Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on November 18, 2001, 09:40:00 PM
-
Just pulled this off a local news site. Stan Shaw was the father of a friend and customer of mine. The guy was a regular suburban type nice guy. He worked for many years in NZ Telecom until it was privatised. He was a Telco engineer, he wired phone systems up, he never hurt anyone, he had a wife and family back here.
It pleases me to hear the everytime the USA wipe another one of these scumbags off the face of the earth... GO USA!
Bin Laden 'paid for NZer's murder'
19 November 2001
BREAKING NEWS
Osama bin Laden paid for a New Zealander kidnapped in Chechnya in 1998 to be murdered, a BBC documentary says.
The severed heads of New Zealander Stan Shaw, 58 and his British colleagues Darren Hickey, 26; Rudi Petschi, 42, and Peter Kennedy, 46, were found in Chechnya in December 1998, several months after they were kidnapped, Radio New Zealand reported.
According to the BBC's Money Programme, Arbi Barayev - a notorious Islamic warlord thought to be responsible for their kidnap and subsequent murder - was an ally of bin Laden.
The BBC said Shaw's employer, Granger Telecom, was willing to pay for the workers' release.
However bin Laden offered more for him to be killed, and the murder was carried out to please him
-
Don't worry, the Taliban and Al Queda are dying like rats at this moment. The rest of the world's terrorists are living on borrowed time.
Soon, very soon, bin Laden will either be shot by his own guards(just before they in turn, are killed) or he will have his throat cut from ear-to-ear by an Afghan fighter.
Justice will be served.....
-
From USA Today:
"CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The son of Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian Muslim cleric serving a life sentence in the United States for conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks, reportedly was captured or killed in Afghanistan as he fought alongside other Arab allies of the Taliban."
Funny, I read this and didn't shed a single tear.
I just hope this time we take out all the garbage. No point in stopping 'till the whole house is clean. Afghanistan is/should be only the beginning.
-
Isn't Technology Wonderful? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,39052,00.html)
You didn't think they really spent $600 on toilet seats, did you? ;)
-
Ok, after comrade Putin visited US last week - people and even media start to rethink many things. These victims are only a small part of the thousands of hostages taken by Chechen "freedom-fighters".
I wonder when Western media will finaly admit that KLA and other Albanian terrorist organisations are sponsored by Bin Laden too.
-
Remember to cleanse the remaining radicals of other religions too, as a precaution.
-
SageFIN, the new Chechen administration leader is Ahmad Kadyrov, the Mufti of Chechnya. Russian goverment is trying to establish a non-fundamentalist Moslim government there. There are no "religious cleansings" in Chechnya. Otherwise it could be much easier to simply remove all Chechens and send them to Kazakhstan like Stalin did in 1944.
There are more then 20 millions of Moslims in Russia. Some of the Moslim autonomies, like Tatarstan, are considered a base of the Russian state.
-
Boroda, I was not suggesting that there was religious cleansing going on in Chechenia. My post had more to do with the topic of this gleeful discussion.
-
Damn good idea!
Originally posted by SageFIN:
Remember to cleanse the remaining radicals of other religions too, as a precaution.
-
According to one British official, a satellite phone call from an extremist group in Afghanistan to a foreign country was, like all satellite phone calls from the country, intercepted by British and American listening centers.
Grr.. I dont trust these things. Echelon, 'listening centers,' and probably this post is being analyzed somewhere :D. Conspiracy theory i tell ya! :D
oct ou!
-
After you will clear world from all radicals, do not forget wash your owen goverment.
China embassy in Yugoslavia could tell somethink about few flying radicals without decorum.
-
Like Boroda, I'm also pleased to see my fellow westerners are opening their eyes about the Chechnya problem. What confuses me is that if so many distrust the 'liberal' media, then why did so many believe the hype about Chechnya? And we were probably dupped in the Balkans too. Those Albanian extremists gave as good as they got.
-
Why stop at the Muslims?
Give me a gun, a VISA, working permission and I'll go to the US to do the job for you.
Once I'm done in Europe. It'll take me some time, and be expensive ammo-wise, but I'll get the job done.
Oh, Buddhists, Jews and whatnot should be viable targets as well.
I KNEW it would pay off to be an atheist :D
-
"Hype" about Chechnya?
What the world objects to in Chechnya, I believe, is the way the war is being fought.
Look at the documented atrocities (by both sides). Look at the totally indescriminate bombing and shelling by one side in particular.
Yeah, people die in wars; soldiers and civilians. The problem is that a WHOLE LOT of civilians are dying in Chechnya with the deaths directly attributable to the way the Russians are waging war.
There is a "green light" from around the world to go after terrorists.
There's still no authorization to kill civilians wholesale if it can be avoided.
Chechnya Death Toll (http://www.river.org/~chuck/byline/1999/12/ChechnyaDeathTollClimbs.html)
"In spite of the alleged hushing-up of casualties, Gladkevich said losses have been lower than during the 1994-96 Chechnya war, when barely trained conscripts marched into Chechnya's cities and suffered heavy losses at the hands of a much smaller separatist force.
Between 30,000 and 100,000 people are believed to have been killed in the last war, most of them civilians.
The Russian military says it lost about 3,000 soldiers, but independent observers put troop losses at 6,000. The soldiers' mothers say they are still looking for about 600 soldiers missing from that war."
Heavy civilian toll in Chechnya's "unlimited violence (http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/chechnya/ch37.html)
"The price of continued conflict has been high for civilians. Acts of violence are "designed to humiliate civilians: arbitrary executions and mopping-up operations, arrests and disappearances, extortion and racketeering of cadavers," last month's report by Médecins sans Frontières notes...
Detailing severe beatings and the impunity with which federal forces operate here, the New York-based group Human Rights Watch reported in October on the "cycle of torture and extortion faced by thousands of Chechens whom Russian forces have detained in Chechnya."
WAR HAS NO RULES FOR RUSSIAN FORCES BATTLING CHECHEN REBELS (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/russ-atrocities.html)
"They call it bespredel--literally, "no limits." It means acting outside the rules, violently and with impunity. It translates as "excesses" or "atrocities."
It's the term Russian soldiers use to describe their actions in Chechnya.
"Without bespredel, we'll get nowhere in Chechnya," a 21-year-old conscript explained. "We have to be cruel to them. Otherwise, we'll achieve nothing."
Since Russia launched a new war against separatist rebels in its republic of Chechnya a year ago, Russian and Western human rights organizations have collected thousands of pages of testimony from victims about human rights abuses committed by Russian servicemen against Chechen civilians and suspected rebel fighters.
To hear the other side of the story, a Times reporter traveled to more than half a dozen regions around Russia and interviewed more than two dozen Russian servicemen returning from the war front.
What they recounted largely matches the picture painted in the human rights reports: The men freely acknowledge that acts considered war crimes under international law not only take place but are also commonplace."
So, it's not the dealing with Chechen terrorists that causes people to view the Russian operation with a jaundiced eye.
It's the WAY the battle is being fought and the number of civilian casualties.
I recall a thread of Boroda's not long ago bemoaning how US forces were going to slaughter thousands of innocent Afghans in the yet to be initiated war in Afghanistan.
Take a look at the results. It's almost over and best information puts the number of Afghan civilian casualties between 300 and 600.
Then take a look at the civilian death toll in Chechnya in the '94-'96 campaign. 50,000 would be a VERY conservative estimate.
Pretty well speaks for the difference in the way the US and Russia wage war, doesn't it?
... and that's what people object to, IMO.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Nicely said.
Damn, Toad; glad to see yah back in top form. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Take a look at the results. It's almost over and best information puts the number of Afghan civilian casualties between 300 and 600.
That number include the 600 bodies found in Mazar-e-Sharif?
Tronsky
-
toad, your figures are probably correct(don't worry I trust ya - no need for all that typing), but the point has been missed. The hype was not about civilian losses as it was about a war against a country 'trying to assert its freedom against a harsh regime'. Tell that to all those hundreds of dead in those apartment buildings in Moscow.
-
Tronski, that figure is, at present, the best estimate of civilian casualties from direct action by armed forces of the United States.
I assume you are referring to the reported finding of 600 bodies of "Arab Taliban" found in Mazer after the takeover by the Northern Alliance?
-
Leonid, I think it's related, don't you?
There's absolutely no doubt that the Russians have been subjected to terrorism by the Chechens and clearly have the responsibility to deal with them.
There's also no doubt that the Russians have responded in an incredibly brutal fashion that has resulted in a very, very high number of deaths amongst Chechen civilians. 30,000 is the lowest number I've seen.
This, I think, puts the Russians at a severe disadvantage when trying to portray themselves in a sympathetic light in Chechnya.
Thus, it's harder for them to get "good press".
As I said, I've got no problem with the Russians going after Chechen terrorists.
I do get a little miffed when Boroda predicts how the US is going to slaughter thousands of innocent Afghans (which obviously has not happened) and then justifies the way the Russians have truly slaughtered Chechen civilians.
The Chechen Campaign has undoubtedly been necessary for the Russians. However, their tactics and disregard for civilians have been truly beyond the pale.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Tronski, that figure is, at present, the best estimate of civilian casualties from direct action by armed forces of the United States.
