The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 22 2003,22:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what the heck? we all know how French are  

to be honest, i'm kinda releived to see that France is taking a bit more rational way. they wanted the sanctions end, and now they are in good chance to do it.

if UN kept sanctions up, it would mean that UN opposes for sake of opposing, not for humanitarian reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

No, the deal would be the dropping of the sanctions in exchange for UN administration of Iraq. Removing the sanctions unconditionally would only serve to justify the illegal war that was waged against Iraq.

Letting the US do as it pleases will set a terrible example for future conflicts and will be a go signal to Bush that he can invade any country of his liking and that the world won't do a shit about it.

By accepting the illegal war, UN would only undermine its authority.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 22 2003,22:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 22 2003,223)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what the heck? we all know how French are  

to be honest, i'm kinda releived to see that France is taking a bit more rational way. they wanted the sanctions end, and now they are in good chance to do it.

if UN kept sanctions up, it would mean that UN opposes for sake of opposing, not for humanitarian reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

No, the deal would be the dropping of the sanctions in exchange for UN administration of Iraq. Removing the sanctions unconditionally would only serve to justify the illegal war that was waged against Iraq.

Letting the US do as it pleases will set a terrible example for future conflicts and will be a go signal to Bush that he can invade any country of his liking and that the world won't do a shit about it.

By accepting the illegal war, UN would only undermine its authority.<span id='postcolor'>

there you go. catch-22 situation.

UN has options of

1)keep the sactions on

2)exchange sanctions with control over Iraq administration

3)just lift the sanction

1) would look bad since although it does not let the war be legitimized, would imply that UNis more interested in power struggle with US than actually helping ppl, since sanctions are claimed to be the reason why Iraq is in dire situation.

3) would justify the war, which as you said, set a dangerous precedent. however, it will relieve the Iraqis

2) is a good compromise. however, is the reason behind France's proposal all altruistic? i doubt it. they want to wave the threat of sanction to get the control of goods in iraq. remember who was drilling oil wells before the war. second, if UN takes over, that would also be interpreted as a bad precedent. If that happens it would mean that UN will take over result of a war, and do as they wish by making an offer, using sanctions as a dealing card, not as a humanitarian reason.

[Guest]

Yepp, I agree.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 22 2003,15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is being withdrawn but it will take time since the job is still not finished. There are still a lot of things left to do in Kosovo. It's however only a question of time before Kosovo gets re-integrated into Serbia and KFOR withdraws.<span id='postcolor'>

umm.. isn't that a bit pointless?  the former state of Yugoslavia is hopelessly fractured. Is NATO trying to put it back together? I didn't even think they were contemplating this.

[LandShark-AL 0]

French balls oh my god that is funny Looks like all the money

them and the UN have been making of the oil for food is over to bad

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 22 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">French balls oh my god that is funny<span id='postcolor'>

this is this kind of comments i don't like and i don't understand , in other times i would have answered in a non-gallant way but you see , i have to refrain myself from doing so , more and more often , that is ...

after more and more unneeded and harming remarks , don't be surprised if relations between our two countries are getting worse

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 22 2003,22:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 22 2003,15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is being withdrawn but it will take time since the job is still not finished. There are still a lot of things left to do in Kosovo. It's however only a question of time before Kosovo gets re-integrated into Serbia and KFOR withdraws.<span id='postcolor'>

umm.. isn't that a bit pointless?  the former state of Yugoslavia is hopelessly fractured. Is NATO trying to put it back together? I didn't even think they were contemplating this.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not at all "hopelessly fractured". Yugoslavia was originally a federation of six republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia). It was the same as your states in USA with the difference that the republics had more autonomy than your states do. All those republics are intact (but as separate countries now) and have a central government that is in full control except for Serbia who is not in control of Kosovo (a province in Serbia). Their international borders are still however there and Kosovo was always meant to be reintgrated, and it will.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 22 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 22 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">French balls oh my god that is funny<span id='postcolor'>

this is this kind of comments i don't like and i don't understand , in other times i would have answered in a non-gallant way but you see , i have to refrain myself from doing so , more and more often , that is ...

after more and more unneeded and harming remarks , don't be surprised if relations between our two countries are getting worse<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. What I find most pathetic is that it is the same persons throwing those insults who start whining about "US bashing" when you make comments on the foregin policy of the Bush administration. The "France bashing" is much more personal, insultive and directed against the citizens of a country.

Take for example the quote in FSPilot's signature:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without your accordion - Donald Rumsfeld<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have any ide of the outrage it would create if it had been about America?

Sad double standards.

