Declassified C130 vid

[Lone Brain Cell]

Re: No Respect

Originally posted by Beemer
When we are threatened we have the right and the ability to protect ourselves and that means doing what ever it takes. Its funny we should play by rules when no one else does. Bali wasnt close enough to home for ya, lets sit back and do nothing so we can have some more of that happen.

I agree absolutly. There is no excuse for terrorisim at all.





You didnt say this? No wonder u guys shoot more of your own than the enemy does......

(Yes I did. and your point is?)

[Beemer]

Can you read

Do you read the posts and comprehend them when you do?
Do you pay attention to what you post.

You got called on statements you made then tried to put up smoke. Here is part of the posts that were made. Go back and reread then pay attention to what you post

Where is your proof that America shoots more friendlies than enemy?

Read what I said.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

always seem to shoot more of your own & aussies & the Brits that the enemy does. notice SEEM... & the big one... Than the Enemy does!!!

What you said before this was

No wonder u guys shoot more of your own than the enemy does......


and this

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lone Brain Cell
Ps I am right about the friendly fire.U guys shoot more of ur own than the enemy does I wish I wasnt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Butterfingers
Regime change in Iraq has always been a well know stated US policy It was the policy in the Clinton Administration as it is in the Bush Administration.

While clinton just threw a few tomahawks here, blew up a few bases here and there... Trade sanctions here and there... kinda half arsing it... It simply pissed the terrorists off while promoting the "paper tiger" image of the US. While the missused oil for food program just went into the pocket of Saddam while his country starved. Further pissing people off...

Bush decided to go all the way and demonstrated the resolve of the american people and demonstrated we as a united country will not tolerate such actions.

Now we have 2 less rouge states to worry about. Sure there are always going to be pissed off terrorists but at least now they have 2 less places to hide and 2 less sources of money.

Now, Maybe, just maybe next time they will think twice about flying planes into buildings.

Ask an iraqi that left his country because of opression nearly 100 percent support the action.

The Latest Bahgdad university poll shows greater than 70 percent support for the coalition. Thats MORE THAN HERE! in the USA!!

Well this is all very true! And better yet its based on facts. Let me go ahead and give some of them just so we all know and can research what historically escalated to this situation. And I not going to promote any stand what so ever. Just put a time line on things.


Acts of Iraq preceeding now:

1980 Invasion of Iran
1988 relocation and killing of between 50,000 and 180,000 Kurdish Civilians
1990 Invasion of Kuwait
1993 Attempted Assasination of Former President Bush
1994 Staging of 80,000 troups near Kuwait
1996 begining of trend to deny weapons inspectors access to facilities and documents as required by the UN

Now lets look at the previous Administrations actions towords Iraq and thier perception of the "threat" that was posed.

October 31st 1998 President Clinton signs the "Iraq Liberation Act" which states "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Taken straight from the Act itself.

Same year 1998 Clinton orders the bombing of Iraq in attempt to kill Saddam. Operation Desert Fox. On the eve of that bombing he gave a speach in which he states "Mark my words, (Saddam) will develop weapons of mass destruction and will deploy them and he will use them." Direct quote.

So you see the escalation and threat was well established prior to 911. And the escalation of events against regimes that might promote or harbor terrorist activities was already in place. At least the threat they posed to the US is clearly understood. Now a year later after President Clinton signing the Act and launching Desert Fox, he came under critisism for not doing any more to uphold the Act and force compliance in Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman wrote to President Clinton August 11th 1999 the following "There is considerable evidence that Iraq continues to seek and develop weapons of mass destruction. The whole point of Operation Desert Fox was that we could not afford to wait until Saddam reconstituted his WMD capabilities." He wrote this in concern that the President had done little to enforce the Act. And done little about the continued threat. As it was precieved long before.

Now... it should be no suprise to anyone that the threat continued under the following Administration. It was policy and it was in fact Law. And nothing had changed from that point in 1998. Except for 9/11. And in fact had worsened as far as compliance with UN inspection. And more time had passed.

Those are the facts and all that is FOI stuff. So you can research it yourself if you like. Its all public record.