I assume you are referring to the reported finding of 600 bodies of "Arab Taliban" found in Mazer after the takeover by the Northern Alliance?
So what is the real number of killed by 'allied' forces, and does this number include executed pow's?
Or is that a seperate civilian number perhaps listed under miscellaneous?
Ever seen the movie Oh! What a Lovely War, where the British causalties are listed on a cricket scoreboard...
Tronsky
-
So, Tronski, your point is that the US is responsible for any civilian casualties caused by the Northern Alliance/United Front?
Is that what you're saying?
How far back do you want to go? The NA/UF has been fighting the Taliban a long time, with atrocities on both sides.
Further, are you saying the US is responsible for any war crimes/atrocities caused by the NA/UF?
Can you give me the link that shows where representatives of the NA transferred command and control of their forces to the US military? And the link where we accepted?
Or are you just hurling the old "you made alliances with people who were bad!" BS again?
-
Originally posted by Toad:
So, Tronski, your point is that the US is responsible for any civilian casualties caused by the Northern Alliance/United Front?
Is that what you're saying?
Or are you just hurling the old "you made alliances with people who were bad!" BS again?
Actually I never once mentioned US responsibility so you may keep your paranoia in check.
Quite frankly I find the whole argument over who killed less people repugnant. Being proud of only killing 600 civilians a ridiculous statment.
Hence the reference to the movie Oh! What a Lovely War, where British generals kept the causalties of the somme etc as a cricket score.
Tronsky
-
So, your entire line of questions...
That number include the 600 bodies found in Mazar-e-Sharif?
So what is the real number of killed by 'allied' forces, and does this number include executed pow's?
Or is that a seperate civilian number perhaps listed under miscellaneous?
...had nothing to do with US responsibility?
It was merely to highlight that you mistakenly assumed these lines...
I recall a thread of Boroda's not long ago bemoaning how US forces were going to slaughter thousands of innocent Afghans in the yet to be initiated war in Afghanistan.
Take a look at the results. It's almost over and best information puts the number of Afghan civilian casualties between 300 and 600.
Then take a look at the civilian death toll in Chechnya in the '94-'96 campaign. 50,000 would be a VERY conservative estimate.
somehow indicated pride instead of a comment on Boroda's pre-war prediction of an American slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan and his contention that the Russians were fighting the Chechen war more carefully with respect to civilians?
OK. :D
Well, let me clear it up for you.
I don't think "pride" has anything to do with it at all.
Like probably every single American, I'm thankful the number is that low and wish it could be lower.
-
Jeepers Toad - you can't really be that naive, can you? The difference is that Russians do not have their Northern Alliance to wage ground war. I'm sure they'd be delighted to have an opportunity to unload on Chechnya from 30,000 feet leaving somebody else to get the blame for "civilian casualties"...
I do get a little miffed when Boroda predicts how the US is going to slaughter thousands of innocent Afghans (which obviously has not happened) and then justifies the way the Russians have truly slaughtered Chechen civilians.
-
Jeepers, Lynx...
You can't really be that unaware of the great lengths that the US goes to in order to avoid civilian casualties can you?
If the US had to fight a ground war in Afghanistan, do you think we'd use a huge massed artillery barrage on Kabul like the Russians used on Grozny?
That wasn't war from 30,000 feet.. this was a massed indescriminate artillery barrage for two MONTHS. BEFORE the civilians had a chance to evacuate, for the most part.
(http://a740.g.akamai.net/f/740/606/1d/image.pathfinder.com/time/daily/special/photo/grozny/3.jpg)
Tales of a Barrage: Scores of spent artillery shells litter the hills around Grozny. Parts of the city were literally flattened by Russian artillery
(http://a740.g.akamai.net/f/740/606/1d/image.pathfinder.com/time/daily/special/photo/grozny/4.jpg)
City in Ruins: Russian soldiers rest in downtown Grozny. Russia's bombing of the Chechen capital took such a heavy toll on the city's buildings that Russian troops struggled to find an intact office for their commandant
(http://a740.g.akamai.net/f/740/606/1d/image.pathfinder.com/time/daily/special/photo/grozny/2.jpg)
No Silver Lining: The devastation of Grozny is starkly evident when viewed from the surrounding hills, from which Russian artillery rained down relentlessly for more than two months
******
If the US had done anything like that, the whole world would be screaming at the top of their lungs.
But, it's OK for the Russians somehow, right?
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
[QB]Jeepers, Lynx...
If the US had done anything like that, the whole world would be screaming at the top of their lungs.
But, it's OK for the Russians somehow, right?
[QB]
Actually more like the Russian army just went and did it, and there was silence because they could brow beat anyone into thinking it was an internal matter,
Where anyone dissenting against US the in Afghanistan has been told quite clearly that they could be next.
You're either with us, or against us can silent many critics. A fact the Russian, and American military know well.
Tronsky
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: -tronski- ]
-
So, Tronsky, you're saying that if the US Army conducts a savage two month long indiscriminate shelling of a major city in any of the upcoming campaigns the world press and UN will pretty much ignore it like they did Grozny?
There'll be no massive demonstrations in the streets of capitals around the world?
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
There's a double standard and you, of all people, must be aware of it. :)
-
BEFORE the civilians had a chance to evacuate, for the most part.
Just for the record - Grozny used to be predominantly Russian-populated city. That is before most of the Russians fled it after being pushed out. In a very same fashion Brits and Americans are being pushed out of Indonesia right now by some extreme muslims - "we kindly ask you to leave or we cannot guarantee you safety"... How I know that? My parents used to live in Grozny. My mom phoned me and cried on the phone after seeing their apartment block reduced to a pile of rubble on TV. They were quite lucky to be able to take all their stuff with them - many weren't.
Civilian casualties? I'm very sceptical about any Western scores obtained while "on the "freedom fighter's" side". It was very similar to Afganistan 20 years ago - peaceful peasant by day - mujaheddin (sp?) by night. They don't wear uniform you see to be counted as "military casualties"... I wouldn't trust Russian sources either - they were pushed against the wall and fought not necessarily a "clean" fight by Western standards but is there really a "clean" fight in war since it is the victor who gets to determine what was "clean" and what was not? The Northern Alliance slaughtered a few hundred young unarmed Taleban recruits - "tsk-tsk" was all they got. How do you fight "cleanly" with the enemy whose standards on what's honorable/acceptable and what's not are wastly different from yours?
I never said the US were targetting civilians - this is just ridiculous. But if US ground troops had to take Cabul - what do you think they'd do? Waltz into the city and die? Thank God there was no need for it...
As for the Russians - you said it yourself: "...it's harder for them to get "good press"...
[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]
-
I wonder why it's so hard for them to get good press?
WAR HAS NO RULES FOR RUSSIAN FORCES BATTLING CHECHEN REBELS (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/russ-atrocities.html)
"That may be the Kremlin's official position, but servicemen say things are different on the ground. In part because of media coverage of Chechen slave-trading, torture and beheadings, the soldiers believe that the enemy is guilty of far worse atrocities.
Although they know that executions and other human rights violations are wrong, they also consider them an unavoidable--even necessary--part of waging war, especially against such a foe.
In their view, human rights workers and other critics are simply squeamish about the real nature of war.
"What rules? What Geneva Conventions? What difference does it make if Russia has signed them?" said a 25-year-old army officer. "I didn't sign them, none of my friends signed them. . . . In Russia, these rules don't work."...
"I remember a Chechen female sniper. She didn't have any chance of making it to the authorities. We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables."
As for taking Kabul, there's major differences in doctrine between Russian and US armed forces. Ours is built around air, theirs leans more towards massed artillery... as we've seen.
-
Toad, why not post direct links to "freedom-fighters" propaganda from www.kavkaz.org? (http://www.kavkaz.org?)
You can also post some photos from Berlin, May, 1945.
My friend, we send 18 years old boys to that hell, in a desperate attempt to fight terrorists, not the whole Chechen people. In Autumn, 1999, VVS was anxious to get an order and "flatten" that can of spiders with FAB-5000s. Like you did in Serbia. They have sent conscripted former school boys to die there instead. The losses per year are 2-3 times worse then in Afghnistan 15 years ago, and Chechnya is 60 (sixty) times smaller then Afghanistan.
It's really funny to listen about "human rights" for the terrorists from people who had no problem using napalm and carpet bombings against a small Indochina country, who had no problem bombing one Southern-European nation "to stone age" to support terrorist gangs sponsored by the Devilish Bin Laden.
My thread about civilian losses in Afghanistan had one purpose: to make your patriots shout about "inevitable casualities". Re-read it, please. Then - think about it. We fight the same enemy, and if you see another way for more "humane" warfare, then, send your troops to Chechnya and show us, Asian barbrians how to wage war.
-
We fight the same enemy, and if you see another way for more "humane" warfare, then, send your troops to Chechnya and show us, Asian barbrians how to wage war.
LOL!!
Really; that IS funny as hell.
You peasants don't have TV's in Russia?
Current score in Afganistan.. Taliban losses, @ 15 billion in equipment, one nation, and approx 15,000 Taliban fighters, approx 300 civilians.
American losses... None.
What else would you like us to show you??
-
Ah, you put out more than enough propaganda in here Boroda, all by yourself. No need for any more from me.
