War Hero
And the yanks wonder why there is unrest in Iraq.

From the BBC news website:

In one incident US troops opened fire on a crowd of former Iraqi soldiers protesting against the non-payment of salaries, killing two people.

The US military said its forces fired in self defence after people in the crowd started throwing rocks.

This from the country that objected to us defending ourselves in Ireland?
I think we are being a little harsh on our American allies. They are in an awkward position. How do they know what threat the civilians pose in that scenario? What experience do we have to judge their actions? It certainly can't be easy trying to turn Iraq into the 51st state. ???


52nd State - there is already a 51st state it would seem :mad:


It also shows what complete disregard the American armed forces have for human life in the world we live in, yes someone in the crowd COULD have had a Gun, yes someone in the crowd COULD have used it, BUT NO ONE DID, the throwing of a few rocks to demonstrate distain and anger at not being paid, and the reaction is to fire live rounds in to a crowd of people, not above their heads but directly at them. Its one way of winning hearts and minds though through terror and inflicting hardship and pain, HANG ON I THOUGHT THATS WHY THEY WERE THERE TO RID THIS COUNTRY OF DICTATORSHIP AND GIVE THE RIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH. No no sorry its me i got it wrong it is to stop the sale of WMD to terrorists, well whatever the reasons i think one the road map to peace in the middle east is started, the Arab population will embrace all us infidels with open arms, after all we have done it for them havent we   ;).
NIMN: Have I told you lately what a muppet I think you are? Perhaps I should. MUPPET!  :mad:

Your observations come from your many and varied peacekeeping operational tours I take it?


Muppet lol
Geez you crack me up Woopert, and come on then can if were on about peacekeeping and how to handle angry crowds and over the top reactions, lets hear your views on the bloody Sunday massacre ::) ::).
: I have seen peoples own feelings on this site concerning (SPAMS)  inability to deal with these sort of incidents, so are you also berrating these posters too :eek: :eek:.
NIMN: You appear to be confused - quelle surprise. In Londonderry the Army opened fire on people seen with weapons (more than likely funded by NORAID in the states), who presented a threat; in Baghdad the spams seem, as usual, not to be able to discern between those who are a threat and those who are not.

Speaking, as you were, of double standards, it would seem somewhat disingenuous for a firefighter who went on strike to comment on anyone's disregard for human life.  


i am quite willing to talk to you all day about my RIGHT to industrial action, but lets not divert from the original thread. oh did you say the army opened fire on people seen with weapons, can i give you this extract from the inqury, this is from a soldier who opened fire at people with weapons,  "Asked yesterday whether his statement to the military police on the night of Bloody Sunday that he saw a gunman open fire at paratroopers with about six shots from a ground-floor window of the Rossville flats in Derry could be relied upon, Soldier S hesitated before replying: "No".
now this is interesting out of all the people injured (13) and the people killed (13) how many were in the rossville flats, and in conclusion to his reply about his initial statement, well it was obviously a lie.
I cannot imagine why you think I would be interested in listening to you blather on about your rights.  The fact remains that Trumpton are a bunch of greedy b@astards who exercised their right to strike and didn't care who got hurt in the process; and don't give me all that cr@p about the few who crossed their picket lines out of a guilty conscience - it's all so boring.

Back to the thread...
The Bloody Sunday Enquiry is a) a major part of President Bliar's terrorist appeasement program, and therefore unreliable and b) a way for lawyers to make sh1tloads of money.  At least you have something in common with them; both money grabbing tw@ts at the expense of others.

In any case, even if I accepted that Bloody Sunday was a cluster (which I don't), then your argument re the spams holds even less water, since they should have learned from it.  Or do two wrongs make a right to you?



lol is that all youve got m8 trumpton and greedy ;D ;D ;D.
 but id suppose id rather be that than a murderer but hey hum never mind,
ok bumo what about this section of evidence from soldier S "The former paratrooper apologised to the Saville inquiry counsel, Christopher Clarke QC, about "a lot of inaccuracies" which appeared in the original military police statements. They were not a "deliberate lie", he said. Being questioned by military police late at night was a "frightening affair" for an 18 year-old paratrooper. He added: "I am an honest person".   ;D ;D ;D ;D come on you have to laugh at that
Being questioned by military police late at night was a "frightening affair" for an 18 year-old paratrooper. flippin ada if he was scared being asked a few questions at night, you have to ask what the f*ck was he doing holding a loaded rifle in broad daylight pmsl, your kind really need to look at your training


War Hero

If your based in London I can put you in touch with a few former Para's who are now serving Firefighters, you can discuss the rights and wrongs of Bloody Sunday with them if you want.