Now the idea of escalation after 9/11 was the growing theory that you can target regimes where global terrorism might find safe harbor or even sympathetic and monetary support. You cannot really target shadowy groups but you can deny them safe harbor and cut off thier life line. So right or wrong these regimes that are international stability threats come under even more scrutiny. And as you see already had anyway. It should be noted that Lybia has rolled over since this all came about. An admitted Terrorist supporting regime. I mean not only have they admitted it but they have payed restitution and expelled the particular terrorists. No argument now that they had harbored them. Its a fact. And they recently complied with UN weapons inspections. So the argument that you can indeed negatively affect Terrrorist groups by targeting regimes that might harbor or support them in some way is actually showing that it is the case. Wether we like it or not. Or protest its not so or not. There is some evidence it indeed is working. And pleanty of historical evidence that the path we chose preceeds current administration and follows past administrations conclusions. Not some whim of current administration. Wise men that know all the facts often come to the same conclusion. And in this case it appears so.

Just something to put it all in perspective and to put some facts out on the table.

[Zygote]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093763/#ContinueArticle

This is an ongoing dialogue between several liberals who supported the war discussing how they feel about it now. Very interesting read. I actually agree with most of it.

[cphilip]

Very good read Zygote. Everyone should read it. ALL of it. not just the ones that agree with your take on it. Read the other peoples arguments too. I don't agree with some of them but others I do. But its interesting how they can genlemenly state thier postions and takes on it. Now its to be noted that most of them are liberals but they are a group that finds logical reasons to believe war was nessicary. At lest they did at some point.

Interesting read for certain.

I see in my read of it that you will see some of them make very good points that indeed intelligence had been that Saddam was a threat. Of course some concentrate on Bush as the evil. Seems a common theme. But there is ample evidence that Clintons thoughts were the same! One was a cabinet member under Clinton and clearly states he would still think the same way as that was the safest way to err and thats what they knew. And so he assumes that that information still existed after he left office, And some indeed now are feeling there is MORE evidence it was the right thing to do. And one in particular poignant conclusion I read was that is was "the least horrible choice". But some of this deal with that greater threat and deterent of Islamic Fundamentalist Totalitarinism and its threat to society.


Anyone reading all fo that... Monday and Tuesdays will find what they want in it. If they pick out one or the other. But you should read each of them with equal skeptisim and yet open up to the thoughts they are putting down on paper.

I guess my point here is you can hate Clinton or hate Bush but when it all came down to it they both had the same intelligence take on this. And most likely would have done similar things after 911. Not identical but similar. Its not about politics anymore. Its about the mess we find ourselves in and how we are going to deal with it. And deal with it we must. And we talking about kill or be killed occasionaly wether we like it or not!

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Lone Brain Cell didn't say it very politely, but he was mostly correct in what he said.

I did not look for figures on Australian deaths in Iraq, but only the UK numbers, as I knew I had heard them before. They are from a Quaker peace website.
-In 1991: 9 of 24 KIA (one USAF attack)
-In 2003: 22 of 52 KIA
...in total, about 40%.

And I know that 4 of the 6 men Canada has lost in Afghanistan were due to another USAF mistake.

The technical problem has been finding a way to consistently identify ground units to each other, and to attacking Allied aircraft. NATO aircraft have IFF systems, US Army combat vehicles use an IVIS system to track and coordinate friendlies and enemies. NATO vehicles in Kuwait used flourescent orange marker panels on their roofs, and US Army ground units also carry IR strobes to identify themselves to aircraft at night.

For American Allies the problem is that we often can't afford to computerise our mech forces to the same extent, so we get left out of the loop. Canadian troops in Afghanistan were not even issued the IR strobes, either by our own government, or by the US division they were attached to.

The technical gap between the USA and her Allies has reached the point where very few countries are able to field interoperable forces. No one else has NVG for every trooper, or IFF systems in their vehicles. Also, no one else has the airlift or sealift capacity to move troops to a trouble spot with similar speed. So US forces always arrive first, alone.

originally by xadamx

The lowest number of Iraqi civilian deaths I have seen is 1900 - LA Times. The highest is 9600 - Iraqbodycount.net

A small figure compared to 300,000. But not insignificant, especially considering that it has been a relatively short time. The Baathists in Iraq had 34 years to kill 300,000 civilians. Intervention has killed 1-3% of that number, in 2% of the time.

Both of these sets of number DO relate to the original point of this thread - the awesome/fearsome firepower of the AC130. Friendly fire deaths, and civilian casualties are unavoidable, but the numbers are higher because of the amount of firepower with which US forces respond to every possible threat.

[The Deacon]

Stop attacking the Australians! Those guys are great! Give 'em a beer, and tell them there's a fight and they're right there alongside you!

Cut LBC some slack, he fought in 'Nam for crap's sake, I afford him the same respect I do to any American that fought in 'Nam.

And the first Gulf War, friendly fire was the major killer, and yes, we aced some Brits and Aussies (sorry) too. But now, it's these darn insurgents making the casualties...

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by Jeffy-CanCon
The Baathists in Iraq had 34 years to kill 300,000 civilians. Intervention has killed 1-3% of that number, in 2% of the time.

Ya except they did it with malicous intent and it would have continued if we did not stop them. Saddam killed people if they spoke badly of him.

Civillians will always die in war its an unfortunate reality. However I belive the US does its best to avoid such situations. If we didnt care we would have just dropped the H-bomb and it would have been over with ZERO US casualties.

Be thankful we have this technology and not a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally posted by Butterfingers


Ya except they did it with malicous intent and it would have continued if we did not stop them. Saddam killed people if they spoke badly of him.

I would not dispute that. But it looks pretty much the same if you or your family are the victims. There was a news story last spring (BBC, I think) where the UK divisional commander occupying Basra asked to have the US troops attached to his force reassigned. He felt their use of firepower was excessive, and caused problems with winning local hearts and minds.

Originally posted by Butterfingers

Civillians will always die in war its an unfortunate reality. However I belive the US does its best to avoid such situations. If we didnt care we would have just dropped the H-bomb and it would have been over with ZERO US casualties.

Be thankful we have this technology and not a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I believe the US does a lot to avoid such situations.
It is possible to do more, but the cost would probably be increased US casualties.

War is always tragic, even if sometimes necessary for the greater good. And I DO think that removing Saddam was a greater good.

[Lone Brain Cell]

Originally posted by Jeffy-CanCon
Lone Brain Cell didn't say it very politely, but he was mostly correct in what he said.

Yes Well I suppose I owe you guys an apology, I wasnt very polite in the way I went about things.

the problem is from the air it is so difficult to tell friend from foe. the US spends billions on arms & to only have a few beakons & strobes to tell friend from foe is absurd.

I wholeheartedly agree with the stance you took on terrorism.......we feel the same way. But you all know the story from your side of the fence, what has the States done that has pissed these people off so much that they want to fly planes into buildings? I doupt that its that they wake up in the morning & say Mmmmmm its a nice morning I think i might hijack a plane......I dont think so. Dont get me wrong Im not supporting them AT ALL. But you need to look at why.

America will do & continue to do what is best for its people & so will every other country in the world its just when these paths cross ..........look out....cos those guys dont play the game we do!

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Lone Brain Cell
... what has the States done that has pissed these people off so much that they want to fly planes into buildings? I doupt that its that they wake up in the morning & say Mmmmmm its a nice morning I think i might hijack a plane......I dont think so. Dont get me wrong Im not supporting them AT ALL. But you need to look at why.

Oh don't be mistaken that its just us. We are the most high profile propaganda target of them. But indeed anyone but a Muslim Extreemist is target for their hatred. And they want only the death of all of you. Hopefully we can break that indoctrination by breaking the back of the zealots and tyrannists the espouse and indoctrinate that. We better. Our lives and the worlds lives depend on it. Its that serious. Time to wake up world. They don't just want us. They want everyone in thier way that does not cowtow to thier tyranical fanatisim. The free world is not safe as long as groups use perverted religon to perpetrate hate and killing and take power over innocents.

However I will add this. Australia has always been a staunch and trusted friend and will always remain so.

[Lone Brain Cell]

Originally posted by cphilip


Oh don't be mistaken that its just us. We are the most high profile propaganda target of them. But indeed anyone but a Muslim Extreemist is target for their hatred. And they want only the death of all of you. Hopefully we can break that indoctrination by breaking the back of the zealots and tyrannists the espouse and indoctrinate that. We better. Our lives and the worlds lives depend on it. Its that serious. Time to wake up world. They don't just want us. They want everyone in thier way that does not cowtow to thier tyranical fanatisim. The free world is not safe as long as groups use perverted religon to perpetrate hate and killing and take power over innocents.

