Puff the Magic Dragon [Archive]

SASless

15th Jun 2006, 21:41

Think back over the RAF's history and think about the Battle of Britain flight and what the Lanc means to the citizens of Dresden and a host of other cities. I am sure a flyover of a couple of Japanese cities by a B-29 would be similarly received.

Warfare today is much less indiscriminate on targeting and thus minimizes the killing of people. People are going to be killed in war and terrorist attacks.

I fail to see any of you arguing the same case about what effect the WTC attacks had on us. Think maybe the Terrorists kicked off a scrum they will rightfully regret when it is all said and done?

The object of war is to break things and kill people....always has been and always will be. If the Terrorists surround themselves with children and innocents, who is really to blame for the deaths?

Occasional Aviator

15th Jun 2006, 21:50

Your points are well made, BUT...

There seems to be a perception, particularly in the US, that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are against an organised organisation of 'Terrorists', and once we've captured or killed all the bad guys (or "kicked their asses"), things will be OK.

I don't subscribe to this. I think (and it is a personal opinion) that fighting them as if it were open war (ie permitting collateral damage and deaths) only begets more 'Terrorists' as people lose brothers, sons, fathers, sisters, mothers and daughters to Coaltion action.

The only way to really stop it is to take away people's reason to fight.

BEagle

15th Jun 2006, 21:53

Actually, a lot of this 'US supports the Irish Republican Army' paranoia came from a simple misunderstanding between the cultures of the US and the UK.

'IRA contributions' in the US refers to Individual Retirement Accounts! These are plans which allow people to make contributions each year if they meet the contribution requirements. If aged 50 or older, they can contribute even more to their IRAs.

When MacDonalds employees arranged a corporate IRA contribution system, the false rumour spread around the UK that 'MacDonalds supports the Irish Republican Army'....

Compressorstall

15th Jun 2006, 21:57

I did think that this forum was for military aviators, not Daily Mail readers. Contrary to popular reporting, it is not being fought as open war but as a restrained war where it is hard to match the response to an enemy, organised or otherwise, who simply melts back into the local populace. It is not Malaya or Borneo, it is not Northern Ireland, it is war in the 21st Century. We fight an enemy trying to use actionable intelligence and precision, something the indescriminate enemies do not do in reply.

Robert E. Lee once said that it is good that war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it.

Occasional Aviator

15th Jun 2006, 22:01

I speak from first-hand experience and not from popular reporting, and yes, I am a military aviator and NO, I do not read the Daily Mail. However, I think I'm entitled to an opinion.

SASless

15th Jun 2006, 22:02

OA,

I would suggest the experts state your concept is but "one" of the things that must be done.

Just as providing security and a safe environment for the "Hearts and Minds" programs to be carried out. Until the NGO's, Civil Affairs, sewer workers, electricians, and teachers can return to work and rebuild the infrastructure and teach children, render medical care, build roads, your method alone has no chance of succeeding.

Until the Radical Fundamentalists cease poisoning young minds with a religion of hate and murder there will be conflict.

Perhaps all of those contributions in New York and Boston came from descendants of the Irish that were victimized by the English all those years ago, but that was brought about by a deprivation of freedom and not the defeat of a tyrannical regime that resulted in millions becoming free.

Thus comparing NI and Iraq and Afghanistan are illogical.

eagle 86

15th Jun 2006, 22:09

SASless,
You are never going to convince these people - in their eyes the West has never been right since the end of WW2. I ask the question - 80 plus INNOCENT Aussies were killed in one attack in Bali - but somehow that's our fault - we are not allowed to adopt the opposition's actions that so many on here seem to think are justified for them because we kill their supposed innocents.
We are losing and will continue to lose because the opposition see that we are soft and vulnerable. Rest assured the Western way of life that we cherish now will not exist in a generation's time. Your grandchildren will be dominated by another culture - but you won't care - you'll be dead.
GAGS
E86

Occasional Aviator

15th Jun 2006, 22:11

My method? Don't remember suggesting one - however I do agree.

Don't get me wrong, I do think we should go after the bad guys, and I have done my share towards that. I just prefer the british way to the US way (and I have seen both and operated under both commands in operational theatres).

True enough, UK and US AORs are different in character. And I would not for a moment compare Iraq and Afghanistan with NI. However, if you want to engender respect for life and the rule of law, you have to walk the walk yourself.

rab-k

15th Jun 2006, 22:14

The only way to really stop it is to take away people's reason to fight.
True, but that often means you either destroy then enemy so completely and utterly they can no longer wage a campaign of war/terrorism against you. Alternatively, the enemy wins - if not outright, then at least in the form of substantial concessions. The third option is stalemate.