Originally posted by Boroda:
My friend, we send 18 years old boys to that hell, in a desperate attempt to fight terrorists, not the whole Chechen people.
Sort of like we did sending boys to Viet Nam? Should we show the same support you showed us? Now THAT would be funny wouldn't it? But we won't do that to YOU the way you did it to us.
In Autumn, 1999, VVS was anxious to get an order and "flatten" that can of spiders with FAB-5000s. Like you did in Serbia.
Not at ALL like we did in Serbia. You need to review how many died in Serbia versus how many have died in Chechnya... because there IS no comparison and you know it.
It's really funny to listen about "human rights" for the terrorists from people who had no problem using napalm and carpet bombings..
But not NEARLY as funny as listening to you try to justify what your troops have done to civilians in Chechnya.
BTW, when was napalm prohibited by any treaty? Does the Russian military have a napalm-like weapon? How does carpet bombing compare to carpet artillery barrages for TWO MONTHS?
send your troops to Chechnya and show us, Asian barbrians how to wage war.
Did you happen to pay any attention at all to the Gulf War?
U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths
British casualties: 24
French casualties: 2
Allied Arab casualties: 39
Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, March 7, 1991)
36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements
6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements
68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft
destroyed on the ground
137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran
3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks
2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored
vehicles
2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces
19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged
42 divisions made combat-ineffective
Iraqi casualty numbers are highly disputed. Some claim as low as 1500 military killed, some 200,000. Many scholars believe a number around 25,000 to 75,000
Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control.
Are you watching Afghanistan?
Well, if you missed those, you'll probably get to see Iraq again.
Yes, indeed, we do have the same enemies. I have no problem with Russia exterminating Chechen terrorists.
But I'll be d*mned if the same guy who was accusing the US and crying about AFGHAN civilian casualties BEFORE the air campaign even STARTED...
is going to get a "free pass" on the brutal way his country kills civilians and military enemies alike.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Before comparing chechnia vs russia to usa vs afganistan, we need to remembre that usa does not border afganistan.
Makes lot of difference when hell is in your own backyard.
Toad, very website on which this link is hosted makes me rather dubious as to the content. Lot of this stuff can't be backed up you know...
Check this out:
"Private Jones: you tied a Taliban sniper to two toyotas with steel cables and ripped his apart. It was kinda funny to watch"
"Major Smith: Afganistan is too far from Geneva, we can do whatever we please."
You can make up toejam like that on a fly.
Someone please explain to me why is it that NA is capturing Chechens fighting for taliban those days ?
Are those bad chechens ? And good ones are left in Chechnia ?
Do you really think those people were supporting themselves in their fight to make another afganistan of Chechnia, against the will of most inhabitants ?
Do you guys see that war in the balkans was not as simple as "serbia try kill alabanians" ? I'm not saying they didn't, but lines between aggersor and victims there are quite hazy.
They are still building "Greater Albania" btw, kinda became a taboo since the Sep 11 came out and it turned out that KLA was sponsored by Bin Laden..
Anyone seens news from Macedonia lately ?
Come on guys, start comparing similarities, not differences.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
LOL!!
Really; that IS funny as hell.
You peasants don't have TV's in Russia?
Current score in Afganistan.. Taliban losses, @ 15 billion in equipment, one nation, and approx 15,000 Taliban fighters, approx 300 civilians.
American losses... None.
What else would you like us to show you??
Hangtime, I would like to see American war machine dealing with a terrorist state that has a nice habbit to attack nearby towns taking maternity homes (if the term is not correct - it's a place where pregnant women and new-born babies get medical treatment) as hostages.
What I meant - if European Counsil and other "human-rights lovers" are so desperate protecting "civilians" in Chechnya (they probably never heard such a term as "partisans", criminals according to any military laws) - they should send their own troops and try to establish law and order themselves.
Hangtime, I wanted to show you a beautiful article about Song Mi from www.kavkaz.org, (http://www.kavkaz.org,) but looks like they understood it was too much even for their pile of roadkill and removed it. You protect them, but they hate you as much as us...
Toad, your impressive list of Iraqi losses must be extended with 150000 dead civilians.
AFAIK using napalm against inhabited localities.
Every time I see a Chechen interviewed on TV who says he and his family were under a shturmovik strike or under "grad" rocket fire it makes me laugh... Every broken wooden toilet is a result of inhuman Russian atrocities.
BTW, TV reports from Afghanistan look almost exactly like Michael Leschinskiy's programs about happy life of Afghan people in the 80s. Same faces, same speeches... Only without Caucasian-race soldiers wearing khaki panamas, helping Afghans to build schools and hospitals, looking as if they never have to carry their automats at all.
-
Boroda, check the 'net.
There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war that I can find. Most estimates of Iraqi casualties from ANY "reputable" source have been broad ranging. Worst I've seen is estimates of Iraqi civilian death ranging from 100 to 35,000, some with a higher lower figure but lower high end, ie: "5,000--15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war."
150,000 Iraqi civilians died DURING the Gulf War? I call BS. Prove your statement. Supply some sources.
Napalm against "inhabited localities? Like a city? Again, let's see your source. Otherwise, more "Borodaganda".
Fact is fact.. you guys are the absolute current champs at killing civilians.
Yet YOU were the first to jump on this BBS and wail and moan about how the US was going to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians.
It just hasn't happened and EVERYONE EXCEPT YOU knew it WASN'T going to happen.
-
Toad, prove your numbers of civilian casualities in Chechnya. Again the money for the fish?
Give me numbers please, I mean exact numbers, and then prove that were civilan losses.
I am bored of usual fakes with "rebels" killed in combat, with weapons in hands, that are presented as "civilian population" of Chechnya or Kosovo.
Also please count the number of refugees and victims of "Free Ichkeria" in 1996-99 when they were left alone. Such numbers from 1991-94 will never be counted, and if they will be - they'll sound too big for you "civilized" people to believe in.
Again: I just wanted to hear your voices shouting about "inevitable casualities" and "war with terrorism". I got what I expected. But, as usual, I see that some nations are more equal then others, and are allowed to kill civilians wholesale from 30000ft, no problems with public opinion.
Double standards in action. Russians are good when they help in Afghanistan, but there must be some reason to hate them for those who can read and know that there is no more "communism" in Russia any more. Very sad. Cold war isn't over. Same Brzezinsky's "human right" hypocricy all over again.
Where did I say US used napalm against civilians? I heard about such things, but it could be Soviet propaganda as well, anyway, people who saw it will never tell us anything like that Chechens under "shturmovik strike" (bombo-shturmovoy udar). You asked if napalm is prohibited - I named the certain condition. Why didn't you ask about carpet bombings? The thief's hat on fire?
Toad, you are an intelligent person, are you playing dumb or maybe it's just another lingual/cultural misunderstanding?
-
"Hello... McFly..??? (raps on McFly's head) anybody home??"
Wake up and see reality Boroda. We ain't Russia. We don't fight like Russians.
You are so wrapped up in your hammer and sickle envy you can't see any USA lead action on the world stage as anything other than a class action assault on your drunken lisping russian peasant heritage... which, I remind you, you are doing nothing to dispel.
-
First Chechnya War - 1994-1996 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/chechnya1.htm)
"Estimates vary of the total number of casualties caused by the war. Russian Interior Minister Kulikov claimed that fewer than 20,000 civilians were killed while then-Secretary of the National Security Council Aleksandr Lebed asserted that 80,000 to 100,000 had been killed and 240,000 had been injured.
*****
Boroda, that's the RUSSIAN Interior Minister and Secretary of the National Security Council estimating between 20,000 and 100,000 Chechen CIVILIANS had been killed.. the RUSSIAN government.
*****
Chechnya and the Left (http://www.chicoexaminer.com/news/19991007_Chechnya.html)
"The 1994-96 War
The Russian assault on Chechnya was terribly brutal. Grozny was more or less obliterated by bombing, and a hundred thousand refugees left the city in the middle of winter. About 80,000 people died in the war."
TITLE=CHECHNYA CASUALTIES (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/1999/10/991009-chechen1.htm)
Many here fear a repeat of the Chechen war of 1994 to 1996. That conflict left an estimated 80-thousand people dead, most of them civilians.
Civilian casualties of war in Chechnya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,447959,00.html)
Research conducted by the Memorial human rights group suggests that as many as 2,000 Chechens may have gone missing after being detained by Russian forces...
Russian television today showed gruesome footage of 25 of the bodies - three of them women - laid out in a converted warehouse in Grozny waiting for relatives to identify the dead. Many of the badly decayed bodies had been mutilated. Some have razor wounds to their head and shoulders. Most of the dead had their arms bound together with rope before their death and many were blindfolded; some bodies bear the traces of gunshot wounds....
The corpse of Adam Chimayev was the first to be identified by relatives. His family was invited by an intermediary to inspect a group of bodies deposited at Zdorvye. After positively identifying Chumayev, the family paid $3,000 to Russian soldiers to retrieve his body from the village so they could hold a funeral, his widow said. The 38-year-old Chechen had not been seen by his family since Russian soldiers detained him on December 3 last year. Three shots to his heart area had killed him, and there were the marks of torture on his body, relatives revealed."
