ANOTHER U.S. Troop Dies in the Line of Duty

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Asher
Wiglaf, why don't you join the military?

Your fellow countrymen are DYING out there and you're here *****ing about the people helping them.

Shed a few hundred pounds, pick up a rifle, and go find me Bin Laden. Anything else is un-American and useless!

Hey, leave the kid alone! He fought at Omaha Beach, he was at Iwo Jima, he personally stopped the Chinese in Korea, he flew the last chopper out of Vietnam...

The kid's a hero...

Or maybe just a kid...

[Immortal Wombat]

Its threads like this where the ignore list is a PitA

Wiggy, PM me your address and I will mail you a Hicksville-to-Kabul return air ticket.

Put up or shut up.

[Seeker]

"Read a newspaper.

A British SAS squaddie was critically injured before Christmas whilst storming a Taliban strongpoint. He survived. Others in his unit escaped serious injury due to their body armour.



I'm interested in your definition of 'critical'. Link?"


!!

Wiglaf, you are a pig.

You want blood, eh? You go and do it. You think that other nations haven't proven their committment until one of their soldiers dies?!

The fact that the US army is several factors more funded and larger than the rest of the Alliance (due to the fact that the USA invests more money in the military than anyone), it is not exactly difficult to predict that they would take proportionately more casualties.

Canada is a country of only 33 million. That's less than many US states. We do not invest a lot in the military. And yet, you expect the Canadian military, underfunded, stretched out in engagements around the world to be somehow equal to the US??!

Why don't you ask why Mexico, a country with more military spending, isn't sending troops? Or South Korea?

The Canadian military performs far beyond the tasks it was created to perform for a military of its size and funding. Given the geriatric nature of our equipment, and our understaffing, the fact that a relatively small nation is actually making a contribution like this is surprising. Why do you have such high expectations of us?

Also, your Secretary of defense could easily request and recieve and additional aid. In fact he said on CNN that the USA was satisfied.

You seem to think that our leaders should be demanding to just put more bodies on the ground, so that we can have some kind of 'trophy blood' to show you and your kind?

The LAST thing Afghanistan needs are large amounts of foreign infantry tramping around. The generals have called in the professionals, commandos with specialized skills from all contributing countries, mostly Americans because they're the biggest and best funded. It was the right call. The fact that tiny Canada, for no pressing reason of national security, is actually contributing its commandos and peacekeepers, to a hostile location 10 000 kilometers away, for no other reason than humanitarian and because we like the US, is something you should be grateful for!

Why not harrass Ireland for having the GALL to not have enough soldiers die for the USA? (or, more properly, for pigs like you)

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
We send nothing but 'peacekeepers'? First you are saying that we do nothing, now you are complaining that the kind of soldiers we send are not the right type. We have provided you with lots of assistance, and now my own country has the leading role in restoring order in Afghanistan. All you seem to be concerned with is is how much you can blow up F**king warmonger.

No, the soldiers you're sending are just the right type. They'll just never recieve orders to do anything but pose. The BBC can say whatever they want, I want the reports of wounded SAS confirmed by a somewhat less biased source.

Shed a few hundred pounds, pick up a rifle, and go find me Bin Laden. Anything else is un-American and useless!

Shed a few hundred pounds? In any event, you're still missing my point: we've got more than enough people over there. The problem is that we might have too many. As Britain/Canada/etc have promised aid, why not even out the numbers of Americans with other nations involved in the coalition? Take the burden off us a bit?

Because it'd hurt you - badly - politcially.

You want blood, eh? You go and do it. You think that other nations haven't proven their committment until one of their soldiers dies?!

The BBC is such ultra liberal propaganda crap it's hard to pay much attention to. As they don't seem to go into detail, I've got no reason to believe those troops weren't just scratched or something by a piece of glass. Christ, find me a better source. That's how bad I think those idiots are. I haven't heard anything about a hurt or wounded soldier who wasn't from America during EF. Ever. Not on CNN, not on Fox.

Why not harrass Ireland for having the GALL to not have enough soldiers die for the USA? (or, more properly, for pigs like you)

You don't seem to understand. For every Brit/Aussie/etc troop to enter Afghanistan, one American leaves. We do that until the numbers are more even and distributed. That way we're all involved, and Blair's bull**** PR promise is made a reality.

Put up or shut up.

Thanks for adding something to the discussion.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
As Britain/Canada/etc have promised aid, why not even out the numbers of Americans with other nations involved in the coalition? Take the burden off us a bit?

Because it'd hurt you - badly - politcially.

This is why everyone has called you a dumbass.

You don't understand: The reason WHY the numbers aren't "evened out" is because the US itself has repeatedly said it wants to lead and organize the whole thing. The US is organizing it, if you have any complaints about how more Canadians or Australians or Brits weren't used, direct your complaint squarely at your own government. Don't try to pass this off to the other countries, our offers stood. The US chose not to use most of what was offered.

Do you know why?
Because they don't need it.
And they probably wanted Bin Laden and his cohorts to die at the hands of an American. You know, it'd do well for Bush - politically.

[Wiglaf]

This is why everyone has called you a dumbass.

*takes notes*

You don't understand: The reason WHY the numbers aren't "evened out" is because the US itself has repeatedly said it wants to lead and organize the whole thing. The US is organizing it, if you have any complaints about how more Canadians or Australians or Brits weren't used, direct your complaint squarely at your own government. Don't try to pass this off to the other countries, our offers stood. The US chose not to use most of what was offered.