What the US/Coalition can offer in the way of concessions beats me. The 'enemy' will never be able to win in the normal sense of victory and outright destruction would also seem to be a non-starter. That only leaves one probable outcome - stalemate. Neither side can win, but neither will contemplate the alternative.

We could be seeing a lot more of the same for a long time to come.

Melchett01

15th Jun 2006, 23:24

True, but that often means you either destroy then enemy so completely and utterly they can no longer wage a campaign of war/terrorism against you. Alternatively, the enemy wins - if not outright, then at least in the form of substantial concessions. The third option is stalemate.

Not at all. The traditional approach in the west, especially western Europe with its history of various terrorist groups & factions has been one of Protect, Penetrate & Politics. To me that is pretty obvious - protect the population, penetrate the terrorist groups and engage through the political process.

Unfortunately, that won't work in the current climate. As much as Tony & George are trying to portray this as good vs evil, people like UBL & Zarqawi are doing their best to portray it as a clash of civilizations with their arguments that the differences between Islam and the rest of the world are intractable and that it is a fight to the death for supremacy.

What we have - belatedly - realised is that to be effective you need a dual approach, that of hearts and minds coupled with biblical violence to act as a deterent. To simply destroy the enemy will not work; Northern Ireland proved that - unrestrained targeting simply produces a Hydra effect - arrest / kill one and the rest pop up to take their place.

To try and engage solely by politics is fine, as long as your enemy has a tangible end state that can be achieved through negotiation. When you are of the belief that anything other than the most puritanical form of Islam is wrong, there is no negotiation. It is an ideological conflict that almost mirrors that of the Cold War - hard action will not defeat a concept or mind set.

As such, you need to wipe off the map those that choose to fight you whilst simultaneously engaging with the potentially disaffected and try and persuade them that beheading every westerner that crosses your doorstep won't necessarilly solve the issue.

Unfortunatley, the situation we find ourselves in now has no stalemate. We will either be fighting for the next decade, or we will manage the problem but not eradicate it, largely due to the approach we are taking at the moment coupled with the lack of understanding. This is unfortunately a win-lsoe situation. Either we persuade (not bomb) our opponent into realising that we can all live together in peace( even if its you stay on your continent and we'll stay on ours) or the war continues indefinately. Both sides are out for a win - a score draw isn't on the cards this time round!

Roadster280

16th Jun 2006, 00:02

Written by persons unknown in 6 foot high letters on a cliff at Bournemouth seafront:

"F*CK BLAIR BOMB MECCA"

Discuss.

Interesting AC-130 video footage!

7gcbc

16th Jun 2006, 00:24

Occasional Aviator, :D bravo!

if you will sir, allow me to quote you.

True enough, UK and US AORs are different in character. And I would not for a moment compare Iraq and Afghanistan with NI. However, if you want to engender respect for life and the rule of law, you have to walk the walk yourself.

I don't see any further reason for discussion ?

eagle 86

16th Jun 2006, 01:04

7gcbc
...... and the opposition will continue to laugh their tits off at us!
GAGS
E86

Ignition Override

16th Jun 2006, 05:12

Some of the "terrorist wannabes" who grew up in, or emigrated to Britain, the Netherlands ( a politician [?] named Van Gogh, was murdered), France, Canada or the US etc, apparently refuse to accept the fact that they are responsible for their actions and that they are free to leave their host countries, which can offer peaceful citizens opportunities, if they study and work our 'tails' off-just as we must do.

If they can not accept the secular western cultures in which they live, why can't they buy a plane ticket and begin a new, satisfying life somewhere else? And if certain people don't quite speak the language, whether Farsi, Arabic or Pakistani, Hindu Urdu etc? That is not the fault of the West. People of different cultures can certainly live together, but both sides must accept the original culture of the host/native country. One predominant culture was already there. It has no need to change everything, merely because people decide to become indoctrinated and suddenly reject the familiar civilization in which they grew up.

There are excellent editorials from well-educated writers who comprehend the advanced math, science and medicine (i.e. eye surgery) developed in the Middle East around 1100-1200 A.D., or maybe much earlier. What happened later to that Middle East/North African/Iberian civilization, as the West emerged from the Dark Ages, is most unfortunate.