Charts of Total Deaths- Chechen & Russian Stats (http://www.watchdog.cz/index.php?show=000000-000003-000001-000004&lang=1)
Chechen stats show 40-45,000 civilians killed. Interestingly enough the Russian stats don't cover civilians. :rolleyes:
The Second Chechen War -(1999-Present) (http://www.historyguy.com/chechen_war_two.html)
Chechnya-- Unknown, but civilian deaths are thought to exceed 50,000
Second Chechnya War - 1999-??? (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/chechnya2.htm)
"The death toll is certainly in the thousands, including several thousand innocent civilians.
Killing Chechnya (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cuny/laptop/killingchechnya.html)
"After almost three months of war, the badly mauled Russian army has established a tenuous presence in about three quarters of the Chechen capital of Grozny. But the cost has been enormous: over 5000 dead Russian soldiers, perhaps as many of as 15,000 civilian dead, most of them ethnic Russians....
.... To put the intensity of firing in perspective, the highest level of firing recorded in Sarajevo was 3500 heavy detonations per day. In Grozny in early February, a colleague of mine counted 4,000 detonations per hour.
First Chechen War Background (http://chechnya.jamestown.org/project.htm)
"The war is also one of the great human tragedies of the post-Communist world. Deaths directly attributable to the fighting may approach 50,000, most of them civilians. "
******
Wait.. I guess those were ALL "Chechen Rebels" right? No civilians in those numbers. :rolleyes:
Boroda: I see that some nations are more equal then others, and are allowed to kill civilians wholesale...
Yes, that is OBVIOUSLY true. YOUR country, RUSSIA has killed and is still killing Chechen civilians (Russian Federation Citizens, eh?) WHOLESALE. From 30,000 feet, from 15,000 feet, from 5,000 feet and from ground level.
...and YOU where the one who was accusing the US and crying about AFGHAN civilian casualties BEFORE the air campaign even STARTED...
Time to wash your own laundry.
Carpet bombings: If you are referring to US carpet bombings of highly populated areas (cities) since WW2, please give me the example.
If you're talking about VietNam, the B-52 Arc Light strikes (3 ship cell "carpet bombing"), IIRC, did not target cities.
Again, let's see what you've got.
FDSKI:You can make up toejam like that on a fly.
Yes, the writer could. However, one would expect the LA Times editorial staff to exercise some oversight of one of their writers. It would be awfully embarassing to a major paper to be caught publishing a fantasy as news. Yeah, newspapers make mistakes. You think they would have published that without checking it? <EDIT> Also, that article is on numerous human rights sites, including Human Rights Watch. One would think they'd do some checking as well before republishing.
Besides, the main point here is BORODA.
Continually critical, continually assaulting the US as callous towards civilians...
... and yet his own country has perpetrated FAR GREATER civilian casualties in Chechnya than the US EVER did in the Gulf War or has currently done in Afghanistan.
He uses every "fig leaf" in the book to cover that... but it's simple fact.
As I said before: "But I'll be d*mned if the same guy who was accusing the US and crying about AFGHAN civilian casualties BEFORE the air campaign even STARTED...
is going to get a "free pass" on the brutal way his country kills civilians and military enemies alike."
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Oh, yes, Boroda.. I think you forgot to mention your sources for the number of Iraqi civilian deaths.
150,000 Iraqi civilians died DURING the Gulf War? I call BS. Prove your statement. Supply some sources.
-
Yah know.. dating from even before the tsars, in russia; nothing was supressed more than the press.
So now, after centuries of disbelief in the printed media (during the commie era, justifiably) the russians STILL refuse to believe the press... theirs; ours, anybodys.
I think they must get their news from patriotic mosaics, posters and panoramas in their bus stations.
-
LOL!!
Really; that IS funny as hell.
You peasants don't have TV's in Russia?
Current score in Afganistan.. Taliban losses, @ 15 billion in equipment, one nation, and approx 15,000 Taliban fighters, approx 300 civilians.
American losses... None.
What else would you like us to show you??
Jeepers Hang - do you ever speak not from your arse you dolp? Which part of "it's difficult to hit a B52 at 30,000 feet from an AK-47 on the ground" you find particularly confusing? "Hello... McFly..??? (raps on McFly's head) anybody home??"
Wake up and see reality Boroda. We ain't Russia. We don't fight like Russians.
Oh yes indeed pal - you don't. In this war you use somebody else's hands to do the dirty work of fighting and dying. Is there anybody home in your head? Or do you think it was the Marines how took Kabul? Better still - at least there were frontlines to bomb - what would you do if there weren't?
You are the worst example why people may dislike Americans - dumb, arrogant and eager to brag about things you contributed nothing towards. Oh yeah - you can't even f**king spell. :mad:
-
It would be awfully embarassing to a major paper to be caught publishing a fantasy as news. Yeah, newspapers make mistakes. You think they would have published that without checking it? <EDIT> Also, that article is on numerous human rights sites, including Human Rights Watch. One would think they'd do some checking as well before republishing.
Toad - and they would check it exactly how? And who's ever questioned this - 99.99% of readers don't even know where Chechnya is? It's OK to bash the Russians cuz they're baaaad. Have been for years - russkies, commies, whatevers.
Now in a funny twist of fate you are getting the same crap and - guess what? - from the same sources. Remember the prison full of captured fanatics who decided the dying is still gonna put them onto a martyrdom path? Yep, that one. The very same one US forces bombed for 3 days. With me on this one? Surely you know the place where your very first KIA died? (Don't remember his name but may he RIP :()
And you know what's happening now? I'll tell ya - all those peace-loving gun-hating liberal fighters for god-knows-what rights are accusing the US and Northern alliance in indiscriminate killing of POWs... Tsk-tsk-tsk - ~55 years ago in Nuremberg people
hung for that.
And the reporters are going on about twisted bodies (bodies are removed now - somebody's trying to hide the evidence - blah-blah-blah...) and disproportionate response and violation of Geneva convention and... And what is a proportionate response to a person who's hating your guts because his religion tells him to and is bent on dying and taking as many of you as he can with him? Read him his rights and ask him to behave like a "proper POW"? Oh please.
Why can't you see that you're the victim of the very same propaganda you're accusing Boroda in but from a different side? The Russians can do no right. Period?
I'm not saying at all that they are perfect in every respect but surely not everything they do is baaaad?
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]
-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Oh yes indeed pal - you don't. In this war you use somebody else's hands to do the dirty work of fighting and dying. Is there anybody home in your head? Or do you think it was the Marines how took Kabul? Better still - at least there were frontlines to bomb - what would you do if there weren't?
Who can argue with success? Clearly the strategy of using Northern Alliance troops as proxy was a successful strategy. Do you honestly believe that if the United States had used ground troops to do the same thing that it would have been any less effective? The Northern Alliance were both willing and able to act as proxy forces with the assistance of American air power; if they hadn't been, Alliance ground troops undoubtedly would have met with similar success.
You are the worst example why people may dislike Americans - dumb, arrogant and eager to brag about things you contributed nothing towards. Oh yeah - you can't even f**king spell. :mad:
And you're a common example of knee-jerk anti-Americanism. I find it truly fascinating that somebody would consider the United States cowardly or anything but intelligent in its short term Afghanistan strategy. Plus, as long as Hangtime's tax dollars have gone toward paying for the training and equipping of our military, he's contributed more than you have toward the war effort, even if indirectly.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
if they hadn't been, Alliance ground troops undoubtedly would have met with similar success.
Check the history of Soviet war in Afganistan and effectiveness of regular troops vs. fanatics who are infinitely more knowledgeble about local terrain and want to die. Or better still - reread the history of Afganistan and all efforts to subdue it with a foreign troops. Believing that any foreign troops "would have met with similar success" is simply naive. The US led coalition are extremely lucky that there was (future will tell whether for good or bad) an organised, armed and ready to fight ground force made up of teh Afgans themselves. Even better was the fact that many in Northern Alliance came from under Taleban and knew very well what they were fighting against.
If you believe me a knee-jerk anti-American - I can't argue with that since you obviously can't reason. If you could you'd have seen that Hang's contribution to the war effort would be shutting his mouth on the subject he's got no clue about and keeping it shut.
But I dare say that through that very source you refer to - tax dollars or, in my case, tax pounds - I have contributed to the war effort and will continue to do so in the future in no lesser degree than Hangtime.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]
-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Check the history of Soviet war in Afganistan and effectiveness of regular troops vs. fanatics who are infinitely more knowledgeble about local terrain and want to die.
The Northern Alliance doesn't strike me as fanatical. Nor for that matter do the large numbers of Taliban defectors who would rather live than die for an obviously lost cause.
Or better still - reread the history of Afganistan and all efforts to subdue it with a foreign troops. Believing that any foreign troops "would have met with similar success" is simply naive.
Reread your history as well and note that previous incursions into Afghanistan by foreign troops have been to conquer and subjugate the nation. Such an effort surely unifies all of the splintered ethnic and tribal groups toward a common goal of repelling the invaders. Current American goals in Afghanistan clearly involve neither conquest nor subjugation; if anything, liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban was a secondary mission objective. The happy faces of Kabul citizens freed from the tyranny of the Taliban demonstrates that there was no anti-invader unity. My main hope now is that these same people won't suffer under similar tyranny from Northern Alliance warlords.
