Talibans in Cuba, Euro pressure...

[Peer]

Originally posted by brainless
Listen up Grünherz, if we Eoropeans are that bad, why the hell do you use a German name? The name of a great German pilot of WWII?
Please change it to a name of some American pilot...Buck Rogers perhaps.
 

ROTFL !!!!!!

Gut gebrüllt - Löwe !

[midnight Target]

Nothing is black and white in this world Wmaker.

I'm sure USA tries to avoid civilian casualties but honestly if that would be one of its main concerns I doubt it would be using B-52s. I know they aren't just B-17s with jet engines but from the footage I've seen from Afganistan it's easy to understand why bombs have missed their intended targets.

B-52's and B1B's are used in areas like Tora Bora to provide sustained bombing. Targets inside cities are hit with the guided equipment. Saying the use of large bombers proves that the reduction of civilian casualties is not a major concern is just not a tenable stance.  

Well, my problem is that some americans think that your country is the only one which has ever done anything good to this world. The war wasn't fought on USA's soil so of course it was more able to help than Europian countries after the war.

We are pretty egotistical, I'll grant you that. But we also think we have good reason to be. Sure the infrastructure of the US was intact after the War. That didn't mean we HAD to help. We CHOSE to help. Sure there were selfish reasons like...."if we help this country they will be our friend". (sinister huh?)
We gave as much to our damaged allies as to  vanquished enemies.

Of course we made mistakes, we know them because we are free to know them. Isn't that great?

Still Waving the Flag Left Handed.

[Udie at Work]

Originally posted by Wmaker
Well there was no need to bomb Dresten. It had been largely unbombed before that raid. It had no industrial targets. Dresten was bombed for de-moralisation purposes. Germans indeed needed de-moralisation in february 14th 1945...Ever thought about the fact that Al Queda probably thought the same way about New York as you think about Dresten? For the record I'll state the obvious: I see no justification on 9.11.2001 attacks. The saddest thing apart from loosing the lives of more than 3000 people is the fact that there is a new level of terroristic attack of which terrorists are going to try to top. IMO the world changed that day as a whole to the worse direction .

 I don't know all the facts about the fire bombing of Dresden.  I do know that unfortunately demorilizing bombing was an accepted tactic of WW2.  I don't agree with it I wish it would not have happened but it is out of my control to change the fact that it happened.   All I can do about that is say sorry.



I'm sure USA tries to avoid civilian casualties but honestly if that would be one of its main concerns I doubt it would be using B-52s. I know they aren't just B-17s with jet engines but from the footage I've seen from Afganistan it's easy to understand why bombs have missed their intended targets.

 Well bombs are going to miss their target.  Too many physical variables when droping a bomb from 30k ft.   I do think though that no other country in history has gone to the level the USA has to avoid civilian deaths or injuries.  



Well, my problem is that some americans think that your country is the only one which has ever done anything good to this world. The war wasn't fought on USA's soil so of course it was more able to help than Europian countries after the war.


  I understand and don't mean to sound that way.  Please understand our view point.   Our tax dollars for 60 yrs or more have gone to help places in the world.  It may seem petty to equate it to money, but it has to be done.  I see it every check.  I give out $175 to $300 just in taxes not S.S. every 2 weeks  Part of that goes to all the foriegn aid my country dolls out.  I have never minded doing this it just seems to be forgotten.  I don't want to be like this, but these feelings pop up in my head more and more often, worse yet the same thoughts are in the minds of alot of my friends.  I think it would be bad for the world should the USA back off from giving aid to the world.  I fear that this is a distinct possibility due to the attitudes I"ve been noticing.  People here are tired of it.  How many billions and trillions of dollars in direct money and aid have we given to Africa in that time period.  That freaking continent is no diferent now than it was then, except for South Africa.



You speak about PoWs and that they declared war on you. Well AFAIK US Goverment doesn't think that way. I don't quite know the word in english but US has named them "as independent fighters" or something? This way they can be treated differently in court. That's funny because Bush said that 9.11 attacks were acts of war. But now they deny that Taleban prisoners have anything to do with war. You said that your constitution applies US citizens only. That is true but I think USA has signed Geneva convention...maybe that's the reason they aren't rated as PoWs? I hope you notice that I haven't made a single remark that US is treating these prisoners badly. So if you got worked up at me about that there's no reason for it.



 Battle Field Detainees is the word.  Which is exactly what they are.  I can see the Taliban being called POW's and due the rights of the Geneva Convention, but not Al Queda.   That aside,  how do you tell them apart?  What part of share the terrorist fate didn't they understand?  They chose there fait along side Al Queda and now it's time for them to "share it".  The reason for the B.F.D. classification, I would think, would be to deny them the rights of the G.C. which I personaly have no problem with.   Even with out that classification they will have better treatment than if the N.A. had them (they'd be dead by now)  


My point is this: Do you or do you not agree with Eagler's statement?

 I don't konw what he said, but I agree with most of what he types here.  So there's a good chance that I agree with him here, even though I'm a doper

If USA would act the way Eagler wanted that Human rights cap between USA and Taleban would be much more narrow.


 Please scroll up and look at my photographical comparison between USA human rights and Taliban/Al Queda human rights.  It speaks to this much better than I ever could.

 Here's my question to you...

 If Europe is in a row over this, what is going to happen over there once the executions start?


 Remember too that I'm anti-death penalty on everything except this.   I hope that the European community doesn't expect us to repatriate these people back to there countries so they can regroup.  Just imagine the picture of the first row of 12 detainees hanging from the gallows, hopefuly before the year is over...


PS,  please believe I'm not trying to come across cold hearted or smart bellybutton in any way.  Just venting some bad "feelings" that I've been having.  In all actuality I haven't made my mind up what I think should happen to these guys, as if that really matters.  All I know for sure is that had I been in charge they'd be dead already,  I tend to have knee jerk reactions at first before I truely think something out.  So from my view point our Government is giving them more than their due.


 back to work....

[funkedup]

RAM

[Dowding]

Through me a bone, Grunherz, because currently I believe you to be as ill-informed as you are foul-mouthed. I can only echo the sentiments of my German friends here but...

Check your sources. It was BRITISH forces that lead the NATO forces into Kosovo. The British contingent (some 13,000 troops) was the largest of all the contributors, and that includes the US.

It was BRITISH  forces who recently were the liason force in Macedonia, leading to the disarmament of the rebels there. BTW, a BRITISH soldier died during that minor, inconsequential action.

You'll also find it was BRITISH special forces (the SAS) who were recently tracking down Bin Laden and his henchmen.

It is BRITISH troops who are currently flying the international flag in Kabul.

So in summary, you are talking out of your arse, Grunherz. Again.

As a sidenote. You also neglect to take into consideration the size of the US (economically and militarily) compared to your average European democracy. Britain simply doesn't have the military capability to be involved on the world stage in the same way as the US. Ditto the rest of the EU. You also seem to believe the EU is as politically unified as the US - it isn't. It was initially designed as an economic pact to grease the wheels of intra-European trade - only in the last decade has it started to become a political union and it will be another 20 or so years before military union reaches any meaningful extent.

[GRUNHERZ]

I said the Brits fight didnt I?

Im just curious where all the others are- and why they all need USA to act first.

And I dont count peakekeepers as soldiers or a military duty- peacekeeping is no different than policework in a bad neighborhood. Only real combat counts. Peacekeepers are just targets.


As for why I use a German name, well its simple I like Bf109s and 190s and JG54 used them a lot. I like that.


And I like Europe, right now Im just angry at the turn my dear old Europe is taking. Its becoming some soft sissy pointless mess with no IDENTITY. I tell you we wont recognize her in a few years, be careful!

[GRUNHERZ]

But back to the topic...

Seriously dont you guys feel at all uncomfortable or at least a bit akward accusing the USA of great human rights abuses when all that we are trying to do is to protect our service men and women from what are obviously very dangerous suicidal murders.

Be honest If you have any sense of decency and self respect you must feel a bit akward dont you? Please tell me you do.

[brainless]

Ok,
i never accused anybody of doing anything, i´m just talking about facts. I do this because i at least sometimes know what i´m talking about...
See, i´m a German soldier. I don´t like it to be called spineless aso. I fight for my country, for my people and for the idea of democracy....
I simply said that noone who considers himself to be a modern thinking democratic human has the right not to grant human rights .

I didn´t accuse anyone to be spineless....

Friends of mine do what you call "REAL COMBAT". And they risk their lifes for people they don´t even know, and why?! For sure not to be called spineless by anybody! They fight because they want to help stopping injustice, they fight out of idealism...something you might not understand.
Know, you can be a friend and tell people what their mistakes are, i think thats what makes a real friend...not always saying : Hey you´re right.
THAT´S spineless!!
If you accuse anybody to be anything, give names,dates and facts, never do it in a way you did.

I feel sorry for anybody who dies in a war.
I feel not unconfortable about the way Germany behaves in this situation, i would say our government was nuts if they decided to put more troops anywhere...because we already run on our limits!!
Sorry for not having as much soldiers or material as the USforces have...we simply don´t have the possibility of projection of power the way your troops have...that´s all.

[brainless]

Thank you, i respect your soldiers, used to visit sandhurst and meet their general there...ex SAS...hell of a cool guy!

[GRUNHERZ]

Ohhh I see where where the problem is and I want to clear up something and appologize where approprite.

Im angry at European political direction or the lack of. I certainly belive that any soldier would fight and fight well only if given the chance to and allowed to act agressivley. Thats why I say peacekeepers arent real soldiers, they  arent allowed to be by their leadership.

You see what I mean? You see the point Im trying to make?

[brainless]

Yes i see the point you´re trying to make.

Do you know the difference between PEACE KEEPING and PEACE ENFORCEMENT?

Did you ever hear the words RULES OF ENGAGEMENT?

Being a soldier is not about being aggressive...not at all.
It´s about protecting! Saving lifes wherever possible.

And still, the EU is just starting to act as a military organisation....Europe consists of that many states with that many armies, still with less people than the US Forces...we simply cannot do anymore.
Just now as i write this post, there  are about 25.000 German soldiers on duty in foteign countries, doing what i try to explain, each in his own fashion accoring to his mission, trying to keep the ideals up he´s fighting for.
Another 75000 are just now training for their future missions or are on R&R...trying to forget what they´ve seen. That makes about 100000 soldiers. We only got 245000 right now, take the medics, parts of the Marine, logistics and parts of the Luftwaffe away anf u´ll find only very few that are spare.....
We could not do more, even if the gouvernment decided to do so!

[Thrawn]

Battle Field Detainies??  What a roadkill term.  The Taliban guys are a prisoners of war.  The US was at war with Afghanistan.  I don't give a flying fek if it was declared or not.

Use of terms like "Conflict", "Servicing the target", and "Battle Field Detainies", are just BS, spin doctoring crap.  

Al Qaeda guys, are either criminal's in the eyes, of the US or POWs.  I would probably lean toward criminals.  Have them go through your due process of law and be done with them.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by -lynx-
Huh? Maybe it's time Australian people look closer into what their constitution is made of? In most countries fighting with arms against one's own army is classed as treason plain and simple with quite severe punishment attached

Hicks cannot be charged with treason because there has been no declaration of war by Australia against the govt of Afghanistan (ie the Taliban), nor will a retroactive declaration likely be made. Australian SAS troops are in afghanistan as part of the ANZUS treaty activated by the Prime Minister. So he also is unlikely to be charged under the Crimes Act (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment Act) because he did not go to Afghanistan to fight AGAINST the government of Afghanistan. And that he was fighting against the northen alliance before australian soldiers were on duty there, it is unlikely he could be charged with whatever the US govt has charged Walker.

This is a great democratic country with a fine constitution.

Tronsky

[GRUNHERZ]

The problem with peacekeeping is that soldiers are not allowed to kill the bad guys.

Maybe the new Bundeswehr (terrible name IMHO Wehrmacht was much better) has a different idea but in my opinion soldiers are used to kill bad people.  If you want to babysit maybe we need a babysitting blue hat wering live target corps.
Im sorry for the mocking tone but people with weapons must project the simple truth that they are willing and allowed to use those wepons to kill. I never get that impression from peacekeeping forces. Soldiers' basic mission is to kill people, not to save them. Saving people comes later. The problem with "peacekeeping" is that soldiers are placed into what are basically still active war zones with instructions not to kill people. Then they become useless targets, well not useless they are excellent human shields to sensitive enemy positions like large radar posts.....


I think European political leaders are weak and indecisive because they always knew the USA was there if anything serious were to happend.  They need to fight some wars and soon and they need to do it without the USA as big brother.

[GRUNHERZ]

Trotski:

You make sick to be proud that this criminal who would like nothing better than to kill you will not be charged with anything.

Sorry for that trotski but thats not democracy its madness!