The US allows people to leave, and I've never heard or read about an 'Iron Curtain' around Canada, Britain or western Europe. The "terrorist wannabes' " total refusal to understand or accept the lifestyles and cultures that are generally accepted as normal, especially as they are well aware of and participate in the very same freedoms which are allowed by western democracies, is absolutely no excuse to harm or kill people.

Tigs2

16th Jun 2006, 07:19

I just find it all very sad that our 'civilisation' has reached a point where life has no value at all (mind you the more i reflect the more i think nothing has changed in the last 5000 years, we have just got more efficient at killing people). Over 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 yet we used that as an excuse to kill over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (a very conservative estimate!), and we are happy to call those deaths 'collateral damage'. Those of you who think we have set millions free are living in a world of your own. 98% of the Iraqi people are scared s***less to walk out of there doors each day, is that freedom??. We supposedly went in to rid the world of a terrible dictator who killed lots of people and tortured his victims. So what has changed? If I was a 6 year old orphan whose parents had been killed by the coalition forces, I know what I would do when I grow up! This is a no win situation. This can only be a lose situation, for the Iraqi people and the families of all our servicemen who are killed in this futile, farcical war. Terrorism my ar*e, it’s about oil, nothing more, nothing less.

OCCWMF

16th Jun 2006, 08:08

'Civilization'? No value for life at all? DM reader if ever there was one.

WW1 15,000,000 (66m if you include Spanish flu)
WW2 62,000,000
3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars)
278,000 - 1992-1995 war in Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Bosnian_War)

OK, you can tailor the stats to suit (WW1/2 is a bit of a peak and there are many others you could use) but look at the outcry over the deaths on both sides. If anything we are more averse to death - a consequence of the egotheism currently dominating western lifestyles. Not a religious person so not fussed about that.

Skunkerama

16th Jun 2006, 09:41

All I wanted was some video of the tracer from the minigun being fired, not a bloody thread where SASless gets to piss off the entire forum yet again.

Thanks for the video Mike.

Maple 01

16th Jun 2006, 12:32

100,000 Iraqi civilians (a very conservative estimate!),

Actually 100,000 Iraqi civilians (a very discredited estimate!) still, repeat a lie often enough………

Maple 01

16th Jun 2006, 12:35

100,000 Iraqi civilians (a very conservative estimate!),

Actually 100,000 Iraqi civilians (a very discredited estimate!) still, repeat a lie often enough*………

Copyright Joseph Goebbels

Tigs2

16th Jun 2006, 12:38

Maple

Sorry i dont follow you. Are you saying that you think the number is less than this?

Maple 01

16th Jun 2006, 12:44

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

They aren’t exactly a Coalition friendly web-site either, and they have a nice article distancing themselves from the original 100,000 dead claim, as do the Lancet. The maximum they claim for reported (i.e. uncorroborated - my cousin’s uncle’s sister heard from a friend that her sisters pen-pal heard that.....etc) lists about 42,747, the vast majority killed by insurgents - which kind of destroys your attempt to lay all civilian deaths at the feet of the US I think...what say you?

Tigs2

16th Jun 2006, 12:48

Maple
Where in my post does it say that i am laying the blame for all civilian deaths at the feet of the US?? Oh! and only 47000 dead. That makes it perfectly alright then.

Maple 01

16th Jun 2006, 12:55

You see, that's the problem? Your figures are shown to be wrong, but you don't admit your error, nor do you retract the thrust of your argument abut go on the attack again - an error of in excess of 50,000 is nothing?

Look at it like this; if the insurgents are responsible for more than 80% of the Iraqi deaths (and the figure is much higher) shouldn't you be ranting against them first? The Coalition isn't deliberately leaving camp each day with the intention of taking lives – unlike……perhaps they would be a better target for your vitriol?

teeteringhead

16th Jun 2006, 12:56

If a thread were started on the legitimacy of war, I wonder if it would be hi-jacked by someone looking for video clips .......;)

brickhistory

16th Jun 2006, 13:01

Actually, a lot of this 'US supports the Irish Republican Army' paranoia came from a simple misunderstanding between the cultures of the US and the UK.
'IRA contributions' in the US refers to Individual Retirement Accounts! These are plans which allow people to make contributions each year if they meet the contribution requirements. If aged 50 or older, they can contribute even more to their IRAs.
When MacDonalds employees arranged a corporate IRA contribution system, the false rumour spread around the UK that 'MacDonalds supports the Irish Republican Army'....