The US led coalition are extremely lucky that there was (future will tell whether for good or bad) an organised, armed and ready to fight ground force made up of teh Afgans themselves. Even better was the fact that many in Northern Alliance came from under Taleban and knew very well what they were fighting against.
So organized that for five years they consistently lost ground, were ill-equipped, poorly-trained, and otherwise barely a match for the Taliban? How much understanding did it take to march into a relatively empty Mazar-e-Sharif that had been abandoned by the Taliban prior to any major Northern Alliance advances? I don't want to shortchange these guys... it's clear they were a lot tougher than anybody gave them credit for, but it's also clear that a great deal of this toughness came with the assistance of American airpower. In its absence, this very same fighting force was barely treading water against the Taliban.
If you believe me a knee-jerk anti-American - I can't argue with that since you obviously can't reason. If you could you'd have seen that Hang's contribution to the war effort would be shutting his mouth on the subject he's got no clue about and keeping it shut.
Obviously I can't reason. I should just shut my mouth and keep it shut, I suppose. LOL.
But I dare say that through that very source you refer to - tax dollars or,in my case - tax pounds - I have contributed to the war effort and will continue to do so in the future in no lesser degree than Hang.
Well, technically speaking you are contributing to a lesser degree since a higher percentage of American tax dollars are spent on defense than the UK's, and the United States represents a vast majority of the military forces in play in Afghanistan. But I digress. :) We're all contributing to this war effort in our own ways, be it through taxes, prayers, letters of support, or whatnot. We can't all go volunteer for the Marines tomorrow, but we there's nothing wrong with showing support for the military without being part of it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
it's clear they were a lot tougher than anybody gave them credit for, but it's also clear that a great deal of this toughness came with the assistance of American airpower.
Exactly - if you scroll up this thread you'll see that this is what started this argument:
Over-simplifying Toad's posts - sorry Toad -
"Russians fight dirty - Americans fight clean". I just pointed out that Americans don't actually "fight" per se as the fight is going on below under the wings of B52s unloading on Taleban positions. There is no cowardise in it - you read it so and I don't see how you could. Had the marines - god forbid! - been in those trenches losses would have been severe and there would be very little "cleanliness". You say - liberators. They say - "evil". That is you, an American, no matter what you do. British contingent was stopped from going in by the Afgans themselves. They don't want to be "liberated" by infidels. It's that simple.
FYI: 20 years ago a communist candidate won election in Kabul fair and square. But his obviously too progressive policies in education, emancipation etc didn't sit well with what now is Taleban. A civil war started. A communist but nevertheless legitimately and democratically elected government asked for help form the communist superpower. It was given. An occupational army went in and was met with smiles etc. Those didn't last long as that army was soon called upon enforcing local communist barons' rule. And it was foreign - infidels. In my year at the Uni there were guys who went through Afganistan both as infantry and tankers. Nobody liked to talk about it or remember it. You were sent there, they shot at you and were very clever at trying to kill you. Your options were to die or shoot back.
The US under the banner "we can't just let those darn commies win" armed, trained and fed... You don't think that without your Stingers they stood a chance against Hind gunships, do you?...
The rest is history and now we are eating the fruits of the last 20 years...
p.s. on the subject of communism I stand to the right of Grunherz although I'm not that vocal about it. And yes, I do remember - I lived there for 27 years.
-
Misha, you said all I wanted to say.
Again: I support an anti-terrorist operation. And there always will be civilian casualities in ground warfare. Ask Hangtime. War is war, and if someone wants to win - he has to close his eyes on some things. Especialy when the rules are set by the gangsters who don't mind taking pregnant women as hostages or blow up buildings full of innocent people. And you can't win if your right hand fights terrorists while your left hand protects and helps them.
Toad, your data about civilian casualities ether includes mostly victims of your beloved "freedom-fighters", or is a standard exaggerated hallucination of "human-rights protectors" who's purposes didn't change since 70s Brzhezinsky's hypocritical politics of pressure against USSR. He admitted many times that they didn't care about "human rights" at all, they just needed a good propaganda issue about USSR.
Many people here consider me a "commie", and it's impossible to explain them that I'll never vote for communists or wish communist regime back here. Just like it's beyond Toad's understanding why I talked about civilian casualities in Afghanistan. My polemic methods look almost useless here :(
-
Jeepers Hang - do you ever speak not from your arse you dolp? Which part of "it's difficult to hit a B52 at 30,000 feet from an AK-47 on the ground" you find particularly confusing?
As far as what portion of my anatomy does the talking.. and when... well; I'd guess you'd have to be here. But, since the chance of you getting a state-funded ticket to yer own asswhuppin is kinda slim; I guess you'll just have to guess.
As far as hittin a B52 with an AK 47.. well, I ain't no rocket scientist, but let me venture a guess... None?
Whats the point? We had a REAL target for our buffs... unlike the the russian arty brigades, who simply destroyed an entire city, citizens and all.
You are the worst example why people may dislike Americans - dumb, arrogant and eager to brag about things you contributed nothing towards. Oh yeah - you can't even f**king spell.
So, tell us Lynx; what do you object too? The truth, or just my cavalier attempts at spelling? Oh, BTW, I believe it's spelled 'diddlying' not 'f**king'. I wouldn't even know how to pronounce what your word is.. I don't speak rooski.
As far as actual contributions to the current effort.. my batteries are in every diddlying predator drone. (note the lack of **) Further, the R&D work I participated in on the NRL's RPV projects has already saved American lives, and the stuff I do every day right now makes some Marine feel a little safer, some terrorist a little deader.
Further, yah miserable twit, when the time came for me to bear arms for my nation, I served. Willingly. That particular war may not have been just, but as far as I was concerned, I was doing my part to stop communist agression. I never considered then that I was making south vietnam safe for general motors, and the thought that the vietnamese were potential customers for RCA TV's was ludicrious. Still is, as far as i know.
If you believe me a knee-jerk anti-American - I can't argue with that since you obviously can't reason. If you could you'd have seen that Hang's contribution to the war effort would be shutting his mouth on the subject he's got no clue about and keeping it shut.
Reaaaaallly?? Oh, this is grand indeed. So, by your lights, the best contribution I or the resta the ugly americans here that have a vested intrest in security and freedom would be to 'shut my mouth'?
If I get yer drift right; you suggest that the resta the world should shut up and turn a blind eye to the way the Russians are handling their lil terrorist problem? Sorry Lynx, that just ain't gonna happen.
Further, since yer being such a charmer, c'mon over here and try to shut my mouth, hugahunk. Yer pukin dog commie ancestors tried, failed, and became extinct. :D
But, fun as this line of non-reasoning is, lets go with your approach a lil longer. Maybe we will discover something.
British contingent was stopped from going in by the Afgans themselves. They don't want to be "liberated" by infidels. It's that simple.
Odd.. they let the US marines in... wonder why? Wouldn't have anything to do with a coupla very nasty invasion attempts by britan abouta hundred years ago; would it?
A communist but nevertheless legitimately and democratically elected government asked for help form the communist superpower.
Oh, horseshit. Thats spelled H O R S E meatball. The election was as rigged as every other communist 'election' conducted buy your former government.. Jeezus H. Keeerist, Lynx, get another fediddlein CLUE... The Russians were as popular in Afganistan as the British were in Washington in 1812.
To refresh your history in the region... oh, BTW, History IS in the public domain.
In 1973 Muhammad Daud overthrew the king in a coup. He declared Afghanistan a republic with himself as president. Daud announced ambitious plans for economic development and tried to play the USSR against Western donors, but his dictatorial government was opposed both by radical left-wing intellectuals and soldiers and by traditionalist ethnic leaders. The leading leftist organization was the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had been founded in 1965 and in 1967 split into a pro-Soviet Parcham faction and a much more radical Khalq faction. The two groups joined forces in 1976 to oppose Daud.
In April 1978, after Daud launched a crackdown against the PDPA, leftist military officers overthrew him. PDPA leader Noor Muhammad Taraki became president. Taraki and his lieutenant Hafizullah Amin, both members of the Khalq faction, purged many Parcham leaders. Taraki announced a sweeping revolutionary program, including land reform, the emancipation of women, and a campaign against illiteracy. Late in 1978 Islamic traditionalists and ethnic leaders who objected to rapid social change began an armed revolt. By the summer of 1979 the rebels controlled much of the Afghan countryside. In September Taraki was deposed and later killed. Amin, his successor, tried vigorously to suppress the rebellion and resisted Soviet efforts to make him moderate his policies. The government's position deteriorated, however, and on December 25, 1979, Soviet forces invaded. They quickly won control of Kabul and other important centers. The Soviets executed Amin on December 27 and Babrak Karmal, leader of PDPA's Parcham faction, was installed as president.
Karmal denounced Amin's repressive policies and promised to combine social and economic reform with respect for Islam and for Afghan traditions. But the government, dependent on Soviet military forces, was unpopular, and the rebellion intensified. During the next few years about 3 million war refugees fled to Pakistan and 1.5 million fled to Iran. Many refugees also moved from the countryside to Kabul. The antigovernment guerrilla forces included dozens of factions. They operated from bases around Peshawar, Pakistan, and, to a lesser extent, in Iran. They were sustained by weapons and money from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China. By the mid-1980s the United States was spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year to aid Afghan rebels based in Pakistan.
