BF2S Forums America haters unite!

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

whitesend wrote:

Thousands?  Hardly.  We were only fighting a few thousand of them.  Do you think we somehow managed to kill _all_ of them?  No.  We are good, but not that good.  Best estimates are around 600 Somali KIA, _MAYBE_ 1000 WIA.  Given that the Somalis could have stopped attacking at any time and drastically decreased their losses, it hardly qualifies as a massacre of Somalis by US Forces.

That's total bullshit. The fucking Pakistani/UN/US convoy they sent in was 100 vehicles long. Pretty much each of those vehicles had a .50 on top. In a shanty town, it takes ALONG time for 7.62mms to stop, let alone 12.7mms. In a city with NO census, and where muslim culture is to bury bodies soon after death.

I reckon many thousands would have died. Mostly civilians.

Sorry you are wrong.  The convoy wasn't nearly 100 vehicles long.  It was...hmm...50 or less if I recall correctly.  We had trouble fitting all the troops from two companies of light infantry into them.  Each APC had twin 7.62s on top, not .50s.  And Maylaysian gunners hit a whole lot of nothing when they are shooting wildly. and can't see their targets.

Also, before we got to the Olympic Hotel, where we were pinned down for about a half an hour, we had to dismount and fight on foot with M-16s and M-60s; to clear the way for the Maylaysians who were too cowardly to drive on through the fire.  The Pakistani tanks wouldn't even go that far.

The estimate of 600 dead was based on Red Cross estimates the following day.

You reckon wrong.

Before you make more of an ass of yourself...Mark Bowden had many facts wrong.  The movie was a piece of shit that hardly got anything right, and the book reported selectively.

I've only read the book and Durrants book. But without using those, how do you know so much about the operation?

HMMWVs pack .50s. My point still stands even if they did have 7.62mm cannons on alot of the vehicle.

B.Schuss wrote:

Now, the US on the other hand has no such paragraph in the constitution and based on their specific
history ( having been quite successful in their military campaigns lately ) the view on war and the military among the general public is a lot more positive than here in germny. In some way, war is considered a valuable option when dealing with foreign problems.

I don't have time to address your whole (reasonable) post...so I will cut to the chase:

How do you, then, explain the fact that most of the population now (and a significant proportion, even before the war started) are opposed to our presence in Iraq?

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

I've only read the book and Durrants book. But without using those, how do you know so much about the operation?

HMMWVs pack .50s. My point still stands even if they did have 7.62mm cannons on alot of the vehicle.

There were very few .50s on the HMMWVs.  There were about two MK 19s and three or four .50s...at least that's what there were on the vehicles that went to the Northern Crash site.

I haven't read the Durant book, but he doesn't have the benefit of the knowledge I have about the rescue.  I know about the operation because I was there.  A/2-14 10th Mtn LI.

Okay I'll try and give an intelligent answer rather than the cr@p that's going on here.  First of all I'm from the UK and in GENERAL I have liked every American I have personally met.  However as a collective I dislike America.

What gets me is the fact that they have no history whatsoever (400 years, whoopie do!) and yet the attitude that America has is one of a country that we all evolved from.  Which is another thing, you'll get a lot of Americans slagging off Europeans on forums like these, but ask them what their surname is and hey presto it's either British, Irish, Scandenavian or German.  America is basically a country of European and African immigrants and their lack of history makes them have a complex that means they have to be overly patriotic to make up for it (kind of like the Nepoleon syndrome that makes short people act hard).

It's just the general cockyness that bothers me and the total lack of any awareness of the rest of the World.  Someone earlier mentioned they should shut the borders but you almost have already as a lot of Americans have no clue about other cultures and contries and assume everyone wants to be like them. 

I was watching coverage from Iraq when I saw an American soldier talking like a teenager in an Arcade about shooting people.  His attitude was very childish and actually shocking.  I belive his words were "I just wanna shoot people".  That seems to be the overall picture with American service personnel.  I have also seen recently Britich soldiers playing football (Soccer) with Iraqi children which restored my faith in humanity.  The British soldiers are liked mostly by normal Iraqis whereas the Americans are hated.  We, also, have vastly more wealth than Iraq so it isn't about jelousy, it's purely about attitude.

A friend of mine went to the States for 6 months and said how suprised she was about the general ignorance of the people there.  And that isn't an insult to them but to their media and teachings. 

US News stations almost never cover stories from other countries unless they are major incidents like the July 7th Bombings whereas most countries I have been to have a mix of items from all over the globe. 

Also, I am unconvinced that History lessons in schools are taught without bias.  I have heard a lot of Americans that seem to think that they prevented the Germans from invading us in WW2 (If it weren't for us, you'd be speaking German etc) when this is factually incorrect.  The Americans didn't even step foot into the war for seven long years after it started and we had already prevented a German Attack and the American ambassidor in London at the time could not get the US to commit troops to help us.  They did later, much later after any threat to good ol Blighty was gone.  Check the history books if you don't belive me.

Every Hollywood film depicts an American saving the day and even sometimes re-writing history!  Independence day is one example of the former and I believe that Pearl Harbour (or Harbor, don't get me on to how they're destroying our language) is full of historical errors that put the "Yanks" in a more favourable light.  The US audience sees this and thinks that is what actually happened.

I don't hate the Americans (despite what I've written above) I just feel sorry for them in a way because I generally believe a lot (not all) of them are misguided and many of them that do travel the World and see other countries do realise this and I have been told it by some of them

There was no single defining factor that won World War 2, no matter how much you patriotic Yanks want to believe it, Britain managed to get through the "Blitz" and began bombing axis towns, Hitler decided to attack the Russians after that, who were previous allies during the invasion of Poland, but he never really liked them because of them being communists, so he invaded Russia, scoring alot of victories, until about Stalingrad, a major industrial town, where the Russian army began it's counter-advance, which eventually made the German Military's situation worse, along with the harsh winter. There was also the fighting in Northern Africa, with Rommel being stopped in his tracks at Tobruk (courtesy of Australian troops, a shame they didn't give us that credit in bf1942), the US involvement was largely in the Pacific area with the Japanese threat along with Australian, British and other countries such as India taking part, but unfortunately you guys abandoned us Aussies to the Japanese after they came close to Port Moresby, which let them attack us with diver bombers etc. this is the main reason why some australians aren't good fans of the "Imperialism" that Bush has brought in. Saying that you Americans won the war is pure ignorance, you helped win it, you didn't just come in and "save everyone", maybe you should watch something other than Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers (though those movies were damn good) and Pearl Harbour (ugh)

It doesn't mean I hate all Americans, the americans I have met (bar a few) are quite intelligent and not self centered or isolated.

I might add your President during the war did not decide to get rid of the isolationism policy thing, it's because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour that the US went to war because they were directly threatened, which seems to be the ONLY reason they ever help with anything. As the most powerful country in the world (pending, considering China has a much larger Army and Air Force than you guys, along with near rivalling technology) I would expect you help more countries out, but so far it seems that it has been for purely selfish means, the Iraqi people live in a country that exports large amounts of oil, but there are oil shortages, either its' running out (yeah right) or the Americans are keeping it away from them, which seems alot more logical as oil stores aren't supposed to run out for another 20 or so years.

Maybe the American attitude towards everyone else (and actually see the reasons why terrorists attack them) would have been different if their media wasn't so saturated with violence and racism you might have turned out different.

Note: I'm watching Die Hard right now, surprise, the terrorists are NEVER American dissidents, why would that be eh?

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

I can comment on Americans as much as I like. In the modern age, we have something called Internet in which people from all over the world can converge and learn about each others. My opinion is based on all the Americans i've seen on the internet over the last 3 years ive been browsing forums as well as Americans i've met on my travels there.

Yes, you can comment all you like.  You can be wrong a lot too.

I have spent three weeks in Australia, and met dozens of Australians in internet forums over the years.  I also see and hear about Australia in the news and in the movies.  Do you think I have an accurate insight into the Australian psyche?    If I made sweeping generalizations about Australia, do you think they would be terribly well informed?

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

If there was a democratic election in the South, Ho Chi Mihn would've been voted in.

Conjecture.   How do you know?  There hadn't even been a democratic election in the North (...the Viet Minh simply took over their piece of the pie after the French left), and never has been, so that is speculation.  What basis do you have for that statement?

I'm assuming... why lie? If he was against the current government, which wasnt exactly popular with alot of the Southerners.

It's sorta like Bush.. Apparently alot of Americans voted for him because he was agaisnt Kerry.

_

It's easier to comment on Americans because they can be alot more outspoken than Australians and there is also a great number and variety of Americans on internet boards (much more than Aussies). Because alot of the world sseems to be interested in American politics you can also et a greater insight on American political beliefs.

Well, I haven't met too many Aussies who were worried about expressing their opinions...but that just goes to prove my point.  You can't make sweeping generalizations based on your perception and expect them to be accurate, unless your experience has some serious depth to it.  When talking about the US as it is right now, one must understand that it is a deeply divided country.  To make a statement that begins with the phrases, "Most Americans..." or "The average American..." is to start your argument on thin ice; because you can bet there are sizable minorities, or even whole regions, which do not fit the mold you present.

Re: South Vietnam - you may be right.  People may have voted for Ho Chi Minh simply because he wasn't the status quo; but that doesn't change the fact that the government of Ho was viscious and nasty.  Ask anyone who remembers what South Vietnam was like after the North took over in 1975.

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

You were there in combat??

Yes.

EstebanRey:

I lived in the UK for three years.  Please do not take any of what I am about to say the wrong way.  I REALLY like the UK; but with two exceptions, everything you said about the US can be said about the UK.  The two exceptions are: 1) Your news is more thorough than ours; and 2) Your soldiers tend to be better prepared for low intensity conflicts than ours.  The man in the street in the UK is no more well informed than in the US, and I wouldn't have to try very hard to find a "Rah Rah, Britain Kicks ass" clown spewing bullshit.  Every country has them, so don't paint the US as unique in that regard, please.

As far as History goes, the city I live in is coming up on it's 400th anniversary.  400 years ago Britain saw the end of the Tudor Era and the beginning of the Stewarts.  Please tell me how any of your history prior to that has any bearing whatsoever on what we are talking about now?  In fact, it is a completely irrelevant nonsequitur; it is a ragged attempt to draw attention away from the fact that your arguements, like those which preceded you, are based on your limited experience and not on any facts.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-01-04 07:02:00)

Holy shit, i don't know what's worse, the fact checking or spell checking. i can't read half of these posts.

I think that kid cwkatl should post some more. I liked seeing him make an ass of himself.

Anyways, I'm one of those horrible liberal commie America hating faggots (just don't call me a Democrat, because I'm not) because I'm not in favor of Bush or his policies. Yeah, WMD's weren't there. Yeah, Saddam and Osama aren't the greatest of friends, Yeah, Old Dick and Halliburton did stand to profit from that no bid contract. Not saying that it makes Saddam a candidate for a Nobel Peace Prize, but what we did was bullshit.

I don't think that world policing should be our or any other country's job. I'd feel differently if say the Iraqis were in open revolt and needed help, similar to the help the French gave us during the American Revolution, but this wasn't right.

Whoever wants to tell me to leave America, don't bother, I'm already thinking about it.

And to whoever it was who said they were over in the Gulf War killing sand fleas, fuck you. You're scum. To kill them in service to your country is one thing, but calling them sand fleas is bullshit. Those people have families too. That shit sickens me, and it's so prevalent here that it's no surprise that we're viewed so negatively. Fuck this jingoism.

]V[Stinks_at_this wrote:

I'm from the UK and live in the US and a good place it is too, but its true there is alot of Anti US feeling, I think it just people hating what they can't have themselves.
Can someone explain why AU,JP, and some (very few) euro server say that only there own country men are allowed to play on them, and they kick anyone from out side those countrys ?
Surely this is racist? the Contract we we signed says we won't do this so how come so many Ranked servers do?

Don't know if another individual has answered to this, as I cannot be bothered to read all current 8 pages of this sad topic.

Racist? No, my poor deluded friend, it is a lag and communication problem. Everytime an American/Aussie joins a UK/Euro server, it slows it down a little. So kicking those not from the same specific country as the server ensures less lag and better gameplay. Also, there is nothing so annoying as having some annoying french guy on a UK server speaking over the VOIP channel in French when he bloody well knows everyone else speaks English and can't understand a damn word he's saying. I, personally, play this game to, well, play the game. Not listen to a french bloke spout out flowery language (From personal experience, and because 100% of French people I have met in person have been arrogant twats, and I've been to Paris. Not saying all are, just the ones I have met and spoken with.)

On the actual topic of hating America...

I don't hate Americans. I can't. If I did, I would be a rather large hypocrite, would I not? Movies, music...over half of what I like in Entertainment is American. Plus, majority of Americans I've spoken to are nice people. I work in a pub and get a few tourists in, and the Americans are by far the nicest. Again, this is going by those Americans that I have met. So there is a hell of alot of America of which I cannot comment.

But...

What I do hate about America are the Politicians (IE. Bush). But then, I also hate my own countries Politicians. I dislike what the people in charge do. Like going to war for dumb-ass out-right lying reasons. If they'd have said "We're just gunna pop over there and grab us some Oil", that would have been fine, as they didn't lie. But they chose to lie because they are %^&*ing morons. Or Bush, who doesn't give a shit about anything: "Power plants giving off too much polution and destroying the atmosphere? Ok, let's increase the amount of toxic Mercury our Power Plants put into the sky then...."



EstebanRey:  Well said.

Last edited by -=Meshekal=- (2006-01-04 07:58:36)

whittsend wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Now, the US on the other hand has no such paragraph in the constitution and based on their specific
history ( having been quite successful in their military campaigns lately ) the view on war and the military among the general public is a lot more positive than here in germny. In some way, war is considered a valuable option when dealing with foreign problems.

I don't have time to address your whole (reasonable) post...so I will cut to the chase:

How do you, then, explain the fact that most of the population now (and a significant proportion, even before the war started) are opposed to our presence in Iraq?

well, I was talking about late american military operations in a historical sense, that is roughly during a timespan of around 50 years or so ( maybe since the end of WWII, as this global conflict cannot be compared to modern day regional conflicts ).

I was not refering to the iraq conflict specifically ( or to any specific conflict, for that matter ). Although support for the war in iraq is somehow fading, I believe most americans in general still do consider military actions a valuable option in such a scenario, mostly because the US has a history of doing that, ever since the Monroe doctrin.

This "gunslinger" mentality ( "I they won't listen to us, we'll go there and bomb their freakin' asses" ) has been a big part of US foreign policy since WWII.

btw, the military operations were a huge success in iraq, victory ( over the iraqi army ) was achieved quickly. It is merely the insurgency and a lack of planning for the time after the military victory that has put the US campaign in iraq under pressure, IMHO.

It is simlpy a question how one defines his security interests and what one is willing to do to protect them.
The US has an obvious history of defining the extent of their security interests loosely, basically saying that anything that happens on planet earth is a possible threat to US interests, be it 25 miles off the US coast in Cuba or 6,000 miles away from home in iraq.

To protect their interests, the US is even willing to ignore the UN. If the UN is on the same page, OK, US supports them. If it ain't, fuck Kofi Annan, they'll do it themselves.

It is that kind of "we know what's good for everbody else" mentality that has made some people angry.

yeah, I know, you are simply promoting democracy and defending freedom around the world. As much as I admire your determination, it is your methods I dare to question.

With all that said, the US are a superpower. They do what they do because they can. I just hope you pick your enemies carefully. Iraq ? Fine, you can handle them. Iran ? Syria ? possibly. North Corea ? China ?  I doubt it.

The nuclear energy issue with Iran will be the next proving point for Bush. Let's see how it plays out.

whittsend wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Now, the US on the other hand has no such paragraph in the constitution and based on their specific
history ( having been quite successful in their military campaigns lately ) the view on war and the military among the general public is a lot more positive than here in germny. In some way, war is considered a valuable option when dealing with foreign problems.

I don't have time to address your whole (reasonable) post...so I will cut to the chase:

How do you, then, explain the fact that most of the population now (and a significant proportion, even before the war started) are opposed to our presence in Iraq?

Let me ask you this... When ever in history has an occupying force, been welcomed to stay forever in a country?


Many Iraqis are glad we are there, and glad we did what we did, they just want to move on and get on with their lives. Of course they are opposed to our presence. Would you like the police to stay in your house for weeks/years after removing a burglar from the premises?

B.Schuss wrote:

To protect their interests, the US is even willing to ignore the UN. If the UN is on the same page, OK, US supports them. If it ain't, fuck Kofi Annan, they'll do it themselves.

What is wrong with disagreeing with the UN, it would be one thing if the countries that disagree had no vested interests in Iraq staying under Saddam, but pretty much all of the major players that disagreed with invading Iraq had vested interests in keeping Saddam in power. We didn't say fuck Kofi, we said fuck those other countries.
Quotes by Kofi:
    * "You can do a lot with diplomacy, but with diplomacy backed up by force you can get a lot more done." - February 24, 1998, regarding the use of force to gain compliance from Saddam Hussein

    * "Well, the issue of a standing UN army has been raised by many because, quite frankly, the way we operate today is like telling Ottawa that I know you need a fire station but we will build one when the fire breaks. We have no army. When the crisis breaks then we begin to put an army together. We go around to governments and begin asking for troops. The question with a standing UN army is that it raises issues of budget issues, legal issues, where do you place it, under what jurisdiction? And the big boys, big countries don't want it. The smaller countries are also nervous

Last edited by freebirdpat (2006-01-04 08:32:12)

Puerto Rico enjoys leeching the US governement money