[Jinef 2]

My point was that we are having to put 10x12 ft flags on our vehicles to stop the yanks bombing us, it's ruining the whole point of camouflage and also it makes us look like an invading force, which we are, but it undermines us when we say we aren't.

http://britains-smallwars.com/korea/hill282.html

The Americans have been shooting themselves and their allies since WW1. It's not a clever thing to do.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 22 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 22 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 22 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">French balls oh my god that is funny<span id='postcolor'>

this is this kind of comments i don't like and i don't understand , in other times i would have answered in a non-gallant way but you see , i have to refrain myself from doing so , more and more often , that is ...

after more and more unneeded and harming remarks , don't be surprised if relations between our two countries are getting worse<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. What I find most pathetic is that it is the same persons throwing those insults who start whining about "US bashing" when you make comments on the foregin policy of the Bush administration. The "France bashing" is much more personal, insultive and directed against the citizens of a country.

Take for example the quote in FSPilot's signature:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without your accordion - Donald Rumsfeld<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have any ide of the outrage it would create if it had been about America?

Sad double standards.<span id='postcolor'>

Sadly it seems that some americans have this complex where it's ok to slam anyone they choose, but god help you if you point out the shortcomings in their own country.

Luckily it's not all of them.

Not quite as luckily, I think that the current administration really suffers from this syndrome.

[Longinius 1]

"Sadly it seems that some americans have this complex where it's ok to slam anyone they choose, but god help you if you point out the shortcomings in their own country."

That is because America is perfect and the rest of us are not. Can't you see that? Nothing America ever does is ever wrong, it simply can't be. And even if it is, it has to be right, since America did it.

I find it funny that many Europeans are very willing to admit that there are corrupt politicians in their government and that things like oil might matter in the situation about Iraq. Americans however, deny this. Like their leaders are super-human, above error and corruption. I think I'd like to be American. Ignorance is bliss...

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 22 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was that we are having to put 10x12 ft flags on our vehicles to stop the yanks bombing us, it's ruining the whole point of camouflage and also it makes us look like an invading force, which we are, but it undermines us when we say we aren't.

http://britains-smallwars.com/korea/hill282.html

The Americans have been shooting themselves and their allies since WW1. It's not a clever thing to do.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and lord knows we are the only ones that happens too...gimme a fuckin' break.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 23 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 22 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was that we are having to put 10x12 ft flags on our vehicles to stop the yanks bombing us, it's ruining the whole point of camouflage and also it makes us look like an invading force, which we are, but it undermines us when we say we aren't.

http://britains-smallwars.com/korea/hill282.html

The Americans have been shooting themselves and their allies since WW1. It's not a clever thing to do.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and lord knows we are the only ones that happens too...gimme a fuckin' break.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you do have to admit that the US has a problem with friendly fire in recent history.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 23 2003,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 23 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 22 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was that we are having to put 10x12 ft flags on our vehicles to stop the yanks bombing us, it's ruining the whole point of camouflage and also it makes us look like an invading force, which we are, but it undermines us when we say we aren't.

http://britains-smallwars.com/korea/hill282.html

The Americans have been shooting themselves and their allies since WW1. It's not a clever thing to do.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and lord knows we are the only ones that happens too...gimme a fuckin' break.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you do have to admit that the US has a problem with friendly fire in recent history.<span id='postcolor'>

You also have to admit that the US has been doing most of the attacking. And I'm not getting into some "illegal war" argument or "warmongering" arguement. I'm just talking about the fact with the US having the strongest military, it is looked on to do the most fighting and dropping of bombs. Statistically speaking, cross reference number of bombs, to number of deaths. Let's throw in number of sorties too and number of troops involved. We are talking about a statistically insignificant number. Lets do that say...for the last 13 or so years. So why's everyone talk about it? Because the media likes to, and to sensationalize the error. And undoubtedly it can be easily agendized.

On another note:

Hero

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 23 2003,00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 23 2003,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 23 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 22 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was that we are having to put 10x12 ft flags on our vehicles to stop the yanks bombing us, it's ruining the whole point of camouflage and also it makes us look like an invading force, which we are, but it undermines us when we say we aren't.

http://britains-smallwars.com/korea/hill282.html

The Americans have been shooting themselves and their allies since WW1. It's not a clever thing to do.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and lord knows we are the only ones that happens too...gimme a fuckin' break.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you do have to admit that the US has a problem with friendly fire in recent history.<span id='postcolor'>

You also have to admit that the US has been doing most of the attacking. And I'm not getting into some "illegal war" argument or "warmongering" arguement. I'm just talking about the fact with the US having the strongest military, it is looked on to do the most fighting and dropping of bombs. Statistically speaking, cross reference number of bombs, to number of deaths. Let's throw in number of sorties too and number of troops involved. We are talking about a statistically insignificant number. Lets do that say...for the last 13 or so years. So why's everyone talk about it? Because the media likes to, and to sensationalize the error. And undoubtedly it can be easily agendized.