During the 1980s Soviet forces increasingly bore the brunt of the fighting. By 1986 about 118,000 Soviet troops and 50,000 Afghan government troops were facing perhaps 130,000 guerrillas. Although the Soviet troops used modern equipment, including tanks and bombers, the guerrillas were also well armed, and they had local support and operated more effectively in familiar mountainous terrain. In 1986 the United States began supplying the rebels with Stinger missiles able to shoot down Soviet armored helicopters.
The effects of the war on Afghanistan were devastating. Half of the population was displaced inside the country, forced to migrate outside the country, wounded, or killed. Estimates of combat fatalities range between 700,000 and 1.3 million people. With the school system largely destroyed, industrialization severely restricted, and large irrigation projects badly damaged, the economy of the country was crippled. Despite some negative reaction, the presence of so many refugees in neighboring Pakistan and Iran actually improved Afghan relations with those countries. In addition, many of the refugees improved their lives considerably by leaving Afghanistan and the dangers of war therein. Because the majority of the refugees were religious, their fellow Muslims in Iran and Pakistan accepted them, even while the Iranian and Pakistani governments were striving to bring about the fall of the Communist regime in Kabul.
In May 1986 Karmal was replaced as PDPA leader by Muhammad Najibullah, a member of the Parcham faction who had headed the Afghan secret police. In November 1987 Najibullah was elected president.G. Soviet Withdrawal
When Mikhail Gorbachev became the Soviet leader in 1985, he gave high priority to getting Soviet troops out of the costly, unpopular, unwinnable war in Afghanistan. In May 1988 Afghanistan, Pakistan, the USSR, and the United States signed agreements providing for an end to foreign intervention in Afghanistan, and the USSR began withdrawing its forces. The Soviet withdrawal was completed in February 1989.
Any key points missed Lynx?
Or is it "Misha"?
It should be 'Tool'.
-
Nice job on the copy and paste..
Tronsky
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: -tronski- ]
-
As I said... history is in the PUBLIC domain. Lynx is the guy tryin to re-write it.
Afghanistans ONLY election came at the point of a soviet gun prior to their withdrawl.
-
Oh, horseshit. Thats spelled H O R S E meatball. The election was as rigged as every other communist 'election' conducted buy your former government..
Name Salvador Allende rings a bell ? :)
As sad as it seems, communists ( oh excuse me, social democrats ) are willing elections fair and square democratic elections in eastern europe today.... :D
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
Name Salvador Allende rings a bell ? :)
As sad as it seems, communists ( oh excuse me, social democrats ) are willing elections fair and square democratic elections in eastern europe today.... :D
Did he heard of Greece ?
Where is Greece :D is it the country who invented the word democratia ??
(a remnant of the 70's...)
-
.. yah, heard of greece. like the gyros. really disliked the greek demos tho.. so did socrates. Oh... and the athenian experiment failed. miserably. especially towards the end. kinda like communisim.
And besides Allende theres Diem... and many others. So whats that got to do with Lynx's fractured history story?
Social Democrats winning elections is a surprise? Hell; even france survived it. Well; alledgedly survived. Pity, that.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
.. yah, heard of greece. like the gyros. really disliked the greek demos tho.. so did socrates. Oh... and the athenian experiment failed. miserably. especially towards the end. kinda like communisim.
And besides Allende theres Diem... and many others. So whats that got to do with Lynx's fractured history story?
Social Democrats winning elections is a surprise? Hell; even france survived it. Well; alledgedly survived. Pity, that.
rotfl :)
It make my day ;) (*)
Btw I was speaking of the colonel dictature
(*) the survived part ;)
-
Whats the point? We had a REAL target for our buffs... unlike the the russian arty brigades, who simply destroyed an entire city, citizens and all.
Hangtime, AFAIU - you are a Vietnam vet. The real vet, who really fought there with an automat in hands.
Situation: your army surronded Hanoi, but the city is heavily fortified and full of armed guerillas with some heavy weapons and unknown number of civilian population that couldn't escape from the city.
What should be your army command orders? Calculate the chances for mr. Hangtime to post on an Internet BBS 30 years later in case of different command decisions.
-
A city needs food, Boroda. Oil. Supplies. A city that is belligerant and waging war needs war materials.. so you go for THAT.
If you have the city surrounded, then it's safe to say a seige mentality would ensue.
Drop leafelets.. "Anyone leaving the city unarmed will not be harmed." In short order, those civilains not being directly held by the occupying army will depart.
We blew it in Vietnam... weapons were allowed in by rail and ship. We never attacked the Russian freighters or the Chinese rail lines. We even watched the SAMS come in, get offloaded onto the Haiphong docks, tracked them to their missile sites and watched them set them up. Johnson refused to allow them to be targeted... he did not want to piss off the russians.
diddlyin bastard.
Because he forced the military to sit on it's hands and disallowed strikes aginst war material deliverys we lost HUNDREDS of aircraft and aircrews... that was a crime in my mind.
Nice exmple Boroda. Thanks for making my point for me.
-
OK, been busy.. I see you guys have too! ;)
Boroda: Toad, your data about civilian casualities ether includes mostly victims of your beloved "freedom-fighters", or is a standard exaggerated hallucination of "human-rights protectors"
Really?
Explain this one I previously posted then:
Russian Interior Minister Kulikov claimed that fewer than 20,000 civilians were killed while then-Secretary of the National Security Council Aleksandr Lebed asserted that 80,000 to 100,000 had been killed
Those are RUSSIAN estimates, Boroda. Not those dastardly "human rights protectors".
And the idea that Chechens have killed more of their own civilians than the Russians? Well they just don't have the kind of artillery capability that can shell a city for TWO MONTHS.
Your excuses are getting more fantastically unbelieveable each time you post.
-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Toad - and they would check it exactly how?
Well, first of all, ALL the news sources would have to get together on this, right? They would have to collude. Because just about everywhere you turn (well, besides Boroda's Russian sources :) ) you get the same story, figures all pretty close.
Secondarily, the Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid groups DO have people "on the ground" in the areas in question. They report back and guess what.. the numbers are pretty close.
So, who are you going to believe? I guess you can choose NOT to believe anyone and assume there is NO war in Chechnya at all and it's all made up.
Or you can look at reputable news sources.. and almost everyone, including BBC, says there's been large civilian losses in Chechnya and enormous amounts of Human Rights violations including torture, rape and execution.
Or you can believe the "Borodaganda" sources. :D
Now in a funny twist of fate you are getting the same crap and - guess what? - from the same sources.
Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen the blame of this incident layed on me in the news. I haven't even seen it put on the US. What I'm reading is that the Talib prisoners violated the terms of their surrender in the most serious fashion and their NORTHERN ALLIANCE captors took them out brutally.. with US air support.
Haven't seen where any innocent civilians died. Have seen where some of the Talibs may have been killed that weren't directly involved in the revolt. Have seen where some Talibs may have been shot with their hands tied. I support an investigation into this incident to see what really DID happen.
Bottom line though, ALL the deaths are attributable to the Talibs that attacked, don't you agree? No attack, no deaths?
..indiscriminate killing of POWs... Tsk-tsk-tsk - ~55 years ago in Nuremberg people hung for that.
Yes, some hung for DELIBERATE killing of POWS that had already surrendered and NONE of which WERE resisting or attacking their captors.
Say like when the Germans shot US POWS at Malmedy.
Of course, SOME folks got away cleanly after killing POWS that had already surrendered and NONE of which WERE resisting or attacking their captors.
Katyn Forest Massacre of Polish POWS by Soviets (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1791/)
"Katyn Forest is a wooded area near Gneizdovo village, a short distance from Smolensk in Russia where, in 1940 on Stalin's orders, the NKVD [Narodny Kommisariat Vnutrennikh Del] shot and buried over 4000 Polish service personnel that had been taken prisoner when the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939 in WW2 in support of the Nazis."
Interesting Links there; LOTS of information and supporting documentation.
And what is a proportionate response to a person who's hating your guts because his religion tells him to and is bent on dying and taking as many of you as he can with him?
Not talking about CIVILIANS here are you? No, you're not.
I repeat, for your and Boroda's sake, what this is all about:
"But I'll be d*mned if the same guy who was accusing the US and crying about AFGHAN civilian casualties BEFORE the air campaign even STARTED...
is going to get a "free pass" on the brutal way his country kills civilians and military enemies alike."
The Russians can do no right. Period?
Deliberately twisting what I've said? I've said repeatedly that BORODA is continually slamming the US for killing civilians. His post prior to the air campaign in Afghanistan is perhaps the pre-eminent baseless accusation.
However, he WILL NOT... and apparently you have a hard time... admit that when it comes to killing civilians, the Russians are the current champions.
Neither overall good, nor bad.
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Lynx: The US led coalition are extremely lucky that there was (future will tell whether for good or bad) an organised, armed and ready to fight ground force made up of teh Afgans themselves.
Yes, a fortunate thing.
However, note that the "stalemated" war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance remained in that condition until the US removed just about every tank and heavy gun the Tallys had.
Then, with their own artillery and tanks, the NA made their move.