El Gringo

It would seem that NIMN is more interested in slagging of Armys generally (and the British one in particular) than making relevant points.  From someone who was recently claiming to deserve a 40% pay rise for around 6 months work (including sleeping most nights) it seems a little odd to be attempting to claim the moral high ground.  

Bloody Sunday - the Para saying being interviewed during the night by Police was a frightening affair.  NIMN seems to conclude that either the Para was lying or that his (and therefore army training in general) was inadequate.  What a load of tosh.  The soldier may have been lying, I admit.  However once you start accusing soldiers of lying whilst presenting evidence it is only right and proper that you scrutinise the opposing evidence and statements in an equally sceptical manner.  

NIMN and all those like never do this (they would far rather take pot shots at the easy political targets squaddies are these days).  If they did treat the opposing statements in the same manner as those from the military, they just might have discovered glairing inadequacies there, such as the fact that one of Londonderry PIRA's most senior members had been quoted as saying they had 'set the Army up'.  This fact came to light in the national press just last week, although the evidence was first presented to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry over 18 months ago and was ignored.  Well it would be, wouldn't it - I mean it pointed to the fact that there just might be more to the whole affair than Para's going off their heads and shooting folk just for the fun of it.  That would have spoiled the whole thing (not to mention reducing the amount of money to be made by lawyers).

Assuming the soldier was not lying (which is equally possible), he had just been involved in incident where he believed his life and the lives of his comrades might be in mortal danger.  He had subsequently opened fire on a crowd and for all he knew had killed someone.  Just to cap his bad day, he was interviewed by the Police in a (probably) less than sympathetic manner.  Doubtless all manner of alarming thoughts and possibilities were running through this very young soldiers mind.  Little wonder then, that he was frightened.  It is also worth pointing out amongst the many things Army training prepares you for, being interviewed as a possible murder suspect is not one of them.  (Doubtless it is on the Fire Brigade course......instead of Paramedic training or something equally pointless!!!)

Onto Iraq and our unfortunate cousins, the Americans.  Anyone who has worked with the Yanks will tell you (blindingly obvious to most this, but worth pointing out to the less enlightened like NIMN) that American soldiers below our rank of sergeant are not exactly rocket scientists.  To combat this shortcoming (!) they tend to talk with their guns.  Throw into this the fact that they have NOT been trained for peacekeeping (American soldiers at the bottom only generally being trained for one scenario at a time) and its not hard to forecast the results.

Whilst I don't condone their actions, considering recent events, it is not hard to see why many situations like the recent protest get out of hand.  Less than 2 months ago, the Americans were hailed by most Iraqis as liberators,  not conquerors.  

Now, with the American bureaucracy failling on pretty well every front, Iraqis are dissillusioned and angry.  Just to make things that little bit worse, apparently from out of nowhere, Pro Saddam forces have started attacking the Americans.  

Of course, as usual, the only target for all these problems is the long suffering squaddie. Ironic really, as they probably the group of people most likely to be able to help the civvies in the short term at least.

To your average American private, Iraq is probably a very scarey and lonely place just now.  Rocket attacks out of nowhere, unfriendly locals.....all he wants to do is stay alive and get home.  In the absence of the requisite training giving him a set of reactions and responses to work with, most American soldiers will fall back on what their training has given them.  And that is a belief in superior firepower winning the day.

I also couldn't help noticing an absence of riot gear.  Just how are soldiers supposed to contain violence without the use of lethal force, given that all the instruments at their disposal all specifically involve the use of lethal force? But then, NIMN knew all that, did't you, you flub!

To be honest, this situation was forseeable.  The problem is that the both the American military and the American political machine are fairly strongly opposed to peacekeeping, as it just isn't gung ho enough (and their guys are crap at it).  Maybe a large number of experienced Brit soldiers going over the water and training their blokes is in order (should the Americans not sneer at the idea).....thoughts anyone??


War Hero
Well Gringo, I agree broadly with what you are saying, and disagree on some points.

The main point where I disagree is when you say they are not trained in peacekeeping, to put this diplomatically, I think that's a lot of bollocks.

Hearts and minds can't be taught and it is a skill which an army, or country, or force, acquires as part of its mindset and it becomes ingrained in the attitudes of the soldiers. It also comes with the general mindset of soldiers and whether they are professional enough to recognise that they are not a) conquerors b) Gods gift to the world, and c) mature enough to handle what are very delicate situations.

The British army and soldier has always had all three of these prerequisites, and not only that, have had a lot of experience of foreign peoples and cultures whereby they don't just dismiss out of hand everybody else as extraneous, we as an army know the world outside of our island and aren't ignorant of foreign culture. We do have our own failings, of course, but it isn't in this.

