The War lovers

[ChiangMai noon]

just read this article by John Pilger, a lot of what he says resonates true to me. i have known many people who go whoop whooop at the mention of war and attack and bombs and stuff.
Of course none of these people will ever have to put themselves in harms way and will always be watching from a safe distance, none more so than our beloved leaders, Bush, Blair and Howard.

I sometimes remember these almost endearing fools when I find myself faced with another kind of war lover - the kind that has not seen war and has often done everything possible not to see it. The passion of these war lovers is a phenomenon; it never dims, regardless of the distance from the object of their desire. Pick up the Sunday papers and there they are, egocentrics of little harsh experience, other than a Saturday in the shopping mall. Turn on the television and there they are again, night after night, intoning not so much their love of war as their sales pitch for it on behalf of the court to which they are assigned. "There?s no doubt," said Matt Frei, the BBC's man in America, "that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now to the Middle East ... is now increasingly tied up with military power."

For me, one of the more odious characteristics of Blair, and Bush, and their eager or gulled journalistic court, is the enthusiasm of sedentary, effete men (and women) for bloodshed they never see, bits of body they never have to retch over, stacked morgues they will never have to visit, searching for a loved one. Their role is to enforce parallel worlds of unspoken truth and public lies. That Milosevic was a minnow compared with industrial-scale killers such as Bush and Blair belongs to the former.

see the full article here.
http://www.johnpilger.com/print/133530

[ChiangMai noon]

Asked how many iraqi civilians had died since the invasion, george Bush said "30,000 more or less" A dreadful and racist remark proving that he couldn't care a shit about the iraqi people.
The war is nothing more than a game for these zealots.

would he say 3,000 more or less when referring to American deaths.
I doubt it, but anything is possible.

[stroller]

It's a lesson I'd like to think we learned in continental Europe, since it's been ravaged by wars for centuries until fairly recently.
Leaders are less likely to get away with propaganda and rhetoric about 'preventive strikes' after 20th century history.

Never again!

[Storekeeper]

CMN,

Simple question ... do you believe the military as a whole can be categoirzed as a bunch of "war mongerers" ? Do you believe that if a person supports a specific war, but not all, that the person is a "war mongerer" ?

[ChiangMai noon]

A simple answer, no I don't.
It's not so much the military i am referring to as the people with big interest, often anonymous business leaders or far less anonymous politicians and Government backed media that seem to be the most psyched.

[machangezi]

Nice to see you in Issues section CMN. Great thread.

Just check Butcher's history! It will reveal that he did eveything possible to avoid his deployment in Vietnam during the war. If he were that brave as some stupid focks think, he had participated with his heart and soul in Vietnam war.

[Storekeeper]

OK, my next question is why you feel compelled now to paint Bush as a racist" ... is it just frustration ?

[ChiangMai noon]

I don't feel compelled to do so, they were his words and i have interpreted them thus.

[Storekeeper]

Insensitive maybe ... but a racist ? Sorry, that's ridiculous.

[ChiangMai noon]

Give me some time and i shall clutch at some more brittle evidence.

[stroller]

It's about a racist remark.

The topic is about "war lovers", it fits that some count every casualty of their own but show little interest in innocents killed in a distant country.

[Butterfly]

good article. Very true. They are called Armchair heroes. We have a few of them on these boards. SK and his likes is probably a toilet paper boy in the Army and probably miss all the actions so they dream of it by proxy.

Bush is definitely racist, but he probably doesn't know himself or he is too stupid to know he really is. A typical WASP. And he lived in Texas and felt like a Texan when he lived there, the most racist state. Say no more.

[Storekeeper]

You really shouldn't troll a decent chat between two grown ups.

[Butterfly]

^ I said SK and his likes as an illustration. I really don't know what you do in the Army. You are probably sitting behind a desk doing nothing like the rest of your Faux News crowd.

[cantona]

just read this article by John Pilger

A great read - "Heroes" by Pilger - he tells of all the atrocities his reported on

[Storekeeper]

Fair and honest enough comment:

"Soldiers in the British army say they are often awed by the fighting spirit and capacity for hard work that characterizes American soldiers, but many also view American soldiers as being all too quick to shoot."

British soldiers stress ‘soft posture’ in Iraq
Training prepares troops for interactions with locals </B>

By Monte Morin, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Monday, May 22, 2006



Monte Morin / S&S
Maj. Gen. John Cooper, commander of British forces in southern Iraq, talks with an Iraqi police first lieutenant during a night patrol in Basra. Cooper chatted up local shop owners before stepping into the police station.