Do you doubt that, should we choose to have done so (or do so), we could have also removed all the NA tanks and arty?
After that, do you think that the same units that rolled up the vaunted Republican guard like a cheap rug could not have done the same to the rag-tag milita on both sides?
Unlike the British and the Russians, the US is not in Afghanistan to take and hold ground (territory). We're there to KILL the people we consider responsible for 9/11.
... and we are doing so.
-
Lynx: Russians fight dirty - Americans fight clean". I just pointed out that Americans don't actually "fight" per se as the fight is going on below under the wings of B52s unloading on Taleban positions.
Not my point AT ALL; not even when way oversimplified.
My POINT is that for BORODA to accuse the US of slaughtering civilians is absolutely laughable. Particularly so when done before the air campaign even began.
Further, for BORODA, a RUSSIAN, to shed crocidile tears over dead civilians that are still ALIVE is incredible and insulting when he TOTALLY denies the slaughter of civilians by RUSSIAN TROOPS in Chechnya.
As for your "fight dirty-fight clean" analogy, you miss there too.
The Gulf War debuted a combination of strategy that changed warfare every bit as much as the Roman short sword and legion tactics did in their day. As the English longbow and Henry's tactics did at the Battle of Crecy, ending the primacy of mounted knights.
The debut of smart weapons and the Air-Land Battle doctrine has changed warfare. It is fortunately an "improvement" (if any type of warfare can be said to be an "improvement") in that it does help to minimize civilian casualties.
The Russians are using (used) WW2 tactics and weapons in Chechnya, particularly the TWO MONTH artillery barrage in Grozny. Civilians paid a high price.
Not clean, not dirty. Just an advanced type of warfare that doesn't kill as many civilians as WW2 tactics.
-
Peace guys. I imagine that almost every nation in the world has gone about slaughtering civilians. I know that bombers from my country participated in the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg. I think arguing about who kills less civilians is kinda silly.
Not only is it silly, but hypocritical. Is a war crime committed in the past any less horrible then one probably being committed now (as in the case of Chechnya)? Nah. Are the countries that we live in any better. Probably not. Remember, before the Holocaust, europe felt is was morally superior to most the rest of the world. And looked what happened.
What's more, I don't think, that any of us can be certain that the countries we live in won't commit more atrocities in the future.
-
You miss it too, Thrawn.
This isn't about killing civilians per se.
It's about a guy on an International BBS that will continually point the finger at the US for any and all reasons, as long as he can sling mud.
The most recent example was accusing the US of civilian slaughter and crying about AFGHAN civilian casualties BEFORE the air campaign even STARTED, before the FIRST BOMB had been dropped...
He's been using Iraqi Gulf War civilian casualty numbers for the same purpose that can only be found in his "sources". Those "sources" disagree with what the entire rest of the world has estimated by more than a factor of five over the "worst case" example the rest of the world uses.
Sorry, but a guy that continually slams the US using bogus numbers and "pre-war" accusations isn't going to get a "free pass" on the brutal way his country kills civilians and military enemies alike.
That's the bottom line. He can either quit slamming the US without proof/documentation or I will continue to counter with his own country's DOCUMENTED history. If he wants to wash dirty laundry in public might be best to check his shorts for skid marks first.
<Edited a non-germane remark>
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
A city needs food, Boroda. Oil. Supplies. A city that is belligerant and waging war needs war materials.. so you go for THAT.
If you have the city surrounded, then it's safe to say a seige mentality would ensue.
Drop leafelets.. "Anyone leaving the city unarmed will not be harmed." In short order, those civilains not being directly held by the occupying army will depart.
We blew it in Vietnam... weapons were allowed in by rail and ship. We never attacked the Russian freighters or the Chinese rail lines. We even watched the SAMS come in, get offloaded onto the Haiphong docks, tracked them to their missile sites and watched them set them up. Johnson refused to allow them to be targeted... he did not want to piss off the russians.
diddlyin bastard.
Because he forced the military to sit on it's hands and disallowed strikes aginst war material deliverys we lost HUNDREDS of aircraft and aircrews... that was a crime in my mind.
Nice exmple Boroda. Thanks for making my point for me.
Hangtime, they dropped leaflets and waited for two weeks for everyone to leave the city unarmed. All civilians that stayed in the city could be called hostages of the terrorists. The siege could make THEM suffer, Chechen gangsters had all equipment and supplies for a long time.
The problem in Chechnya is very similiar to what you describeed. We cannot break the supply lines from Georgia, and when we try - genatsvale Shevarnadze starts his hysteria about "souverign Georgian airspace" and accuses Russian air force of attacks on "peacefull villages". No casualities - like with that Chechens under BShU. He's so desperate protecting terrorists that he calls Gelayev "a proud and noble man"!
I hope you can understand the situation. We play all that peacefull games with terrorists only because of that "human rights" bastards who applaude to Chechens torturing Russian soldiers and say "They use tortures to make the warfare more touching and sculptured" (BTW - real words of Andrey Babitskiy, who filmed tortures organized for him specialy). If it's war - it's war. Our cause is right. The enemy will be destroyed. The victory will be ours. (quiz: who said it and when?).
Toad, the next paragraph is for you. Maybe you'll find some letters that you know there.
For the fifth time I say that I statred talking about civilian casualities to make your fellow-americans say about "inevitable casualities". You guys are wooden waist-deep. Two-moves combinations are beyound your mental capabilities. People and Party are united. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are two men, not four, and Slava KPSS is not a man at all.
-
Boroda...
For whatever many times.. you want to talk about civilian casualties fine.
Let's start with the ones caused by Russia.
Because the Russians currently kill more civilians during a conflict than anyone else
in the world by a HUGE margin.
Simple fact.
Go ahead.. admit that the Russians currently kill more civilians that anyone else while conducting combat operations.
Then we'll talk about your "collateral damage" complaints.
-
Toad, here we go again. If you see the OTHER way to solve the problem - you are welcome. Send your troops and show us.
And stop this roadkill please - army operation in Chechnya was over more then a year ago. Now our special forces simply hunt terrorists.
I explained my point about "collateral damage", mr. Radio Toad.
-
We're showing you another way right now. Air/Land battle; you must have missed the beta version in Iraq. You don't need a TWO MONTH indiscriminate artillery barrage of a major city.
(...and if you think we couldn't have done it without the NA "militia", think again. It would have taken longer getting the hardware in place, but the same units that rolled up the famed "Republican Guard" are more than equal to NA "militia". Way more.)
Sorry, I have no way to control your computer output, so there's just no way I could "stop the bullsh*t". Couldn't you just unplug?
**********
Simply Hunting Terrorists (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/chechbkg0924.htm)
"Russian forces conducted a sweep operation of Sernovodsk on July 2, 2001 after a mine explosion killed five soldiers the previous day. They arbitrarily detained an estimated 620 villagers and internally displaced people; they seized people without regard to their identity or identity documents, which suggests that the apprehensions were not based on suspicion of specific involvement in the explosion.
Throughout the following two days in nearby Assinovskaia, federal forces swept through the village, detaining about 400 people in the same manner they had in Sernovodsk.
Several interviewed by Human Rights Watch quoted soldiers as saying they had an order to detain all males between the ages of six and sixty. In both sweeps most detainees were released later that day, but many were tortured throughout the course of the day; some were sent on to Achkoi-Martan for further questioning.
Human Rights Watch interviewed eight people who described in detail beatings and electroshock torture by federal forces seeking information about the explosions.
Among them was "Khamaz Yusupov," who described to Human Rights Watch beatings and electroshock torture to his ears, teeth, and arms. His description of electroshock was consistent with that given by several other victims. Two teenager brothers told Human Rights Watch about two days of torture in Achkoi-Martan. They described electroshock to their kidneys, mouth, and ears; one brother endured such treatment to his genitals as well. One of the teenagers also described in detail how a masked agent forced his mouth open while another filed his tooth, causing unbearable pain. A Human Rights Watch researcher viewed the injuries from the beatings the brothers had endured."
******
Just hunting terrorists, you say? :rolleyes: Shocking, eh?
Your point about collateral damage? LOL. The point is that in both IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN civilians have fared FAR better than they have in Chechnya. FAR, FAR, FAR, better.
THAT'S the point...
....Despite your pre-bombing histrionics.
-
Again the money for the fish.
HRW again. That guys appeared on the scene in the 70s, after that brilliant idea by Brzezinsky to use "human rights" as a tool of pressure against USSR. I am happy they have found another source of income after their CIA sponsor abandoned them 10 years ago. Moslim fundamentalists are more generous then their former Western masters.
If you need some more pro-terrorist propaganda - better go to www.kavkaz.org. (http://www.kavkaz.org.) At least their lies are more funny.
-
Yeah, Boroda... tell us that all that stuff never happened. I'm sure the Russian troops just rounded everyone up to give them a free bouquet of flowers.
Every Human Rights Organization in the entire world is saying the SAME THING about what's happening in Chechnya.
But, of course, you have the "Borodaganda" to prove they're all wrong.
So let's see it. :D
-
Bloody maniacs from local militia are a serious threat to human rights!!!