Good one, BEagle! :ok:

edited in order to spell his moniker correctly

Maple 01

16th Jun 2006, 13:03

Oh yer - AC47 vids? Usually on discovery Wings mate;)

SASless

16th Jun 2006, 13:18

Beags,

Reckon any money is leaving Blighty headed for Al Qaeda's war chest?

Irish Americans living in the Northeast part of the country did in fact donate money and provide support to the IRA and other groups.

It is also a felony crime now and has been for many years, punishable by extended stays in Federal Prison.

Anyone gone to prison in the UK for sending money to Bin Liner's outfit?

EnginEars

16th Jun 2006, 13:18

Back on topic...

A slightly cheese video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6061942703592677905&q=spectre

7gcbc

16th Jun 2006, 13:25

all quotes from http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php

Careful what you bite off Maple, it might prove indigestible.

Most actors in conflict, whether state or non-state, have historically displayed little serious interest in documenting and investigating civilian deaths and their causes. Inertia in this respect is also displayed by transnational organisations who could be expected to have particular concern for civilian casualties (such as the Red Cross or appropriate agencies of the United Nations).

Both organisations, I hasten to add, have been so undermined and their reputations discredited by the current US administration that any remedial humanitarian action in Iraq is nigh impossible (not that the current situation on the ground is all "ben and jerry"), but it will indeed be a "reap what you sew" moment, when finally the US finds itself out of depth, infact she may already be.

It is not a matter of "if" but "when", do you disagree ?

It is accepted that war causes many dire consequences for the civilian population even if they are not directly killed or injured in military strikes. They may suffer long-term injury or illness (as a result, for instance of radiation, post-conflict contact with unexploded munitions, pollution due to spillage of toxic materials). People may suffer deep psychological trauma, miscarriage, bereavement, dislocation, and loss of home and property. Destruction of civil infrastructure and economic systems can have effects which last for generations. These factors undoubtedly cause many further deaths. However, documenting and assigning responsibility for such effects requires long-term “on the ground” resources. Immediate deaths and injuries through the use of weaponry can be pinpointed in place and time, and responsibility straightforwardly attributed to the weapon that caused the death or injury.

And such is our concern, that we quibble over numbers.

Maple 01

16th Jun 2006, 13:41

So a "fact" is busted, the source discredited, and we move onto the 'Yea, but no, but yea - anyway the coalition is to blame.....bla bla bla ‘Bush and Blair are the anti-Christ’, that’s fine if that’s what you want to believe but don’t pretend there is any factual basis to your claims

Who is deliberately targeting innocent Iraqi civilians on a day-to-day basis
The Coalition or Insurgents?

SASless

16th Jun 2006, 14:08

Maple,

One can speak the Truth to the Non-Believers but it is up to the one listening to accept the Truth. Elmer Gantry himself could not convince some of our dear friends and colleagues of what you say.....they just are not going to be swayed by facts, data, or any other inconvenient obstacle to their thinking.

The Republicans are finally confronting the Democrats about the Iraq war in debates in both houses of Congress. The Dem's have been ranting and raving ever since the Iraq War lasted longer than Gulf One. They quickly voted to get us into the war but as it dragged out and became more involved than planned....it has become a "Republican, GWB, Dick Cheney, Neo-Con" war and nothing to do with the Dems. Our famous Warrior, John Kerry, is again on the band wagon about immediate total withdrawal of troops. Same refrain he sang during Vietnam.

The Dems, including John Kerry, voted for the war. They are getting a chance to vote again...."Cut and Run" or "Stay the Course"...and surprise they are voting to stay the course. So much for the Cut and Run Brigade.

The opposition rave about GWB's Poll numbers....and ignore the fact the Media and Congress have approval ratings half that of GWB. Again, inconvenient facts that dispute the liberal arguments that they intensely ignore.

7gcbc

16th Jun 2006, 14:08

No sir, we are doing neither, we are not attacking Blair , nor Bush, Neither is there a "blah blah blah" argument as you so eloquently put it, and neither has there been a distinct and clear mention of "coalition" forces targetting innocents, the text you are free to interpret or infer, comes from your very own subject website (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php )that you chose to introduce to this argument.

Just the simple fact, that innocents are dying and that is unacceptable.

Have a look at the graph ...

30% year on year increase in civillian deaths.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php

Maple 01

16th Jun 2006, 14:21

Just the simple fact, that innocents are dying and that is unacceptable.

Then can I expect to see you criticising the insurgents rather than the Coalition?