The Yanks, on the other hand, and I'm speaking generally, are profoundly ignorant of anything and everything outside the US, whether it be culture, religion ethnicity etc. and see everything as sub standard to the US. Yank soldiers are very immature compared to many, and will always, whether they be stationed somewhere, on peacekeeping missions or in actual comabat see themselves as liberators and conquerors, and consider it the God given right to think so. In essence, they are supremely arrogant and never, ever, magnanimous.

That's why a week or two before the conflict ended our lads were playing footie with the Iraqis and walking round it was a site guard in Germany, or a border UN guard in Cyprus, and the Yanks, months after the conflict ended, are still killing civvies and being killed.

I'm willing to bet if you look at the admin of the different areas you'll find a massive difference in the tension level. It might be that we are in an easier area, but that doesn't account for it. It's all down to attitude and maturity.

I see from your latest outpouring that I had underestimated you; I should have said you were a terrorist sympathiser as well as greedy.  I suppose you think that everything the republicans say to the inquiry is true.  

Actually I'm not sure you have the intellect to take a balanced view.  Reading your posts shows that you are out to be confrontational rather than to engage in intelligent debate.  You make sweeping statements, stereotype individuals and groups without any evidence, and fail to back up your statements with facts.  

Still, it's fun to watch you make a tw@t of yourself with every post you make.  :)

El Gringo has summed up the situation well; there is nothing more to add.

El Gringo

The Yanks, on the other hand, and I'm speaking generally, are profoundly ignorant of anything and everything outside the US, whether it be culture, religion ethnicity etc. and see everything as sub standard to the US. Yank soldiers are very immature compared to many

I'd agree with all of the above.  In fact I'd agree with everything you said Shotgun.  But doesn't that make it all the more important that these guys are trained by someone who knows what they are doing?  Like the British Army? And if the Yanks want to keep Iraq on the Western side, they'd better realise and do it PDQ (to quote them!)


War Hero
I'd agree with all of the above.  In fact I'd agree with everything you said Shotgun.  But doesn't that make it all the more important that these guys are trained by someone who knows what they are doing?  Like the British Army? And if the Yanks want to keep Iraq on the Western side, they'd better realise and do it PDQ (to quote them!)

I agree el gringo, but it'll never happen.

Yank Delta and Seals train in a kinda exchange way with SAS and SBS, but they don't train as such, it's more like working visits. Then they go back and try and put it into practice. The trouble is that they still think they are doing it right their way, and what they learn from us is 'enhancing' their ways.

In other words, same problems, different methods.

It really is a matter of ideology and attitude, not just of training, but of the general national psyche. You'll never fully convince a Yank that they, or their methods, aren't the best, regardless of the evidence, and regardless of who is training them. They will still think they are the best, but they now know what you know, and that makes them even better.

I'll give you an example that I think is quite funny. Look at all the Vietnam films, then Blackhawk Down, and a few others dealing with recent conflict. Think about it and you'll find that virtually every film involves big Yank fcuk ups, but it was a glorious fcuk up, and a fcuk up that wasn't their fault, because, in Spamland and Spam minds, they are too good to really fcuk up.

Look at our commanders in the Gulf, like Jackson. He was grizzled old bugger. The Yanks? They had to be PR men and look the part.

The gulf between US and UK forces is something much bigger than just training, and it will take years if not decades, and getting them away from their own insular little world in the US to change them.
I have removed the twisted, ill-informed under-researched  rhetoric of Dougal McGuire

Dougal, if you want to contribute to a thread in this part of the forum, I suggest you get your facts straight. In your diatribe of "The Brits have it easy in Basra" and your frankly poor attempt to justify the statement, you have upset a few people who have "Been there and done that" something I suspect you never have. So if you want to comment , I suggest research, to compensate for your lack of "Real world" knowledge.I would suggest you actually find out WHY the Biritish are having an easier time of it in Basra, it has little or nothing to do with religous mix.

If it did, then the US forces wouldn't be having such a torrid time in Falluja, which, the last time I got the maps out, was not in Baghdad. There are other posts made before the conflict, giving an overview of the Iraqi population, I suggest you read them.

ORG and Flash - Understand why you posted, agree without hesitation, but  I'm not going to give this "Contributor" the satisfaction.


Perhaps you should look at your map again. Falluja is about 30 miles west of Baghdad -i.e. right in Saddam's Sunni heartland.

You might not like what I'm saying, but there's no need to censor me -  I notice you don't censor the many fact-free rabid anti-American and anti-Israeli posts on these boards.  But then, sometimes the truth hurts just a little too much, doesn't it?