They have beaten me so I could barely walk! I had a friendly talk with a beer-booth owner who just wanted to give me his daily cash because I am such a nice and friendly guy. That militia bastards not only have beaten me almost to death, they stole my favourite 10-inch penknife and also took my family keychain, a rare example of a chain from an "Ukraina" bike that my Granny presented on my 12th birthday!
Thanks to my cousins who did their best to release me from that inhuman militia chambers, where they were torturing me for 7 days without a single MJ cigarette! When they kidnapped me I was drunk as hell and they didn't even give me a single glass of vodka to cure my hangover next morning! What a brutal violation of my human rights!
It took my cousins 2000 bucks, 3kg of hashish and 3 lambs for local militia authorities to free me from the hands of that bastards violating my human rights! The main purpose of this letter to HRW is not to get a complete compensation for my moral and physical injuries. I only want some of the hashish back because my cousins don't let me smoke now. And how do you think I can walk at my street without a penknife and a bike chain!?
If I will get no answer from HRW - I'll write directly to the UN and maybe even to Russian MTV top 10!
-
Boroda's Song (http://www.m-m-t.com/staff/jer/coming2.wav)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Boroda's Song (http://www.m-m-t.com/staff/jer/coming2.wav)
SO appropriate Hang! <S>!!
:D
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Heres one to calm Boroda down, or maybe to get him wound up some more, either way the result will be good for our fun on this BBS I think......
http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/lyrics/political/SovietUnionNationalAnthem_RedArmyChorus.mp3 (http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/lyrics/political/SovietUnionNationalAnthem_RedArmyChorus.mp3)
:rolleyes:
-
The lyrics are almost as intelligible as the post.
Almost. ;)
-
Sorry, forgot to say that mylast post was a sarcastic joke, just for Hangtime to understand it ;) I am a law-abiding sitizen :)
Hangtime, I enjoyed a song, think I heard it somwhere on indy radio stations, still can't remember who's singing.
Grunherz, thanks for the link to the Russian national anthem. I certainly remember the old text, but, unfortunately, don't know the new words. It's something about god and our ancestors there... I'll probably learn it when someone will explain what god is mentioned there - Jesus, Allah or maybe Perun. For most of the Russians this tune is assosiated with Soviet hockey team winning world cups in 70s-80s.
To explain my last post: it's hard to protect uman rights of the people who violate out laws, and take up arms against Russian state. Yes, Russian forces do arrest innocent Chechens who's only crime is owning slaves, kidnapping foreigners and selling them at slave markets and shooting Russian soldiers and militia for fun. Could be really strange if they will only objurgate them and try to persuade them that it's not good in a free and open discussion.
To quote your president: we will fight everyone who hosts terrorists and helps them. And we DO fight them, without supporting other terrorists at the same time.
-
I know this is hard for you to understand, given your background...
but it's THE WAY you fight terrorists that many people/nations find offensive.
A TWO MONTH indiscriminate artillery barrage of a major city, for example.
It's not the fighting of terrorists.. it's the HOW of fighting terrorists.
-
Toad, instead of spending billions of dollars on supproting terrorists in the Balkans - better send your troops and show us exactly HOW we should fight. No doubt you could walk directly into Grozniy with flowers in your hands and persuade them to lay down their arms.
-
Jeez, Boroda.
We sent them to Iraq. You didn't figure it out then?
We sent them to Bosnia. You didn't figure it out then?
They're working in Afghanistan now. Are you figuring it out now?
:D
-
Dont jump on me for this but, this is the most amusing thread ive read for ages. Its nice to see so many patriots, arguing left and right and not listening to each other at all. It reminds me why Australia is so nice :).
And lastly, Australia turns up in a conflict, situation made good, Australia go home. End of story.
G
note: no yelling, im just mucking around. i'm not knocking anyones opinions, i respect everyones right to say what they like. Please, carry on. This thread is most educational.
-
Toad, you send them to Iraq - and they don't go far enough to even shake the Saddam's regime. Status Quo is maintained, minus 150000 civilians (who cares?).
You send them to Bosnia to fight Serbian minorities while Bosnian authorities give Bin Laden papers of a Honorable Citizen. Thanks, I couldn't have thought of a worse example.
Afghan "operation" is still a strange and unpredictable thing, while it's all oveк now in Chechnya.
Gavor, I envy you ;) My Mom lives in Australia, and what he tells me is almost a paradise on Earth. Just curious: can you remind me about the details of the story with meat prices and US-Australian trade relations?
-
Boroda,
Everyone knows that the Coalition forces did not kill 150,000 civilians in the Gulf War.
You are deliberately "misinforming"
and you know it.
It's cheap; but hey, if you've got nothing else to base your position on except lies....
As I said before in this thread:
"150,000 Iraqi civilians died DURING the Gulf War? I call BS. Prove your statement. Supply some sources."
But you can't... you can't find a SINGLE refrence for that. Because it's BS.
There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war that I can find. Most estimates of Iraqi casualties from ANY "reputable" source have been broad ranging. Worst I've seen is estimates of Iraqi civilian death ranging from 100 to 35,000, some with a higher lower figure but lower high end, ie: "5,000--15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war."
By the admission of RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, more than that died in the FIRST Chechen war alone... perhaps 15,000 just in the TWO MONTH shelling of Grozny. In just the FIRST Chechen war.
Estimates vary of the total number of casualties caused by the war. Russian Interior Minister Kulikov claimed that fewer than 20,000 civilians were killed while then-Secretary of the National Security Council Aleksandr Lebed asserted that 80,000 to 100,000 had been killed and 240,000 had been injured.
...and you also know Saddam was ours for the taking. I'll agree that we should have gone on to Baghdad. But Bush Sr., Powell and various other world leaders decided it would be too destablizing. :rolleyes:
However, even you are intelligent enough to realize that the military situation was ENTIRELY in favor of coaltion forces. All the Iraqis could have done in a prolonged fight is DIE by the thousands.
So, it wasn't because "our style" of fighting that Saddam is still in power. It was a failure of will by the leadership.
Bosnia? The EXAMPLE it that the killing is OVER. Sounds like we were pretty effective in achieving the goals of the world community/UN.
Russia, OTOH is in ROUND 2 in Chechnya. Despite massed artillery barrages and FAR more civilian deaths than IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN COMBINED... the killing in Chechnya goes on. Sounds like Russia has NOT been very effective in stopping the killing.
I couldn't think of a better example either. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Boroda,
Everyone knows that the Coalition forces did not kill 150,000 civilians in the Gulf War.
Very True
You are deliberately "misinforming"
and you know it.
...of course he know's it. And it shall continue as long as people offer to respond to his drivel.
It's cheap; but hey, if you've got nothing else to base your position on except lies....
....Actually I'd almost believe he's misinformed himself, by choice of course.
As I said before in this thread:
"150,000 Iraqi civilians died DURING the Gulf War? I call BS. Prove your statement. Supply some sources."
...Now you KNOW he'll refer to all the poor Iraqi civilians who've died due to sanctions. Geez dude, everyone know's Saddam makes sure every last dollar and every last crumb of food, and every single medication sent as aid reaches the Iraqi populace. All those extravegant palaces and "VIP" residences he's built/building come from funds donated happily by the Iraqi peoples and anyone who wants may use them at thier request. Aww shucks, Saddam is one of the most honest and careing dictators in History..sheesh.
...and you also know Saddam was ours for the taking. I'll agree that we should have gone on to Baghdad. But Bush Sr., Powell and various other world leaders decided it would be too destablizing. :rolleyes:
Actually, Bush plainly stated before and after the Gulf War, AND recently (last week) that the intent of the Gulf War was to boot Iraq out of Kuwait. It was agreed on EARLY on that removing Saddam from power by brute military force was NOT on the agenda. So a politician keeps his word and the world bashes him for it for 10yrs...oh well
However, even you are intelligent enough to realize that the military situation was ENTIRELY in favor of coaltion forces. All the Iraqis could have done in a prolonged fight is DIE by the thousands.
bet this is a debatable statement hehe, just watch, the U.S. is soft and scummy don't ya know
Russia, OTOH is in ROUND 2 in Chechnya. Despite massed artillery barrages and FAR more civilian deaths than IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN COMBINED... the killing in Chechnya goes on. Sounds like Russia has NOT been very effective in stopping the killing.
but...thats ok, Chechens aren't really people anyway, and every last one has an alter built to OBL
I couldn't think of a better example either. :D[/qb]
Tumor :rolleyes:
[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Tumor ]
-
I'd rather not get into a debate about trade relations when the current debate is already going so well :).
I wouldn't go so far as saying Australia is paradise on earth, i'd say the trick is just to leave other people alone if possible and not take up flag waving at every opportunity. Go have a beer, sit down, read a book, play some AH.
War is a horrible, messy, terrible, frightening and dehumanising situation. The normal rules of niceness dont apply anymore and things happen that you'd never dream of at home in peaceful times. History is full of these types of war. War is not clean, war is not full of glory and hurrahs to the victor. It never has been and if someone trys to tell you thats what war is like, beat some sense into them.
The nature of conflict has never changed but they have become smaller and less prolific. The world doesnt see as many slaughters and what not but dont be fooled into thinking they wont happen anymore.
Thats enough for now, sorry if its all a bit jumbled, im at work. Theres not much time to plan a proper essay :).
Have fun all, think of me working.
G