Video Of Us Soliders Shooting

[FatBastard]

When I was a little kid my father used to tell me a story about WW2. "When the British bombed, the Germans ducked, when the Germans bombed, the British ducked, but when the Americans bombed, everybody ducked." I never really understood that until years later, when I realised what he meant. More British servicemen were killed by American "Friendly Fire" during the Gulf War than by the Iraqis. They are well known for it. Friendly fire does not just mean killing allied troops, to bomb a village and kill innocent civilians is also friendly fire.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by FatBastard@17 December 2003 - 01:52
"When the British bombed, the Germans ducked, when the Germans bombed, the British ducked, but when the Americans bombed, everybody ducked."

i've never heard that before

it is pretty sad when you think about it though

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 15:42


We are fighting a new type of war, with very low casualties on our side, it therefore makes the friendly fire death proportion stand out. As the Pentagon says "we are working on it". Compare 150 deaths in this war with 300,000 in world war 2, this is a good thing if you are a US soldier.

There is no comparison to WW2 that was a war, Iraq is a skirmish, only the US would make a fuss about. When Britain took back the Falklands from Argentina
there was a damn sight more fighting than the piddling little Iraq war, and there was a lot less fuss and chest thumping like you get from the US.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by FatBastard@17 December 2003 - 03:52
When I was a little kid my father used to tell me a story about WW2. "When the British bombed, the Germans ducked, when the Germans bombed, the British ducked, but when the Americans bombed, everybody ducked." I never really understood that until years later, when I realised what he meant. More British servicemen were killed by American "Friendly Fire" during the Gulf War than by the Iraqis. They are well known for it. Friendly fire does not just mean killing allied troops, to bomb a village and kill innocent civilians is also friendly fire.

And without the help of Americans, you would have been exterminated.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 December 2003 - 02:09
And without the help of Americans, you would have been exterminated.

and if it hadn't of been for pearl harbour, you pussies might never have come in

[hobbes]

Originally posted by billyfridge+17 December 2003 - 04:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (billyfridge &#064; 17 December 2003 - 04:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 December 2003 - 15:42


We are fighting a new type of war, with very low casualties on our side, it therefore makes the friendly fire death proportion stand out. As the Pentagon says "we are working on it". Compare 150 deaths in this war with 300,000 in world war 2, this is a good thing if you are a US soldier.

There is no comparison to WW2 that was a war, Iraq is a skirmish, only the US would make a fuss about. When Britain took back the Falklands from Argentina
there was a damn sight more fighting than the piddling little Iraq war, and there was a lot less fuss and chest thumping like you get from the US. [/b][/quote]
What is your point? When has the US ever thumped it&#39;s chest?

Resistance in the Falkland Islands.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+17 December 2003 - 04:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 17 December 2003 - 04:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@17 December 2003 - 02:09
And without the help of Americans, you would have been exterminated.

and if it hadn&#39;t of been for pearl harbour, you pussies might never have come in [/b][/quote]
Wrong war, read the posts.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by hobbes+17 December 2003 - 02:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 17 December 2003 - 02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@17 December 2003 - 04:11
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes

@17 December 2003 - 02:09
And without the help of Americans, you would have been exterminated.

and if it hadn&#39;t of been for pearl harbour, you pussies might never have come in

Wrong war, read the posts. [/b][/quote]
WW2 and Pearl Harbour?

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 December 2003 - 04:09
And without the help of Americans, you would have been exterminated.

Edit: Nevermind, I thought we were talking about WW2.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+17 December 2003 - 04:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 17 December 2003 - 04:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by hobbes@17 December 2003 - 02:18

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@17 December 2003 - 04:11
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes

@17 December 2003 - 02:09
And without the help of Americans, you would have been exterminated.

and if it hadn&#39;t of been for pearl harbour, you pussies might never have come in

Wrong war, read the posts.

WW2 and Pearl Harbour? [/b][/quote]
Not at all what I was talking about. Let the British free Kuwait by itself. So many more deaths would have occured than the regretful handful by US forces.

We never needed UK assistance, it was more of a political gesture. The opposite is less than true.