However I will add this. Australia has always been a staunch and trusted friend and will always remain so.

Yeah you are completly correct.........you just have to look at the Hitler youth to figure out how they do it..brainwash the children to be your next suicide fanatic.

Oh and dont worry we will always be there with u guys, we may be small in numbers but we just dont give up!

[cphilip]

Yea well here the problem is we got whole generations that know nothing else! Its gonna take some time to prove we can be trusted and they do not have to hate us. And a lot of patience. But at some point you have to break that cycle. And sometimes by force it seems. Shame though... I mean who needs it but... well its come to a head. Time to do the dirty I guess. My only regret is having waited maybe too long and stuck this generation with the mess. I wish we had been more aware earlier and done more to prevent it. But really no one is to blame I guess. We didn't know.

Oh yea. We can always count on you guys. And same back at cha! You know that. And of course we all going to see things a little differently. But who wants an friend that doesn't THINK. I mean you cant trust a stupid one to do the right thing ! You need smart ones with morals! :)

[cphilip]

Oh I ment to tell you this. My father was an Officer in the Air Force for over 20 years. He spent a short period of time training with you Australian guys way back in the 60's. His specialty was communications. Radio and Radar and such as that. He has fond memories of his time over there in the Outback. And the beer!

[impostal22]

i guess i'm back...

first let me thank those who defended me and my points while i wasn't able to respond...zygote, bofh, wes janson, flaming koosh.

only a few comments, though.

1. i was unaware that self-censoring curse words was considered cursing as well (i'm not making excuses, i'm telling you why i didn't just use **** instead of what i did).

2. i believe two things about extremists...#1 they're extremists for a reason...#2 chances are you're right about the brainwashing thing (not taking brainwashing literally though). however, again we must look at why the brainwashers are doing what they're doing.

i believe that extremist bombers are a product of extreme circumstances. take, for instance, our role in the middle east for however long it has been. we've been a controlling power (even when controlling wasn't necessarily needed), and interfered when interfering wasn't needed. this tends to anger the inhabitants of countries. imagine canada coming over and telling us (yes, US) how to live our lives. and if we don't like it, they'll bomb us incessantly. it's unimaginable cuz it won't happen until the whole world is angry enough to take us over (which, i think, WILL happen someday). the point is, people in general don't like being told what to do...and they'll retaliate. we (the usa) are the kings of telling people what to do. it is only logical that we become the targets of terrorism. england tried controlling ireland...terrorists retaliated. israel tries telling palestine what to do...terrorists retaliated. notice it's always a much bigger fish picking ona much smaller fish in all instances. the only logical form of retaliation is terrorism. palestinians aren't about to get the means to combat the tanks we give israel, so they have to resort to terrorism. same sort of thing here.

oh..and let me clarify for the recently-gone FACTS OF LIFE...I *NEVER* *EVER* said we deserved 9-11. EVER. DO NOT put words like that into my mouth. oh and i really pity you, being the victim and all (says your goodbye thread), after all..YOU started the personal attacks in THIS discussion. but hey, you're the victim. i was wished harm upon, got angry and cursed once..and got banned. such is life.

anyway, we didn't deserve 9-11. but i'm also saying we need to pull out of the middle east..or should have never gone there to begin with. all the crap the CIA does in foreign countries is what makes us so hateable by other countries and make them resort to terrorism. those people who had family who died on 9-11...99% of them seek/sought revenge. understandably so. now..pretend you're an iraqi whose entire family was killed by (supposedly) stray bombs in our *ILLEGAL* bombings. you wouldn't want revenge? SURE YOU WOULD. how would you go about getting it? TRY just for A SECOND imagining the life of an iraqi. then try to think of a way of getting revenge that ISNT terrorist in nature.

i do NOT support terrorism. i do, however, support having an open mind, and trying to see things from others perspectives. if that means me and my family deserve to die (as fire1811 says should happen), then i guess i deserve to die with my family. if it's unpatriotic to try to understand others' points of view, question the government, and speak my mind, then I AM UNPATRIOTIC. until then, i will continue to *LOVE WHAT THIS COUNTRY ONCE STOOD FOR* and try to show others how it is not living up to par.

that is all.