In a previous life I was an Int bloke, now I'm an analyst - throwing random, inaccurate statistics around only undermines your arguments it bugs the living daylights out of me! - look at Iraqibodycount's methordology

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

i.e. uncorroborated - my cousin’s uncle’s sister heard from a friend that her sisters pen-pal heard that.....etc. Independently checked and verified by, er............

Remember the recent 'Iraqi boy killed by British soldiers' story reported through the Arab press (and no doubt added to Iraq bodycount) which had one small flaw - it didn't happen, even the BBC ran a retraction of sorts - I wonder how many times 'facts' that they pick up on turn out to be bull? And I hope they rembered to drop the fictional boy from their list

SASless

16th Jun 2006, 14:36

Innocents killed...by Terrorists, Insurrectionists, Saddam's Goons, or Coalition Forces?

When you levy blame for "innocents being killed" it appears all deaths are the fault of the Coalition Forces (ie...Bush/Blair).

If we take the 300,000 found in mass graves, add the innocent men, women, and children killed by IED's, Car bombs, Suicide Bombers, death squads, snipers, beheaders....and add that number to the 300,000 then I would suppose the "Bad" guys are worthy of your ire.

When a body shows up in the Baghdad morque....that does not indicate the body was an "innocent" person.

Any innocent death is a tragedy....no one disputes that. Just put the blame where it should lie...on those that intentionally seek out and target the innocent or by their tactics purposely put innocents into the line of fire so as to cause those deaths.

Skunkerama

16th Jun 2006, 14:36

Will you lot thin out and get your own thread? They are free you know.

Pureteenlard

16th Jun 2006, 16:39

How come you can be portrayed as a bleeding heart liberal hippy idiot, at best, and a supporter of terrorism at worst in these forums when you suggest that high explosive is not the best way of conducting a "surgical" strike? I think the war in Iraq is ill judged to say the least. Does this mean I send Al Quaeda used tenners in a brown envelope each month? Don't be so sodding stupid! And anyone who uses the "oh, you're not supporting our brave boys then" argument is beneath my contempt - and there are plenty of you out there.
I think Mr-AEO's original comment is valid enough given the film that I saw. There are plenty of home movies on the net - often taken by whooping spams who have just destroyed an entire appartment block to get a single sniper. Even if no innocents are hurt in such incidents it ain't going to endear you to the locals now is it?

"All the gear and no idea". Never a truer word spoken.

con-pilot

16th Jun 2006, 16:54

And all the guy asked for was a video of an AC-47 or a AC-130.

It doesn't take much to set you lot off does it?:ugh:

Compressorstall

16th Jun 2006, 21:18

If there is a university for 'insurgency theory' this thread will prove to them that their terrorism works since they are dividing opinion and stopiing us having a unified response. I wonder what threads the forums on Anticoalitionmilitia.com are running at the moment. There is no 'magic bullet' to combat the insurgency and if we all applied COIN theory then perhaps we would be further down the line but that requires the mailed fist in the velvet glove, not armchair theorists and people seeking quick wins. The insurgents aren't winning, and neither are we. Does anyone remember the 'will to win'?

RayDarr

11th Jul 2006, 14:45

I know we are all supposed to be civilised folk, but I tend to believe the Romans were right in their approach (What did the Romans ever do for us etc etc.) If you accepted Roman rule, you lived in peace - more or less. However, if you rebelled and caused a war, a couple of legions would show up and kill every living thing . People, livestock, pets, the lot. Needless to say, tribes tended to learn preeeety quick that it was not a good move to upset Rome. Sky TV and CNN not withstanding, might be worth a go in Afghanistan don't yer think????
Trouble is I don't think we have enough blokes in the Army to make up a Legion these days.

Tigs2

11th Jul 2006, 15:09

So you think the world will let us go in and 'Kill every living thing'??
Don't think we would get away with it somehow.

giblets

11th Jul 2006, 15:44

Like the 16 year old wife of Al Zarqawi for instance?

Who he had been married to for 2 years....so we got a paedo into the bargain.

Roadster280

12th Jul 2006, 01:32

RayDarr

12th Jul 2006, 10:00

OK, perhaps the Roman solution is not workable today. How about we let people around the world live like they want to live and stop getting in their face? I have no objection at all about bringing our armed forces home from all around the world, and using them only to defend the UK. We can then let the people of Iraq slaughter each other for a couple of years, and once they have reduced their own country and civilisation back to the stone age, we can go back in and get their oil for free.
Same applies to Afghanistan, except they are already in the stone age, and they can keep their opium thanks very much. N Korea we can ignore, just cut off all aid and they will starve themselves to death in no time at all. If we do this, we also remove any reason for international terrorism, as we are not playing "internationally" any more.
Anybody think that might be a good idea?