Monte Morin / S&S
A British Army soldier inspects a truckload of tomatoes at a traffic checkpoint in Basra recently.


Monte Morin / S&S
Maj. Gen. John Cooper, commander of British forces in southern Iraq, wears a wool tam-o’-shanter during a night patrol in Basra.


Monte Morin / S&S
Trooper Simon Piper, 20, of the Queen’s Royal Hussars, takes a firing position while on a night patrol in Basrah recently.


BASRA, Iraq — It was a scene rarely glimpsed in the U.S. Army — a two-star general walking foot patrol at night, in a dense, restive city, without a helmet.
Yet when the commander of British forces in Iraq visited Basra on the heels of two devastating attacks that claimed the lives of seven of his troops recently, not one soldier raised an eyebrow when Maj. Gen. John Cooper stepped from a tiny “Snatch” Land Rover, swapped his helmet for a wool tam-o’-shanter and trudged off to personally “smell the atmospherics” of this sprawling, trash-strewn city.
Unfazed by the shouts and taunts of teenage boys who roam the city’s streets and sometimes toss stones at soldiers, Cooper chatted up local shop owners before stepping into a local police station and holding audience with the station commander.
The scene was a vivid example of the British army’s famed “soft posture” approach to fighting a counterinsurgency, an approach that was developed during 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland and is a fundamental part of British military training. The approach is also one of a number of ways British troops in Iraq differ from U.S. forces, who have only recently undergone intensive training in peacekeeping tactics.
After dismounting from cramped Land Rovers or from Warrior fighting vehicles — slightly more comfortable versions of a Bradley fighting vehicle — patrol leaders take a reading on the local mood and, if they judge the situation safe enough, order troops to shuck their helmets and don berets or bush hats.
“We do it quite a lot. It looks better to the civilian population. It doesn’t look so aggressive,” said Trooper Simon Piper, 20, of Squadron A, The Queen’s Royal Hussars — a Sennelager, Germany-based cavalry unit under the command of the 20 Armoured Brigade.
While U.S. troop training has traditionally stressed conventional war fighting skills, British soldiers undergo intensive “peace enforcement” training, which stresses interactions with civilians.
At the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst — Britain’s West Point — officers spend a third of their training on such operations. The training involves an exercise known as Terra Firma, where students react to simulated riots and other civil disturbances. The extremely stressful exercise has been dubbed “Terror Backtermer” by students, because those who fail it must repeat the course.
“Some people lose it when they start throwing stones and petrol bombs,” said Capt. Steve Pengilly, 26, of the 1st Battalion, The Light Infantry, a Paderborn, Germany, based unit.
In some cases, the British army’s rules of engagement are more similar to the escalation of force policies used by U.S. police departments. Soldiers are also drilled like civilian police officers in “judgmental trainers” — video simulators that test a soldier’s response to scenarios such as drive-by shootings and other disturbances that may or may not warrant a lethal response.
The contrast in styles between the British military and the U.S. military has been the source of some small friction between the two forces. That was particularly the case two years ago when some British officers charged that the U.S. Army’s “kinetic” style of soldiering was alienating Iraqis.
Soldiers in the British army say they are often awed by the fighting spirit and capacity for hard work that characterizes American soldiers, but many also view American soldiers as being all too quick to shoot.
To be sure, the 8,000 British troops serving in Iraq are engaged in a very different conflict in the country’s south. While U.S. forces are battling Sunni insurgents, who have used car bombs to devastating effect, British forces are instead the focus of warring Shiite militias who have, so far, rarely used car bombs in attacks. The militias, though, have pioneered the use of a particularly deadly brand of roadside bomb — the explosively formed projectile, or EFP. Also, much of the conflict in the south has been confined to Basra, commanders say.
British soldiers who have helped to train American troops over the last two years say the U.S. Army has gradually changed its posture.
“American soldiers are very good war fighters,” said Sgt. Major Andrew Raw, 34, a British soldier who helped train U.S. soldiers at Fort Benning over the last two years. “Yet when I would use the term ‘hearts and minds,’ I would lose them. You might as well have come out and said you were gay. I had to think of a different term to use.”
For all the British army’s focus on civilian relations though, they are very different when it comes to handing out gifts like soccer balls, water and candy to local Iraqis, something that U.S. soldiers are very fond of doing. British soldiers do not hand out gifts, partly out of fear that Iraqi children may get injured by traffic as they chase after the gifts and each other.
There are areas though where British forces are taking pointers from U.S. troops.
For years, British troops have worn body armor that was tailored specifically for the threat of snipers on Northern Ireland. The vests sport small ballistic plates roughly the size of a paperback book on the front and back. Now, soldiers are starting to wear body armor with plates as large as in American vests.
And, while British troops were once told not to wear sunglasses, because they were seen as distancing soldiers from civilians, more and more of them are wearing ballistic glasses, like Americans.
“There has been a body of thought that criticizes the Americans for being over-kinetic and a body of thought that criticizes the British for our hearts and minds approach,” said Brig. John Everard, commander of the 20 Armoured Brigade. “What we’re seeing now is a situation where each is learning from the other. The divide is closing. When the thing is done and dusted I think we’ll see a new doctrine emerge.”

