British reporters killed by friendly fire

[Dis]

actually in truth we had to get revenge for the spice girls.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm for the war because I know there's lots of volunteer troops who are ready to fight it, and that Saddam needs to go (badly), and I'm tired of appeasing Saddam so that the French can whore it up with Iraqi business.

Saddam Hussein is not a saint.

However, I hold that the end does not justify the means, regardless how benign. In this case, I don't think the end is as well-intended as it is painted by the Bush admin.

[Dis]

how do you know what the end is?

we aren't there yet.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Last I heard, the PLA hasn't invaded any other country in the world, hasn't got bases outside of the country where the soldiers get drunk and do nasty things to the locals, and certainly hasn't attempted any regime change in a sovereign country.

I guess that was somebody else in Korea, Tibet must be the 19th province of China, and Tiananmen was just a friendly love-in.

Besides, it takes a certain competence and panache to pull off what we do. The USSR took over ten years in Afghanistan, and for what? 25,000 dead and a failed invasion.

We've never had as much as a tenth the forces they did, and knocked the Taleban out of commision in a matter of weeks.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't forget Vietnam...

[redbaron]

Just as a matter of interest... Why is everyone assuming that the 'allies' in question were US troops? (that's a rhetorical question by the way).

When I saw Demoustier on TV last night, he specifically mentioned British troops being in the area.

[Gibsie]

The US already warned reporters if they get in the way they might get killed. They had warning.

(Can't provide a link, because it was in a thread at another forum that got deleted for fear of being shut down by US forces because the thread was entitled "Someone should assassinate Bush")