On another note:

Hero<span id='postcolor'>

Funny...the British flew a lot of Sorties in the current conflict and didnt manage to blow up any of their own guys...

And yeah..if that story is true, that guy is certainly a hero!

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 22 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 23 2003,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 23 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 22 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was that we are having to put 10x12 ft flags on our vehicles to stop the yanks bombing us, it's ruining the whole point of camouflage and also it makes us look like an invading force, which we are, but it undermines us when we say we aren't.

http://britains-smallwars.com/korea/hill282.html

The Americans have been shooting themselves and their allies since WW1. It's not a clever thing to do.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and lord knows we are the only ones that happens too...gimme a fuckin' break.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you do have to admit that the US has a problem with friendly fire in recent history.<span id='postcolor'>

You also have to admit that the US has been doing most of the attacking. And I'm not getting into some "illegal war" argument or "warmongering" arguement. I'm just talking about the fact with the US having the strongest military, it is looked on to do the most fighting and dropping of bombs. Statistically speaking, cross reference number of bombs, to number of deaths. Let's throw in number of sorties too and number of troops involved. We are talking about a statistically insignificant number. Lets do that say...for the last 13 or so years. So why's everyone talk about it? Because the media likes to, and to sensationalize the error. And undoubtedly it can be easily agendized.

On another note:

Hero<span id='postcolor'>

I posted something along these lines just after that A10 blew those squaddies to pieces, so I'll post in short this time.

Yes the US flies more than anyone, but up to that point, they hadn't flown an extreme amount of hours during that war. For a comparison, we can take the RAF's flying hours from way back from Kosovo, Afghanistan, No Fly Zones, and GW2. This is more than the amount of hours flown than the USAF up to the A10 incident in GW2.

RAF friendly fire incidents - 0

US friendly fire incidents - Let's count.

A10 breaks off from formation, and blows apart a British convoy.... twice.

F16 attack US Marines. 1 dead, several injured.

F15 attacks Kurds, and US Special Forces. 15+ dead, 40+ wounded.

US Helicopters open fire on US Marines and fighting vehicles. Amphibious vehicle destroyed, several injured.

So, on a comparision, there is a issue at hand. I have spoken to some US pilots when they were at Waddington 2 years ago, and made the usual jokes about 'friendly fire'. To my surprise, they did acknowledge there was a problem with their 'fast jet brothers'. They were KC-135 guys out of Florida (Brought over 2,000 beers with them! ), and seemed really good guys.

RAF ROE states that if solid ID cannot be confirmed, do not engage. This is why we have the Mk1 Eyeball. Its old, but it works.

The US Airforce are bloody good, but some are recognised as being a little too 'gung ho' for most peoples liking. Sadly, it only takes one or two to fuckup, and people die.

Edit - Typo's

[LandShark-AL 0]

Badgerboy you are right on the money with that post most

of the blue on blue by our airforce did not have to happen

most of them where not even taking fire at the time.And as for the french they are no friend to the U.S. and have went

out of there way to keep saddam in power runing terror

camps killing people and building wmd.So that they can keep making money off of the contracts with oil for food as

well as the UN making a % off the money too.Face it the U.S.

is not putting up with terror so pick a side.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 23 2003,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I posted something along these lines just after that A10 blew those squaddies to pieces, so I'll post in short this time.

Yes the US flies more than anyone, but up to that point, they hadn't flown an extreme amount of hours during that war. For a comparison, we can take the RAF's flying hours from way back from Kosovo, Afghanistan, No Fly Zones, and GW2. This is more than the amount of hours flown than the USAF up to the A10 incident in GW2.

RAF friendly fire incidents - 0

US friendly fire incidents - Let's count.

A10 breaks off from formation, and blows apart a British convoy.... twice.

F16 attack US Marines. 1 dead, several injured.

F15 attacks Kurds, and US Special Forces. 15+ dead, 40+ wounded.

US Helicopters open fire on US Marines and fighting vehicles. Amphibious vehicle destroyed, several injured.

So, on a comparision, there is a issue at hand. I have spoken to some US pilots when they were at Waddington 2 years ago, and made the usual jokes about 'friendly fire'. To my surprise, they did acknowledge there was a problem with their 'fast jet brothers'. They were KC-135 guys out of Florida (Brought over 2,000 beers with them! ), and seemed really good guys.

RAF ROE states that if solid ID cannot be confirmed, do not engage. This is why we have the Mk1 Eyeball. Its old, but it works.

The US Airforce are bloody good, but some are recognised as being a little too 'gung ho' for most peoples liking. Sadly, it only takes one or two to fuckup, and people die.