Of course the USA tried "isolationalism between the wars, but were still sucked into WW2, so maybe this won't work either.

Oh what the hell, just nuke em till they glow!!

Roadster280

12th Jul 2006, 10:37

That would be a little short sighted. It GUARANTEES that you fight wars on your own soil. If you can go and spoil the bad guys' whole afternoon on their plot, it saves wrecking one's own.

Additionally, like it or not, we (the West) are net importers of energy. Since the ragheads appear to control much of this, it may be something of an own goal. Unless of course we all drive Toyota Priuses. Oh, sorry, forgot, they are Japanese. So when the North Koreans attack Japan, and we do nothing about it, that would but a banana skin under that plan.

Falkland Islands are somewhat remote from these shores (even here in the US!). We could just withdraw.

Of course, on 3rd September 1939, we could have stayed at home and minded our own business, could we not?

FormerFlake

12th Jul 2006, 11:54

Of course, on 3rd September 1939, we could have stayed at home and minded our own business, could we not?
To quote Yes, Prime Minister (again)

"There was nothing wrong with appeasement. All that World War Two achieved after six years was to leave Eastern Europe under a Communist dictatorship instead of a Fascist dictatorship. That's what comes of not listening to the Foreign Office."
Very true

"It was a good idea to partition countries like India and Cyprus and Palestine and Ireland as a part of their independence. It keeps them busy fighting each other so we don't' have to have a policy about them."

jonny5

12th Jul 2006, 12:27

Pull out and let them all fight with each other is a great idea! when we go back in a few years there will be noone left and we can build a rather large butlins where bagdhad used to be! free holidays, cheap oil, are all a bonus! But we will get slated if we pull out and the country descends into civil war!
Ray Darr- nuke them till they glow!- amen
won't have to waste money disposing of trident then!:E

RayDarr

12th Jul 2006, 15:12

Bismark (The Iron Chancellor not the ship) once said the Balkans were not worth the bones of a single Pommeranian Grenadier.
I sort of feel the same way about that, and Iraq, and Afghanistan. I can't say I'd be too bothered if N Korea did zap Japan. I buy German cars anyway. I s'pose a smoking hole where Japan once was might cause a problem for some of my electrical kit, but I'll manage.
Musn't upset the yanks however, although our Tony is rapidly turning us into the 51st State. I thought that on 3 Sep 39 the US did sit back and watch the fun. Then became rich by selling us all the stuff we needed to fight with. I guess they would still be selling us bombs or swapping our overseas possessions for tanks if the Japs hadnt bombed Pearl Harbour and brought them in.
Hey hum!

SASless

12th Jul 2006, 15:25

Traded overseas possessions for arms? Errrr...by that you mean you gave away someone elses territory to protect your homeland I presume.

Sat back and reaped riches? We could have remained truely neutral as international law required and really sat back....much like the Swedes and Swiss I suppose.

Tell me about the USS Reuben James....and how those guys sat back and watched....or the other Americans in the RAF flying in the BoB wearing crab blue.

I should think the financial gain we garnered might have been offset just a bit by the investment in things like the 8th Airforce and the 82 Army Divisions we sent to Europe along with significant naval units.

But then why let facts interfere with a good rant I suppose.

brickhistory

12th Jul 2006, 15:34

Musn't upset the yanks however, although our Tony is rapidly turning us into the 51st State.

Ummm, no thanks. We already have a cold, damp state in Washington although the plumbing does work there! :}

mcidiot

12th Jul 2006, 15:38

Wow, from the Spooky to the BoB
Back to the origional point of this post ( I think) anyone else have videos?
i know it isn't a Spooky, but it was posted on the site as one
click here (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-4_AC-130&uh60mosul.wmv)

still awesome

vecvechookattack

12th Jul 2006, 16:54

Agreed....you have to remember that those were the actions of the Americans. An Englishman enters action with the firm conviction that his duty is to hurt his enemies and help his friends without looking for directions in the midst of the fight; and while he thus clears his mind of all subsidiary distractions, he rests in confidence on the certaintly that his comrades actuated by the same principles as himself, will be bound by the sacred and priceless law of mutual support. Accordingly, both he and all his fellows fix their minds on acting with zeal and judgement on the spur of the moment, and with the certainty that they will not be deserted.

Commodore H Nelson.