[Marmite the Dog]

"Soldiers in the British army say they are often awed by the fighting spirit and capacity for hard work that characterizes American soldiers, but many also view American soldiers as being all too quick to shoot."

I find the above quote to be a bit misleading, as I think it was only said to be diplomatic. I have three close friends who were in the British military (Royal Marine, SAS & Tank Regiment) who would struggle to say something as nice as that. The main comments tend to be that the US Army is over equipped, lacks discipline and never has any understanding of the situation/enemy.

But what would they know...?

[Butterfly]

^ The US army can't fight and that's a fact. That's why they always need some kind of coalition so others can cover-up their fuckup. Too bad that the numbers don't add up and that the fuckup are difficult to hide this time. Another reason why "allies" didn't want to join the coalition. Who needs ennemy with all those friendly fire from the Americans.

[Storekeeper]

I have three close friends who were in the British military (Royal Marine, SAS & Tank Regiment) who would struggle to say something as nice as that. The main comments tend to be that the US Army is over equipped, lacks discipline and never has any understanding of the situation/enemy.

All I can tell you is that I believe countries like the US, Japan, UK and AUS work very well together. All the groups have their strengths and weaknesses. We have programs where the services of all the countries I mentioned cross train and we send personnel to each others various military colleges. We have exchange programs where both officer and enlisted personnel work with their host country for 2-3 year assignments.

The world is a pretty big place Marmite and I would hope you wouldn't form an opinion based on just 3 people. The leaders in the senior positions of the military in the countries I mentioned are some of the best educated and trained people in the world.

[The Gent]

^ The US army can't fight and that's a fact. That's why they always need some kind of coalition so others can cover-up their fuckup. Too bad that the numbers don't add up and that the fuckup are difficult to hide this time. Another reason why "allies" didn't want to join the coalition. Who needs ennemy with all those friendly fire from the Americans.

What is this?
The Troller's Ball today?

[Marmite the Dog]

The world is a pretty big place Marmite and I would hope you wouldn't form an opinion based on just 3 people. The leaders in the senior positions of the military in the countries I mentioned are some of the best educated and trained people in the world.

My opinion, quite naturally, is going to be based upon the experiences of three people who have been there and know what they're talking about. The guy from the Royal Marines is probably the finest person I know and I would trust him if he told me that black is really white. The chap formerly in the SAS has some nice tales to tell, but needs to be coaxed a bit before giving his honest opinion of other nations' "expertise", and the tank guy used to quite enjoy telling me about how useless the US troops were on exercise in Germany.

I'm sure I would take your opinions on board too if we became friends in real life.

Where else would I get reliable information from? The internet?

[Storekeeper]

Hey Marmite ... Check out this snippet from the bio of my boss:

Captain #*%$ (#*@)* is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Cambridge University, England. He earned his commission through Officer Candidate School, Newport, R.I., in 1981

Think he learned anything over there at Cambridge ?

[NickA]

Maybe he was a good rower?

[Marmite the Dog]

Think he learned anything over there at Cambridge ?

Hopefully correct English, but it probably just confused him.

[RandomChances]

^ The US army can't fight and that's a fact. That's why they always need some kind of coalition so others can cover-up their fuckup. Too bad that the numbers don't add up and that the fuckup are difficult to hide this time. Another reason why "allies" didn't want to join the coalition. Who needs ennemy with all those friendly fire from the Americans.

What is this?
The Troller's Ball today?

I'm pretty sure that in the first Iraqi war Americans were responsible for more British casulties than the Iraqis were.