Bush recently made a speech to the UN demanding more out of Blair and the other allied leaders. No one has said anything about a rejected promise, either. A few blind ones were made after September 11th, but have only been followed through to the safest but most politically sound (aka totally useless) extent. The only reason there isn't any international pressure on you is because Bush wants to 'unite' our 'divided' nations. It's sick that you guys are exploiting that, but hey.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The only reason there isn't any international pressure on you is because Bush wants to 'unite' our 'divided' nations.

The reason there isn't international pressure is because Bush knows who is responsible and what caused the attack, and that other nations should not have to make unnecessary commitments for the US' own mistakes. Let's face it, there's a reason why the WTC was targetted and not the CN Tower.

It's sick that you guys are exploiting that, but hey.

How are we exploiting it?
I thought it was you who was probably going to go drop a few bombs on Iraq as soon as you're through with Afghanistan?

[Wiglaf]

other nations should not have to make unnecessary commitments for the US' own mistakes.

Irrelevant, they did. And US mistakes? WTF?

I thought it was you who was probably going to go drop a few bombs on Iraq as soon as you're through with Afghanistan?

Somalia, IIRC. Saddam has to go eventually anyway, though, and the only things standing between Bush and world peace as far as that goes are liberal bedwetters like you glonky. Saddam's a nut, he forced out inspectors when he got the chance (Clinton presidency, fyi) and now is making boatloads of VX nervegas for use in America or elsewhere. How can you persue a crappy political agenda like that at a crucial time like this? Gross.

Are you saying Iraq in its current form can stay, or what? You're all over the place.

[Seeker]

"For every Brit/Aussie/etc troop to enter Afghanistan, one American leaves. We do that until the numbers are more even and distributed"

You don't get it do you? On what basis is 'evenly distributed'? By population, Canada is overrepresented. By military funding, Canada is overrepresented.

And why the hell should the 'etc' countries want to send one of their own to die in place of an American, fighting in a foreign country? Clean up your own mess.

'We' will help to the extent 'we':
A)can,
B)are asked to,
C) is in accordance with 'our' values, which emphasize freedom, human rights, peaceful settlements, and the rule of law--not with American values.
D)Makes political and military sense. More bodies is not what is needed. This is a job for elite special forces. Only the world's most powerful military countries have a lot of well equipped forces like this that can be projected long distances. It is somewhat disconcerting that the Canadian military even has any kind of special forces that can be projected this far away. No other nation of our size does.

Further, special forces operations are not WW2 style operations. A huge, multi-national force is just not appropriate. What is appropriate are the 'best of the best', the professionals, not some unwieldy mass of infantry under multiple commands, which would only serve to up the Allied body count.

But that's what you really want isn't it? You really believe that because an American soldier has died, other countries have to somehow 'match' this...which is moronic.

The Americans are perfectly capable of cleaning up their own mess. We send support for humanitarian reasons and as a sign that we support the war aims as stated. If this conflict required a big Gulf War force, and there was actually a good reason for such a force, then it would be put together. But it does not require it.

The Pentagon actually handled things really well. They kept things 'in-house' and avoided international entanglements. They didn't try to put a real foreign army on Afghan soil.

Why don't you stop backseat driving and leave the war up to the professionals?

Maybe you have some kind of primitive, Nordic concept of a 'blood price' or sacrifice? That Allied countries have to tie some young men down on your altar and sacrifice them for no good reason to 'balance the scales'? How very Old Testament of you!

[Case]

More troll feeding

Originally posted by Wiglaf
No, only Americans can die in this war. It's sick.

Does anyone know how many Northern Alliance troops have been killed during the search for OBL? (eg in the Tora Bora caves, etc). I guess Wiggy dosn't care about them...

[Victor Galis]

"Ugh. The little that they're doing is all for public relations, and hardly for strategic benefit."

-Some countries don't have armies suitable for beating down poor 3rd world countries halfway around the world.

"No, only Americans can die in this war. It's sick."

-It's your war.

"The BBC can say whatever they want, I want the reports of wounded SAS confirmed by a somewhat less biased source."

-Can you name a less biased source?

"Not on CNN, not on Fox."

-Because neither of those is a first rate news source like the BBC.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
(Especially not in my EU2 game, where I've beaten England into submission, and force vassalized it by 1460, and who for some reason actually likes me now.)

And we all not how reliable PC games are when it comes to combat and political realism.

Wiglaf: We don't need thier help in prosecuting this war and that is why you aren't hearing too much of anything from Washington about our "reluctant allies" the UK, Canada, etc. So, why are you making such a big deal about this given that reality?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
"It is still France however. All you have to do is fart in thier general direction and they'll surrender the whole country to your control."

-Just because they lost one war really quickly... doesn't mean they suck. (Especially not in my EU2 game, where I've beaten England into submission, and force vassalized it by 1460, and who for some reason actually likes me now.)

They fought lots of wars really badly. For the entire Rennaissance France was the single biggest Power in Europe, yet it seemed unable to project its power. Frigging England (like 1/3 the size) practically conquered the whole thing in the 15th century. The French got their asses handed to them in three successive wars with Germany, from 1870 to 1945. Et Cetera.

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: ANOTHER U.S. Troop Dies in the Line of Duty

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Makes me sick, to see these good people die for the world and get no appreciation or respect out of the international community for it. I wouldn't be so upset if some of you brits would at least come to realize just who's risking themselves for your well being - us, the Americans. Doing the dirty work.

Well actually he died not for "freedom" as Dubya put it but in the execution of US foreign policy, which is what soldiers do. Try not to confuse the two

Sad all the same, I hope his family gets a good pension off the military. ?

[faded glory]

Ya I can already hear the comparisons to Vietnam on TV .....although the taliban still is short by 427,519 casaulties.

Sad all the same, I hope his family gets a good pension off the military. ?

Yup.....Yup...they will get it.