Statue made in honor US Soldiers

[Bran-Muffin]

thats funny

[nitefyre]

With the amount of conflicts on this board I'm just waiting for the American army to swing by and keep the order by shooting us to pieces

It could do us some good. But of course they won't, you don't know how much you tempt me to argue with futility.

Where the hell is RKL to protect the American name?

[rklenseth]

WASH: Ah, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

WASH: Ha ha HA! Mine is an evil laugh! Now die!

[rklenseth]

MAL: If anyone gets nosy, just, you know... shoot 'em.
ZOE: Shoot 'em?
MAL: Politely

[rklenseth]

MAL: Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!

[Pirog]

NiTeFyRe>

That was meant as a joke, if you didn't get it...
But please argue with me. Although I sometimes feel great frustration when I talk to you and Lenseth I must admit that it is always stimulating

[nitefyre]

NiTeFyRe>

That was meant as a joke, if you didn't get it...
But please argue with me. Although I sometimes feel great frustration when I talk to you and Lenseth I must admit that it is always stimulating

Ok if you insist. It does get me heart running. =D

Unfortunately, I've been spending more time arguing wit you than Cantring and working.

Topic change from Saddam to Terrorism, but now to the AmericanSoldier:

Do you think the U.S. executed the War as best as possible? (Not the causes for the war, but how they actually-acted)

[Pirog]

Nitefyre>

Not surprisingly I will say no
The US army are using weapons that are frowned upon by most other countries. (such as mines, cluster bombs etc.)
They also made many mistakes in order of peace keeping, like standing idle while the historical museum in Baghdad was robbed of treasures that will be a great loss to humanity.

But I must admit that they have acted better then I expected, although I suspect it is more depending on the light resistance they met during the actual war.
I'm still confused about how the whole Republican Guard just seemed to vanish instead of fighting in Baghdad...there they would actually have had a chance against the Americans.

I suspect you might get frustrated from this answer, so I will give you a lot of time to calm down. (I need to sleep...it's almost 4 at night here, and I'm supposed to get up in just 3 hours to study. Good night )

[nitefyre]

Good Night

Of course, I disagree about the "The US army are using weapons that are frowned upon by most other countries. (such as mines, cluster bombs etc.) " because that's false. The US didn't use any mines in combat-and rather had to clear them. I don't believe the US used cluster munitions has much if at all in this war either, against anti personnel target. So I discredit that first.

'But I must admit that they have acted better then I expected, although I suspect it is more depending on the light resistance they met during the actual war.
I'm still confused about how the whole Republican Guard just seemed to vanish instead of fighting in Baghdad...there they would actually have had a chance against the Americans. " On that part I applaud the phsyc ops ppl that persauded many of the soldiers to go home and live a peaceful life. Though tough ass resistance was met in Najaf (3 ID), Nasariyah (1st MEF) and in the intial Baghdad Entry. Also would hafta applaud that the Basrah people slowed down the Brits for a few weeks. Psych ops saves lives.

That I concur with, "hey also made many mistakes in order of peace keeping, like standing idle while the historical museum in Baghdad was robbed of treasures that will be a great loss to humanity" since of course the CentCom was too few in soldiers to do anything. That was stupid, more time should've been alotted so actual stabalizing peacekeeping ops can be done properly.

lol, 2 against,1 with total arguement.

[The Hunter]

Wow hunter short fuse, just like chrissy. I was just joking with you man calm down.

Yeah, I can be really short fused... Especially when in a serious discussion ppl start calling others "narrow minded" and "terrorist supporters". Whether as a joke or because lack of brain, I don't know.

(For your info, the wink means its meant as a kind of joke).

Anyway, I am now officially a terrorist supporter. I hope Bin Laden is happy with my 7.50 US$

[Pirog]

The US didn't use any mines in combat-and rather had to clear them. I don't believe the US used cluster munitions has much if at all in this war either, against anti personnel target. So I discredit that first.

