guilty until proven innocent

killed if proven guilty

thus

killed if innocent

More like:

Anyone could potentially be guilty

thus

use caution

In this instance, it doesn't even apply since it was a mistake in the first place and the pilot wasn't in danger.

The "shoot first ask questions later" philosophy of the US army has been heavily criticised by the British and has been a source of tension between British and American forces working together.

He certainly didn't ****ing own me! No election is perfect. All you have to do is look at Washington States own gubernatorial election. The majority of voters there even think the Republican won. Still, the election in Afghanistan happened, was a success, and posting some links to articles by questionable sources such as the UN or the BBC certainly doesn't give him "owning" rights!

By the way, this so-called phiosphy you're talking about doesn't exist and is strictly against our ROE. That's "Rules of Engagement".

Haha, so the UN and BBC are 'questionable sources'...



Regardless of what the official policy is, this is an observation from British commanders - that American soldiers are too hesistant to work with the local population and too eager to open fire on them. Perhaps the British commanders are just wusses.

Probably.

You're just now realizing this...?!

No dissing the un please

Dear lord.

Please give us an example of a non-questionable source, then Wookie. Fox News? Ha.

There's a difference between being a "mistake-free superhuman" and having a reasonable number of mistakes. I would suggest that the number of mistakes that have taken place is completely unreasonable. Where did possibly innocent come from? Jeeze I dunno... I think we should read the thread title and topic post together, then see where I might have come up with something crazy like that.

Depends on the circumstances. I would not quote a source that some would consider conservative to back up a conservative argument. Likewise, I wouldn't quote a UN or BBC for just about anything. The UN because of the rampant corruption and the BBC because of their obvious biases.

Heh..

If you were talking about Sky News, The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail then yes, I'd question their reliability, but the BBC have always been held to high standard. No, it's not as good as Reuters, but it's close.

Your criticisms of the UN are also unfounded. But it's not really surprising, there seems now to be a widespread irrational fear of the UN, ranging from the illogical to the downright hilarious. The international achievements of the UN far outweight anything the US has done, or any single nation for that matter.

I got this in an email, so I'm not sure that it's 100% accurate. But if you plan on discrediting it, give your source, not your own rhetoric.

===========

This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq:


As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)



* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.

* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.

* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.

* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.

* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.

* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

* An interim constitution has been signed.

* Girls are allowed to attend school.

* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.


Ray Reynolds, SFC Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion

That's awful.

Yes. Because we know that Saddam Hussein is a very important topic in every subject taught in every school. Thus, his name belongs in every single textbook. [/sarcasm]

It says that there are /some/ textbooks that dont mention him. It doesnt say that /none/ mention him.

Not quite, Vash. Snopes references this article, which reveals most of those claims as lies or distortions.

Vash got Stampeded.

In any case, this thread is incredibly amusing. Along with all the war threads. Keep on truckin' guys, and keep the bull logic and false stats flowing! This goes for both sides...

.....no offense but do you have relatives associated with the UN and BBC or something?

No offense, but do you go around making random statements without proof? Because, you know, smart people don't do that. We should have a new forum rule forcing people to cite evidence of some sort to back up their claims. An example is this:

"OH NOES, THE UN EATS AMERICAN BABIES!!!!1111"

Now, while this may or may not be true (I hear that well fed American babies are rather tasty), getting a source on say, documented cases of baby eating in the UN, or statistics relating to babies captured around the UN would add substance to that argument.

Now, things of general knowledge: CNN is left wing (comon, admit it! ADMIT IT!) and Fox is right wing, can be accepted without proof.

I'll defend the BBC here for a moment. The UK does actions independent of the UN (See: Iraq War), but does not have to bow down to local American politics (See: CNN, Fox). Out of all the untrustworthy news, I trust them slightly more. If only for these rather lacking reasons above.

And why are you only calling me on this? Ictus and Haggis are the only ones in this thread not guilty of your claim.

And I don't mean to imply that the UN and BBC are working together in some sort of conspiracy.

CNN is left wing and Fox is right wing and that is accepted facts......sounds like you're just playing favorites.

No, I'm calling everyone on it. I'm not picking on you, sorry if it seemed I was. Also, I didn't mean to say the UN and BBC are in conspiracy. I was just saying I see the BBC as fairly independent.