Edit - Typo's<span id='postcolor'>

Undoubtedly, there is always a "cowboy" in the group. Or someone looking for "the kill" or the desire for combat (take for example the Canadians killed in Afghanistan). These will always take away from the good pilots that verify, and follow ROE. From GW1 up to now, a disproportionate amount of coverage has been given to these incidents in relation to the hundreds of thousands of sorties flown with good results since 1990. That is what I am getting at.

"Friendly fire" is an issue, but little can be done about it. I suspect it will always be an issue in war.

I also suspect it may be an issue with ROE given and training. And of course the desire to "get that kill."

[Jinef 2]

I completely agree, the US air force is good and although we don't like to admit it, FSPilot is perfectly justified to brag! But then you have the actions of a few that get recognised and over emphasised by the media. It's like the media ranting on about single parents and immigrants and homosexuals, everyone thinks they are taking over and we are going to have a reconstituted royal family and a Bangladeshi PM, but in reality these groups are in the minority and recieve attention disproportionate to their size.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 23 2003,02:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Badgerboy you are right on the money with that post most

of the blue on blue by our airforce did not have to happen

most of them where not even taking fire at the time.And as for the french they are no friend to the U.S. and have went

out of there way to keep saddam in power runing terror

camps killing people and building wmd.So that they can keep making money off of the contracts with oil for food as

well as the UN making a % off the money too.Face it the U.S.

is not putting up with terror so pick a side.<span id='postcolor'>

So the fact that without the French, the US would have stayed a British colony means nothing, huh?

And France is no more responsible for keeping Saddam in power than the US is.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 23 2003,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 23 2003,028)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Badgerboy you are right on the money with that post most

of the blue on blue by our airforce did not have to happen

most of them where not even taking fire at the time.And as for the french they are no friend to the U.S. and have went

out of there way to keep saddam in power runing terror

camps killing people and building wmd.So that they can keep making money off of the contracts with oil for food as

well as the UN making a % off the money too.Face it the U.S.

is not putting up with terror so pick a side.<span id='postcolor'>

So the fact that without the French, the US would have stayed a British colony means nothing, huh?

And France is no more responsible for keeping Saddam in power than the US is.<span id='postcolor'>

Well....

That can be debated. The French sort of hem and hawed about the whole thing, and only really started giving substantial help when the Revolutionaries were starting to make some wins (like Saratoga), and when it seemed a good time to screw the English.

We really owe more to the English Parliment.

[Major Fubar 0]

Wasn't there a bit of a thing a while back about some US pilots being juiced up on stimulants?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 23 2003,05:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wasn't there a bit of a thing a while back about some US pilots being juiced up on stimulants?<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah...I think that was the defense of the pilot who dropped ordinance on the Canadians. The defense was that it was the Air Force as a whole that was negligant for "forcing" pilots to take stimulants to keep up with the sortie demands.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 23 2003,00:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Sadly it seems that some americans have this complex where it's ok to slam anyone they choose, but god help you if you point out the shortcomings in their own country."

That is because America is perfect and the rest of us are not. Can't you see that? Nothing America ever does is ever wrong, it simply can't be. And even if it is, it has to be right, since America did it.

I find it funny that many Europeans are very willing to admit that there are corrupt politicians in their government and that things like oil might matter in the situation about Iraq. Americans however, deny this. Like their leaders are super-human, above error and corruption. I think I'd like to be American. Ignorance is bliss...<span id='postcolor'>

Have you been reading the posts of some of the Americans in this topic?

It doesn't seem like it. Many of the Americans here including myself, have been very critical about our government, its policies, our culture and our history.

I think most of the Americans here would be the first to admit that we've screwed things up in the past. Where I get pissed and I'll bet a bunch of others do too, is when you arrogant Europeans assume that we have bad intentions all the time, or that we are going to screw up now. Hey, maybe its a cultural thing, but i believe in second and even third chances. Its an imperfect world, and humanity is an imperfect condition. Give a people a chance to redeem themselves. You wouldn't be typing this shit on the internet were it not for the United States. And, were it not for the united States, the Russians and a few other allies, you might all be typing in German, or, later on down the road, in Russian.

If you like, I could backtrack and provide you with a crapload of examples.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 23 2003,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 23 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 22 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was that we are having to put 10x12 ft flags on our vehicles to stop the yanks bombing us, it's ruining the whole point of camouflage and also it makes us look like an invading force, which we are, but it undermines us when we say we aren't.

http://britains-smallwars.com/korea/hill282.html

The Americans have been shooting themselves and their allies since WW1. It's not a clever thing to do.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and lord knows we are the only ones that happens too...gimme a fuckin' break.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you do have to admit that the US has a problem with friendly fire in recent history.<span id='postcolor'>

That could also be because in recent history, it has been the U.S. that has shelled out most of the firepower.