American soldiers are much different to British soldiers, American soldiers attack first and think later whereas British soldiers think before attacking.
From: NYSUN
Earlier this year, Britain's Defense Secretary Des Browne said that since 1990 12 British personnel had died in friendly fire incidents involving American forces in Iraq, but that there had been no such deaths in Afghanistan.
From: The TelegraphAmerican fire has mistakenly killed five Canadian soldiers: One died last September when an American warplane called in for air support during an anti- Taliban operation mistakenly fired on NATO troops, and four were killed in April 2002 when an American pilot dropped a 500-pound bomb near where the troops were apparently conducting a live-fire exercise, which the pilot mistook for Taliban action.
British rules of engagement only allow troops to open fire when attacked, using the minimum force necessary and only at identified targets.
The American approach was markedly different: "When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area.
"They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers.
I do not support the war on Iraq, or but what i do support is american soilders raping and killing women and chlidren ! because whats a war without war crimes. There are accually soilders in iraq going f**King crazy because of the $#@! that goes on there. and that my friends is a bad thing ! i cant do much, but stephen harper is like the presidents best friend, so i say kill goerge bush, maybe, but still its not like corporate amerika will let this war end anytime soon.
But if you kill Bush then you'll turn him into a hero.
Iraq has become a lose-lose situation for us. We are slowly realizing that our puppet government will never take a deep root, especially if we pull out soon. On the other hand, our continued presence in the region makes Russia nervous.
Personally, I don't see America successfully resolving the Iraq conflict. Perhaps, in a fantasy world, America would turn imperial and permanently occupy Iraq. That would stabilize Iraq, but it would also lead to Global war - an undesirable outcome.
If we pull out too soon, Iraq will collapse and spend the next decade in a state of civil war. During that period, it will truly become a breeding ground for terrorists.
We need a more commercial presence in Iraq. If they start becoming properly schooled, and if they begin to enjoy the benefits of trade, they will slowly begin to like us. Thus, I advocate a smaller military presence and a higher commercial presence.
Are you John Titor follower? (supposed Time Traveler from 2036)
From when you said Global War plus Russia and Civil War (which is why I highlighted those words), I remembered what I read a while back on what he wrote back in 2000. He said that America would end up in civil war, and Russia would start WWIII.
I don't support the war in Iraq but as others have said I support the troops and admire their bravery!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks