GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Tamerlane
The BBC live update scroll bar have stated that 12 Americans and 4 British troops were killed in the incident. A formal news article with the details will be placed on the website soon.

That's what I heard first as well. Now they are claiming it's the other way round - 12 british and 4 americans killed...

Does anyone know if it has been confirmed, (from a somewhat reliable source), that oil-wells in Iraq are indeed in flames?!?

Well I knew it was an American crew, but to think a Sea Hawk is still being used today. I feel sad still, a British spokesperson was just talking about the incident from Kuwait on Sky News. I was hoping that the casualties was an uncomfird rumour and that the troops got out alive.

EDIT - Whoops that came out wrong...

As for the flames, the reporters can see them on the horizon coming from Basra.

Has anyone seen ( and read) THIS ?

Who is this Michael Moore ? Some of his points are valid - but the way he writes it . . .

Is he some kind of "nutcase" ?

worries,

Beldin

Originally posted by Beldin
Is he some kind of "nutcase" ?

He is not a nutcase, he is very similar to Chomsky(sp?) the outspoken lecturer. He is a film maker and author, there was a recent thread about him here He directed the film and his book is very interesting. Its on my "to buy" list but I'm seriously going off topic now, so I'll stop

Originally posted by Tamerlane
He is not a nutcase, he is very similar to Chomsky(sp?) the outspoken lecturer. He is a film maker and author, there was a recent thread about him here He directed the film and his book is very interesting. Its on my "to buy" list but I'm seriously going off topic now, so I'll stop

I agree that michael moore is not a nut case - but to compare him to Chomsky is surely way over the top. Chomsky has a 40 year career behind him in academia and he is highly respected in both philosophy and linguistics.

On a side note I pretty much agree with everything michael moore writes in that open letter.

Check out his movie bowling for Columbine.

Michael Moore is a guy who likes to push people's buttons and start debates. Sometimes, you get the feeling that he just wants to get a rise out of others, but the questions he asks are usually very hard and the answers uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Xandax
This strategy was first (afaik) used majorly by the Russians in the Napoleon-Russian wars.
Russia was getting a sever beating by Napoleons troops but Russia knew how to beat Napoleon. By burning down fields(Scorched Earth) and destroying towns as they withdrew. Thus supplies for the french troops had to be transported a great distance, and this hindered Napoleons tactics greatly.

Wow. I didn't know the term went that far back...
Well, I at least had the basic meaning of it right - deliberately detroying villages. So Guatemala's use of it was in essence quite different - a type of ethnic cleansing of the indian population - rather than a tactical military strategy.

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Sorry, I should of stated that I was going to class, we managed to get a huge TV in to keep up to date with the conflict. I use this as its news reel is fairly useful and its quick to load unlike the flash intensive American sites.

Thank you Tam...I am sorry I did not reply earlier, I left the site in search of news.

There is more to it than just Bush's oil..

Middle East - AP

Some in War Coalition Unlikely Partners
6 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Of the 45 countries on the Bush administration's list of partners in the war to depose Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), some may come as a surprise.


AP Photo



Rwanda, for example.


Or Eritrea.


Or the Marshall Islands.


Or Mongolia, whose annual defense budget of $24 million is less than what the U.S. Navy (news - web sites) spent for the Tomahawk missiles it launched at one of Saddam's residences on the opening night of the war.


The Pentagon (news - web sites) published its membership list Friday for the "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq." It said all 45 are "publicly committed" to it — a description which explains why some countries in the Middle East which are directly supporting the war but won't say so publicly are not on the list. They include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman, all of which are allowing U.S. forces to operate from their soil.


So what are Micronesia and Nicaragua — two other partners listed by the Pentagon — doing for the cause?


The Pentagon isn't saying.


Col. Catherine Abbott, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the policy is to "let each country talk about its support to the coalition."


She said the types of support range from direct military participation — as in the case of Britain, the United States, Australia and Poland_ to logistical support (Romania), overflight rights (Turkey), humanitarian aid (Japan) and political support.


The other countries on the list are Afghanistan (news - web sites), Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador (news - web sites), Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Kuwait, South Korea (news - web sites), Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Palau, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Uganda and Uzbekistan.


Among countries not on the list is traditional U.S. ally Germany, which strongly opposes the war but nonetheless has allowed use of its airspace for Germany-based U.S. forces involved in the war.

Two British Sea Kings, (man I hate those old relics) collided in mid-air. All personnel presumed missing

Bah, I'm mildly disgusted by my government....
Am watching the tv presentation by Gen. Franks, and there is this Dutch commander letting himself be shown off as some parading monkey. Either support the war, or don't(there are reasonable arguments to do either), but don't say you support it without having any military participating. Sometimes I hate this middle-road concensus policy.....

From what I've heard, the Dutch as well as the Japanese governments are preparing to send in support such as engineers into the Iraqi region.

Well according to the Prime Minister there will be no military participation. I do understand though, seeying were in the middle of a government formation.

Btw, strange how public opinion works. In the last few days the public support for the war has gone up with 20% over here. If I'm not mistaken, that would be a bigger increase then in the US.

Originally posted by Audace
Btw, strange how public opinion works. In the last few days the public support for the war has gone up with 20% over here. If I'm not mistaken, that would be a bigger increase then in the US.

Maybe its concession of defeat from some that were anti-war? *shrugs*

Originally posted by Audace
Btw, strange how public opinion works. In the last few days the public support for the war has gone up with 20% over here. If I'm not mistaken, that would be a bigger increase then in the US.

A similar thing happened over here, as soon as our defence minister stated that Australian troops were inside Iraq, support went up although its still 50/50 when you take in all factors. It has more or less to do with keeping troop morale up and avoiding a repeat of the welcome home parades that occured after Vietnam. They were a disgrace and really traumatised an entire generation of conscripts. I'll be supporting our boys but I'm still not happy that the invasion took place.

Originally posted by Audace
Btw, strange how public opinion works. In the last few days the public support for the war has gone up with 20% over here. If I'm not mistaken, that would be a bigger increase then in the US.

I suspect this might be related to the general feeling that now all we can hope for is a swift resolution that will minimise destruction and loss of life. Although.. having seen the footage of Baghdad ablaze in the horrific parody of a fireworks display I feel this hope may be as futile as the one so many of us held onto till the very end.. that maybe conflict could be averted.

In some of my research I have looked at the human reactions towards war.... rage, despair, feelings of helplessness, shock.... and an encompassing sense of numbness. I can't help but wonder if the three latter responses have also contributed....

Or maybe it are also less esoteric reasons.... I know that Iraq's having launched scuds that they insisted had been destroyed has caused something of an uproar in our Parliament.

So no violence, no bloodshed or aggression should be shown? Look here and see what 'peaceful' protestors can use. Molotov ****tails anyone? I'm all for peaceful protestors, but damn, wielding weapons like that?

@Nippy,
I don't think it is right for protestors to resort to violence themselves.... imo this rather defeats the entire purpose of protesting for peace. However, having been there on frequent occasions I can relate to the psychology that leads to such actions. It stems from anger and feelings of helplessness... often when the channels of dialogue have broken down and everything else has failed. I am not trying to justify violence like this, imo it helps nothing and is inherently contradictory, but I do understand where much of it is arising from.