But when have I played favorites? I said why I "trust" (well, not that much, but more than others) the BBC. And I'm gonna say innocent until proven guilty for the UN. Everything else IMO have proven themselves; the UN being heavily distrusted seems recent.

Everyone says stuff like that, and it's not just because of which way someone leans politically either. Someone that likes CNN will defend it to the death and accuse all other stations of being biased or liars. Likewise for other news sources.

I think most Americans (not too positive on how many actually, I just hear it mentioned frequently) view BBC as having a heavy liberal biased.

heh.

Look, I'm only really half-heartedly even debating any of this because I'm getting my way.

What I mean by that is the military operation is proceeding, my party is the majority in our government and, basically, totally in charge, we do not conduct business based on what other countries say, etc, etc.

If anyone remembers debating me in previous years (mostly at TACC), I was much more apt to write much more clear and informative posts. I don't feel defensive anymore as my side, meaning the Republican party, continues to make strident gains nor do I really feel like trying to convince people as much as before.

In short if my abruptness in my posts offends some, I'm sorry. If my lack of exposition or cites bothers you, I'm sorry. I just prefer to make short, concise statements that summarize my views rather than engage in lenghty, and what now feel like, boring debates.

You view the Republican party as "your side"? Doesn't that seem a bit childish?

No....

Whatever, Wookie. Reap what you sow.

Childish to view the Republican Party as my side? I don't see how. I'm a Republican.

What have I "sowed" Ictus?

I dont feel like reading through all this, because after the first page I'm already sick of it. People screw up. Things can happen at war that are unfortunate, IT HAPPENS. How many "possibly innocent" lives were taken from us on 9/11? Well they PLANNED that, and sometimes mistakes can happen, which can result in casualties. It is, after all, war. It's not like you're living in a Wizard of Oz world when you live in Iraq. You have to expect that when you are living in the heart of scattered terrorist camps, you cant expect the surrounding enviornment to be friendly.

As for the "possibly innocent" comment, it's 100% true. I don't care how sympathetic you are, you can't deny that saying a possibly innocent home was destroyed. They arn't saying that the people who lived in that house were terrorists, and they arn't saying that they wern't it's all just a speculation until they find out more information.

Enough said, I'm done with this thread.

Heh, you assume that just because someone is republican they will have the same views as you? There is a difference between republicans, mainly moderate republicans and a zealot like you. I hate that voting for a party, people put you in a box that you shouldn't be in. I say that when you say "my party". It isn't your party, don't speak for everyone.

I'm a solid republican voter, but I swear, I can't see why some people seem to think tha their party is homogenous. Lord almighty, forbid people actually thinking independently! What that party says is not LAW, it is something meant to be debated and thought upon.

Heh, no one read my post about American alturism either. Next person who says the sole reason for the war was to chase some non existant threat or to free Iraqis has a low value on American troop's lives. You don't send people to die going on a ghost hunt or solving the problems of others. And I don't think we had a guilty concience about installing him in the first place. I don't think any reason out there really explains why we went to war. Dang it, it's we as well, it's not Emperor Bush, it's president Bush, and Senate and Congress voted for it as well. I'm just hoping that it's something confidential that cannot be exposed for some reason; god knows what that is. But defending the war over the current "yes" reasons? Jeeze...

Your gloating tone may work with the sore democrats, but due to the fact I voted for "your party", you have to find a more clever excuse for your blindness.

Uhhh... it's not blindness. It's a curt explanation for why I don't bother to explain in depth most of my posts. Not sure how that makes me a zealot but I think I kind of like that label!

Well it's a good one for you. :p You've even got the moderate republicans mad at you.

...


Dear God.


You are aware that the BBC is one of the few news organisations who is completely independent from both its national government and advertising companies? Given that you have in the past admitted that you watch (and trust!) Fox news, to call the BBC "obviously biased" is the most incredible piece of hypocrisy. Please explain what this "obvious bias" is, since apart from a tendency to report the news from a UK perspective (which is understandable given its core audience), I don't see how on earth you can possibly call the BBC biased. Unless of course you conceive everything that does fit your narrow view of politics as "biased", which frankly seems far more likely.

What is this about my "narrow view"? My views are no more narrow than yours.