

Programs setup SPECIFICALLY for indigenous people to fast track into AFL via football for learning. Positive discrimination at it's best.

 

[happytown]

HT, I thought the original intent of your post was regarding the deliberate act of killing civilians, like Al Qaeda do. ie, the motive is to kill civilians. The US do not do this. They attack the belligerents. Unfortunately, the enemy does not wear a uniform and hides amongst civilians, so, civilians get killed accidently. From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission. Like there has been in any war. Otherwise, we would not be able to win, defeat the enemy, and return to a world that we (the governments representing us and thus, we) want to live in.

How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

I suppose you think it might be to negotiate, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?

reproduction of the post with references bold

...

united states knowingly kills civilians

...

Recent example?

Other than part of a larger operation.

kennas,

at the beginning of the invasion of iraq in 2003, you will recall that after saddam refused to take up the us offer of freedom, by leaving iraq and going to a third country (safely as guaranteed by the us) shock and awe began

a major component of shock and awe was targetting the iraqi leadership, saddam, his direct subordinates, senior republican command, et al

this involved, inter alia, cruise missile strikes on restaurants in the streets of baghdad where saddam was eating (according to intelligence)

targetting the leadership amongst a civilian population in this manner is where military necessity comes in to play (leadership targets were termed tst's - time sensitive targets [also included wmd and terrorists])

what kind of weapons to use in order to minimise civilian deaths etc to achieve the military objective of cutting the head off the snake

it was during these surgical strikes that the united states knowingly killed civilians, as but one example

in a 2003 internal briefing to journalists by lt gen t michael moseley (decribed as the chief allied war commander) and reported by michael r gordon in the new york times on july 20, 2003, in a story titled 'us attacked iraqi defences starting in 2002', an article which described an allied campaign to destroy iraqi radar sites and fibre optic communication sites prior to the march 2003 invasion, the article contained several bullet points descibed as 'among the disclosures provided in the internal briefings and in a later interview'

the one pertinent here, that the us knowingly kills civilians is repeated in its entirety

'air war commanders were required to obtain the approval of defense secretary donald l rumsfeld if any planned airstrike was thought likely to result in deaths of more than 30 civilians. more than 50 such strikes were proposed, and all of them were approved'

(in 'operation iraqi freedom - by the numbers', dated 30 april 2003, unclassifed report produced by uscentaf, there were reported a total of 50 tst's targetting leadership)

note here they are not talking about whether the airstrike is likely to kill civilians, they are talking about whether it likely to kill more than 30, ie they know it will kill civilians, just how many, further, no approval from rumsfeld was required for airstrikes likley to kill less than 30 civilians

that means at least 1,500 civilians (as far as the us was concerned at the time) were knowingly likely to be killed by us bombs (knowledge in advance of the boming, of civilian deaths)

this is not to be confused with unintended consequences of us bombing, as one of many examples, such as that discussed in a dod news briefing on march 24, 2003, where asd p a clarke and maj gen mcchrystal answered questions from the media about, inter alia,

'a coalition aircraft was dropping ordnance on a bridge 100 miles from the syrian border. after the bombs were released, a [civilian] bus came into the pilot's view, but to late to recall the weapons. the bombs struck the bridge and the bus. unintended casualties like this are regrettable'

that a bridge might be used by vehicles such as a civilian bus is a possibility, but that was an example of unintended consequences such as not to confuse with the knowingly killing civilians statement

at the level from at least target planning up to and including the us sec of def, the us knowingly killed civilians, in the above example

this shows a definite chain of command for these occurences, minimising the likelihood, imo, that this is an aberration, a one-off

the us knowingly kills civilians

another point of note emerging from the early days of the iraq invasion was the car bomb

the first non-us (WTF????) use of a car bomb in the invasion of iraq (which targetted a us military checkpoint and killed 4 us servicemen) was reported on 29 march 2003 in, inter alia, the new york times by patrick e tyler as a

'disturbing new tactic'

, in the washington post, on march 30, 2003, in an article by rajiv chandrasekaran and william branigin, thusly,

'us officials branded the blast as terrorism'

, and in a centcom operation iraqi freedom briefing of 29 march 2003, by maj gen v renuart as follows,

'first i guess i'd make a point that i'd ask where have we seen those kinds of events occuring before? and i think we'd all agree that all of them are associated with terrorist events'

in a march 30, 2003 ap article by john heilpren, titled 'rumsfeld defends pentagon's iraq war plan' rumsfeld is quoted as saying about the car bomb,

'a terrorist can attack at any time at any place using any technique'

car bomb = terrorism

in a washington post article by dana priest, dated 29 march, 2003 and titled 'us teams seek to kill iraqi elite', the following is written,

'us covert teams have been operating in urban areas in iraq trying to kill members of saddam hussein's inner circle, including baath party officials and special republican guard commanders, according to us and other knowledgeable officials. the covert teams, from the cia's paramilitary division and the military's special operations group, include snipers and demolition experts schooled in setting house and car bombs. they have reportedly killed more than a handful of individuals, according to one knowledgeable source. they have been in operation for at least one week ... cia officials declined to comment ... the covert killing teams are an example of what one source called the "real life [expletive] stuff" ... not all the explosions in baghdad captured by western television cameras are the result of aerial bombs and missiles, the source said, implying that some have been planted by the teams ...'

so the us was possibly using car bombs in the invasion of iraq before the iraqis, let alone al-queda

on the subject of military necessity, the sep 11 attack on the pentagon, may find favour under the laws of war (note, not the twin towers)

cheers

you make some interesting points worthy of thoughtful discussion, particularly with your military experience and your willingness to challenge assertions in posts

cheers

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc

 

[Mr J]

And here is why ....... http://www.clontarffootball.com

Programs setup SPECIFICALLY for indigenous people to fast track into AFL via football for learning. Positive discrimination at it's best.

That and socio-economic and cultural reasons. If we're poor and play a lot of sport, we're more likely to view that sport as a road to success. If someone offers programs that cater to us, obviously we're even more likely to do it.

 

[trainspotter]

Not sure about the 25% ruling of indigenous players in the AFL? (thanks prawn_86) I understand it is more like this NRL = 11% and AFL = 7%. Could be wrong though? Something to do with more aboriginals living in QLD and NSW compared to Victoria. Majority of indigenous players that play in AFL are from N.T. or W.A. (where Clontarf Football Academy is entrenched)

Just thought I would clear that up more for my own satisfaction than anyone elses.

 

[Sean K]

reproduction of the post with references bold

you make some interesting points worthy of thoughtful discussion, particularly with your military experience and your willingness to challenge assertions in posts

cheers

Thanks for the references.

I forgot to add a point in regarding the 'car bomb' comment.

You are saying that the US trying to deliberately target Iraqi leadership with car bomb type tactics (rare) is comparable to a suicide bomber deliberately targetiing civilians (the norm)? eeeek

 

[prawn_86]

Not sure about the 25% ruling of indigenous players in the AFL? (thanks prawn_86)

Turns out my figures were wrong/out of date Official figures for 2009 season is 1 out of every 9 players has an indigenous heritage.

 

[2020hindsight]

From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission.

I think yuo'll find that the US even calls some recent attacks "unacceptable". - and indeed promised (yet again) to limit such screwups in the future.

Looks like there's room for improvement on the collateral damage side of the equation. A lot of valid criticism. (This article about Afghanistan):-
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies

New York) - The review announced by Gen. David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command, into the use of airstrikes by US forces in Afghanistan ........

The announcement of the review followed a US bombing in Bala Baluk district of Farah province in western Afghanistan that caused massive civilian deaths and injuries. ... more than 100 civilians were killed in the May 3 bombing.

"Afghans have heard promises from the US before that they would take all possible steps to avoid civilian casualties," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "But if the US is to have any credibility, this latest outrage needs to be the last of its kind. The Petraeus review should result in measures that genuinely minimize civilian loss of life."

Human Rights Watch said that the swift announcement of an investigation into the incident was welcome ...

During a visit to Washington by President Hamid Karzai on May 6, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her regret and sympathy about the bombing.

The following suggests that the Taliban weren't hiding amongst the population on this occasion...

Other US officials have sought, though, to play down US responsibility for the casualties and instead to blame the Taliban for using civilians as human shields. But this contention is contradicted by most accounts villagers provided to Human Rights Watch and other human rights and government investigators.

A preliminary investigation by Human Rights Watch found that on the morning of May 3, a large Taliban force arrived in the village of Ganj Abad in Bala Baluk district. Large areas of Farah province, in unstable southwestern Afghanistan, are under insurgent control, including areas close to where the fighting took place.

Villagers told Human Rights Watch that the insurgents demanded a share of the villagers' poppy income and took up ambush positions. Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that a firefight lasting several hours ensued between the Taliban and Afghan and US forces. A small number of bombs are reported to have been dropped by US forces, after which the fighting ended, in late afternoon. As many as six civilians may have been killed during the firefight.

According to several villagers and government officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch, large groups of Taliban fighters were seen withdrawing from the area. At around 8:30 p.m., US aircraft began bombing the village of Garani, close to Ganj Abad. Villagers say that it was during these bombings that most of the civilians were killed.

i.e. there weren't any Taliban there - instead they killed 100 villagers, "from a two-day-old baby to a 70-year-old woman?"

 

[2020hindsight]

As for US arrogance (alleged) maybe the problem started when Superman added the last 4 words ...

"to fight for Truth, Justice, AND THE AMURICAN WAYY".

PS think I agree that this is not (necessarily) a national thing - Aussies are equally arrogant - yet at the same time much more subtle lol. OI OI OI . (or oink oink oink for those with swine flue).

 

[GumbyLearner]

Kiwis would give us a run for our money.

Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.

Take that anyway you like.

Post of the month.
LMAO

 

[trainspotter]

Captain America vs Chopper Reid.

 

[Sean K]

Captain America vs Chopper Reid.

Does Capt America have two (2) things dropping down from his groin on either leg? Oh dear.

 

[trainspotter]

Typical arrogant Americans ... not happy with one. Chopper Reid would take him apart from 20 paces.

 

[stocksontheblock]

I really cant be bothered adding anything to this little thread, yet to say, please keep winding Websman up. Nothing like a great laugh on a coolish Thursday afternoon.:

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Post of the month.
LMAO

Luv your signature line!! Classic movie, classic guy!!!!!