Well, you might be right about the mines...but again, that depends on the kind of resistance they have met and not an ethic choice made by the army. The mere fact that USA refuse to sign agreements like the banishment of mines etc. is something they should always get critizised for.
In Afghanistan the US Army got massive critique for their cluster bombs, that looked almost identical to the food packs they dropped, causing a lot of deaths amongst children who picked up un-detonated cluster bombs instead of the food packs...
But perhaps that shouldn't be brought into this discussion. Still, I believe that things might have looked very different if they had met tougher resistance in Iraq.

Americans seems to take wars kind of unserious nowdays.
Not even 400 American lives has been lost taking an entire country and yet many Americans are starting to have serious doubts about Iraq based on the body count...it feels very strange.

On that part I applaud the phsyc ops ppl that persauded many of the soldiers to go home and live a peaceful life.

Well, if that is the reason for the abscence of the Republican Guard in Baghdad I agree. Convincing an enemy to lay down their arms instead of killing them is always good.

That was stupid, more time should've been alotted so actual stabalizing peacekeeping ops can be done properly.

Yes, because the resources should have been there if they had really prioritated it. I think the American forces has made many strange military decisions even after the war...like during that big jail-break by guerilla soldiers against an Iraqi police station, where the American forces didn't rush there to help even if the attack went on for more than an hour.
But then again, I really don't know anything about their situation at the time, so perhaps they had their reasons...

[nitefyre]

The US didn't use any mines in combat-and rather had to clear them. I don't believe the US used cluster munitions has much if at all in this war either, against anti personnel target. So I discredit that first.

Well, you might be right about the mines...but again, that depends on the kind of resistance they have met and not an ethic choice made by the army. The mere fact that USA refuse to sign agreements like the banishment of mines etc. is something they should always get critizised for.
In Afghanistan the US Army got massive critique for their cluster bombs, that looked almost identical to the food packs they dropped, causing a lot of deaths amongst children who picked up un-detonated cluster bombs instead of the food packs...
But perhaps that shouldn't be brought into this discussion. Still, I believe that things might have looked very different if they had met tougher resistance in Iraq.

Americans seems to take wars kind of unserious nowdays.
Not even 400 American lives has been lost taking an entire country and yet many Americans are starting to have serious doubts about Iraq based on the body count...it feels very strange.

On that part I applaud the phsyc ops ppl that persauded many of the soldiers to go home and live a peaceful life.

Well, if that is the reason for the abscence of the Republican Guard in Baghdad I agree. Convincing an enemy to lay down their arms instead of killing them is always good.

That was stupid, more time should've been alotted so actual stabalizing peacekeeping ops can be done properly.

Yes, because the resources should have been there if they had really prioritated it. I think the American forces has made many strange military decisions even after the war...like during that big jail-break by guerilla soldiers against an Iraqi police station, where the American forces didn't rush there to help even if the attack went on for more than an hour.
But then again, I really don't know anything about their situation at the time, so perhaps they had their reasons...

LOL, THIS argument seems so staged. =D

The cluster munitions and those weapons of the sort aren't used usually specifically for the reason that they incur civil casualties, that makes the US look bad.

The instance where the Iraqis battled out Iraqis was probably a tactical choice by a commander on the ground. SO there wouldn't be friendly fire.

The war had a rolling start, 4th ID was still in Turkey, doing the same feint that the Marines did in the first Gulf war; and 101 and 82nd were still in Afghanistan for the most part. Allocating more 5th Corps resources (1st AD, ID) would've been more intelligent rather that XVIII Corps 3rd ID and the two Air Assault/Airborne divisions.

[Pirog]

The cluster munitions and those weapons of the sort aren't used usually specifically for the reason that they incur civil casualties, that makes the US look bad.

Well, you are both wrong and right.
You are wrong about the part where the US army doesn't use cluster bombs and right about them looking bad

[nitefyre]

The cluster munitions and those weapons of the sort aren't used usually specifically for the reason that they incur civil casualties, that makes the US look bad.

Well, you are both wrong and right.
You are wrong about the part where the US army doesn't use cluster bombs and right about them looking bad

I may look like an idiot, I may talk like an idiot, I may even walk like an idiot, but well yeah that prolly means I am an idiot.