oh yeah i knew i was right

Rice should appologize to the PM and musharaf and take full responsibility

"As an American I take offense to that last remark.  It was by no means intentional to kill the Pakistani military.  Yes it happened, but it was an accident.  That's like:  The most altruistic person you've ever known, looks up to his rear view window to check behind him, then looks back at the road to see two 5 year olds run in front of his car.  He ends up killing them and he's now marked as a murderer.

Putting labels on persons and associations is not always a good thing.  By saying a country enjoys killing our allies means you include all 300 million people from the US in your statement.  In doing so you will piss off many"

We are just trying to say to BW and others that sometimes you have to say "Sorry, is there anything we could help? maybe give respect to there families?"

> TheOldbie wrote:

> > Alan Statham wrote:

Our army is specialised in humanitary missions, guarding areas is one of their specialised tasks (like setting up camps etc.). In many ways, I prefer my country's army to do such things then killing allies..

(...)

Putting labels on persons and associations is not always a good thing.  By saying a country enjoys killing our allies means you include all 300 million people from the US in your statement (edit: or at least the millions that come and go through our armed forces).  In doing so you will piss off many.

As i stated before in a more concise and elaborate phrase; what we have problems with isn't only the sloppines with which the US deploys its military, it's the way the US currently uses its military as a one-fits-all tool for most issues. The Bush administration can't easily admit mistake after mistake after mistake, but they can't afford to not to neither anymore.

cheers for bw, i think

"why would border troops from Paki allow Taliban cross border fighters to move uncontested ?
How can a force move through the border, engage Afghan forces, then move back to the safety of Paki w/o intervention by Paki border troops"

i ve been wondering as well; also, at times of (political) clashes with their neighbour, the issue of terrorists  crossing borders comes up quite often

Your army does constructive things ??

You mean like not fight, even when your soldiers are tortured and murdered ??

and then pretend they are the Red Cross ?

Ohhh....they were raping children.

What happened to them ??

Same as the American Girl Holliway who was killed and dumped in the ocean by that VanderSmoot or something ?

> Black_Wing wrote:

> Yea... I was wrong about the information.
The Pakis claim that 11 of their troops were killed in the attack.

That has not been confirmed, or denied by the US/Afghan side.

I will say this....why would border troops from Paki allow Taliban cross border fighters to move uncontested ?
-There is no real border between pakistan and afhanistan, there's too many mountains, and sand mountains, there is no lake or fence, pakistan and afghanistan aren't rich enough i think, the tribes that border afghanistan are not actually part of the confederated pakistan, they asked to join a couple of years ago, but have no real ties with pakistan, it's just a name thing, yes imo this was a bad decision looking at it now, but back then it was very helpfull...

How can a force move through the border, engage Afghan forces, then move back to the safety of Paki w/o intervention by Paki border troops ??
Like i said before, there is no real border, the conditions there make it simply near impossible to control people going in and out.

BTW, I hardly call Paki an ally in this fight.  I call them reluctant helpers.
-your candidate mccain sure loves them and thinks of them as allies...

All and any death is a travesty....except for those of the offending force.....Taliban cross border fighters in this incident.  If innocent Pakis were killed.....Condolences.
-You mentioned above that you were wrong, and that you agree that 11 paki troops also died, there should be an apology for that..

I stand corrected.  I apologize for my mistake.

LMFAO!!!!!!!

that was funny

it's not an excuse i'm teling you the facts, you asked why pakistan can't control people going in and out, i told you why
do you want me to appologize and say i was wrong to give you the answer?

BW, you're probably not guna take this the right way, but i have every intention to mean it as a right thing =S, carefull about your anger, taking anger out on the forums for no apparent reason is not a healthy sign, but offcourse it's your life, you can do w/e the hell u want , i'm just tryina look out for ya

First of all, it seems I misinterpreted this post of you BW:

"Ohhh....they were raping children.
What happened to them ??
Same as the American Girl Holliway who was killed and dumped in the ocean by that VanderSmoot or something ?"

I thought "them" referred to the victims rather than the soldiers, wich gives your post a very dubious meaning..

If this indeed refers to the soldiers, then no. They were sentenced to prison and were fired from the army. They didn't get away with it. Acts like that are a disgrace, not only were they violating them, they also abused their trusted position.. It should be noted that US army had (perhaps: has) similar cases though:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/07/iraq.familyslain/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/09/soldiers.charged/index.html

"Yea, if you rape African children in refugee camps, and vacationing drunk teens......I think that is in the catagory of Savage."

It's savage indeed, but "vacationing drunk teens" isn't really a valid comment imo. Isn't the US army known for recruiting in High schools? The Belgian army consists of nothing but professionals, no reservists. So I think the American army does more "vacationing drunk teens".. It's still a disgrace though..
As a final note (to give you some context), our army is still being changed into the supportive and protecting army, so in the Rwanda case, it was still more of a standard army..

"@ Alan.... There was no torture at Abu Grab."

Mental torture is torture none the less. The humiliations they faced can be described as torture. Or do you think differently?
http://ablog.rsynnott.com/2008/03/14/Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/iab2.gif

in American people PAY to be put on a dog leash and made to strip

this is my problem with the Bush is torturer argument

to me, torture is so bad that if somebody volunteered for torture it would be proof they were insane

amputation of a healthy limb
flogging
crucifixion

thats torture.  Context doesn't matter

but when you say "waterbording is torture" then you run into the problem that we do it to our troops in training.  So we torture our own people?  "Well..uh..no, because if you know you're being tested and not going to die then you aren't feeling the full effect"

so if I crucify troops for training and they know I'll take them down before they get hurt too bad, crucifixion isn't torture?

I say there was no torture at Abu Ghraib we call that "hazing" and the best colleges ban it

Oops made some changes in my post there. For the "vacationing drunk teens", see my previous post.

"what happened to "them" ..... continuing w/the subject... the Soldiers."

They were sentenced to joil (although I don't remember how long the sentences were, I'll try to dig it up), they got dishonourly discharged from the military, and lose their civilian rights for several years (this includes the right to own a gun, the possibility to have a job with public authority, you can't be part of a jury in a lawsuit etc).

I don't think the size of an army changes anything. It's about the discipline they should have. Any case like this is a disgrace, defenatly when they're charged with tasks like protecting people (Belgium), or supporting an early democracy (US army). Also, I named only a few cases, the first hits on google. One could argue that there are a lot more, so that they have more or less the same "ratio"...

"I dont equate "Mental" torture What is "Mental torture" is TOTALLY subjective"

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it's defined as this: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." I think stacking people naked on top of eachoter is at least "degrading treatment or punishment".

"@ Alan... Good referencing though....... way to many just spout w/o sourcing."

Thank you.

> TheYell wrote:

> to me, torture is so bad that if somebody volunteered for torture it would be proof they were insane

amputation of a healthy limb
flogging
crucifixion

thats torture.  Context doesn't matter

Heads up, Yell!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Crucifixion_as_a_devotional_practice