Operation Anaconda: American Troops DEAD

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Americans under Canadian command...?

They don't touch anything we want to keep intact. Canadian commanders and generals are much too jolly.

::winces:: Wiglaf, glad to see you're doing your best to respect our neighbors to the north.

[monolith94]

What does LZ stand for?

[Wiglaf]

And if you say they were soldiers, why don´t you treat them as POWs?

We do, son. Watch some FOX, import it if you have to.

[Case]

Originally posted by monolith94
What does LZ stand for?

Landing Zone

[faded glory]

Originally posted by monolith94
What does LZ stand for?

Usaully Landing Zone. For a Helo.


But "LZ"zone in milwaukee is a lesbian bar.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I guess that's true...but we do need Europe's help in fighting terrorism. We need European intelligence agencies to crack Al-Qaeda cells in Europe and other places. I've long since given up on think Europe would be able to provide any help militarily

Thats my point
Europe should help with intelligence agencies, not with a military alliance in Afghanistan, the US can help themself military wise.

Originally posted by Lonestar
Yes, we sure are bastards. What, defending other countries from invasions....(and supporting the closest thing to a democracy in the Middleeast.)

Well what I meant was more things like the Support of Dictatorships against the will of the population, violating religios feelings (american troops on holy ground). U can also count in the support of israel, which is occupying land and settles there.
In the iraq - kuwait conflict. It was first kuwait which pumped oil from iraq territory. So im not sure who really started the war.

I mean u cant say that the majority of arabs in these countrys hate America for no reason at all, except that they are evil or whatever - There is always a reason why someone is hated.
Americas involment in these countrys is for oil. The US are not some angel that dont do harm to anyone

Originally posted by Lonestar
The North Atlantic treaty stipulates that any attack on a ally, in North America or Europe, is a attack on all. America was attacked in North America. Therefore, the NATO countries are obligated to support America to the best of their abilities. (which they are not doing, but you don't see Bush up there making a fuss about it.)

It was a terrorist atack = crimal activity. The US were not invaded by some other country or whatever.
If for example a bunch of polish criminals go to germany shoot some ppl. or blow something up, and some germans die. Than ran back to poland. Would it be right to call the nato and form a military alliance, or would germany deal alone with the problem?

Originally posted by Lonestar
If they had a gun and weren't a Afghan ally, they are worthy targets of imprisionment.

I was not talking about, if there imprisionment was right or wrong. I was talking about Wiglafs Statement that they should be punished for what others did.

Originally posted by Lonestar
As will your complete disregard for your country's friends.

?? I didnt say Im against the afghanistan war in general. I only doubt that military aid of Europe is needed or should be there. Europe should help with intelligence agencys not with millitary.
Terrorist atacks are always a national thingy. I dont hear the Israelis crying for a international alliance against palestin terrorists (the terror atacks there also happen mostly within Israel terriory). They dont do so, cose they can/want deal with the problem alone.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
What guilt did our dead troop have? He didn't do anything to them except give himself up, as is quite allowed by international law in every way.

U got me wrong. I dont say the terrorists were right. Of course it was wrong. But u cant expect otherwise from them, while u can expect moral/law from the US. It doesnt make sense to complain about the terrorists that they are no democrats

Originally posted by ravagon
Obviously, the US occupation/participation was in their best interests. Equally obvious is that it was even more in the best interests of Europe.

I agree with that. Like I said, I apriciate Americas help for Europe.

Originally posted by ravagon
In a similar fashion, today its in Europes best interests to eliminate the individuals/organizations responsible for the attacks in NY/DC. Not as much as its in the US's best interests of course but it is in their best interests all the same.

Hm, why is it in Europes best interest to get envolved? The US would have atacked Afghanistan with or without the aid of Europe.
I dont really see why European millitary is needed in the Afghanistan war.

Originally posted by ravagon
Also needed is the foreign access granted through other (in this case allied - temporarily or otherwise) countries given that Afghanistan has no coastline against which the USN can operate.

Agreed. U needed Pakistan as an Ally.

Originally posted by ravagon
If this hadn't happened then it would have been a choice of either doing nothing (militarily) or treating said attacks as "non-conventional weapons of mass destruction", to which the US can come up with their own answer which wouldn't have required access (ICBM's/SLBM's are extra-atmospheric).

Than u could every new weapon or thing that is already invented but now used as a weapon call "non-conventional weapons of mass destruction".
U wont really call an civil airplane like that would u?

Originally posted by ravagon

PS: On another note: You have something attributed to me that was actually stated by Wiglaf. Around here that is a generally seen as a little, er, insulting.
Would you mind changing this thanks very much?

Oh, ehm ... Im sorry. Didnt want to insult u with a Wiglaf quote
Changed. My Apology.