# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Afghanistan

## Shwing

If you are wondering and debating why 4 Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan last week, I suggest the following reminder:

www.politicsandprotest.org

Forewarned: its a 7 meg mpg.

----------


## Tim Hunter

Haven't looked at the suggested download.

I thought it was because the american pilot had mistaken them for hostiles. I understand he was a reservist and there has been some question about whether it is appropriate for essentially civilian pilots to be involved in combat situations.

Mind you the British lost more troops to American friendly fire than to Iraqi fire in the Gulf war, so it's not exactly a huge surprise that this has occurred.

----------


## Shwing

Considering the size of the American armed services, I am suprised that a National Guard pilot is in a combat area, especially considering that he was attached to a unit that was supposed to be in Qatar...

Here in Canada, it has become a national tragedy.  I guess that is what happens when the political powers that be haven't sent troops to 'war' in two generations.

That said, there is a profound sense of grief across the country, but especially here in the soldier's home base.  CFB Edmonton is only about 7 km up the road.

----------


## Tim Hunter

It's a tragic irony that the first Canadian troops lost in a combat suituation since the Korean war were killed by friendly fire!

I suppose here in the UK we're more used to the death of our soldiers and policemen and civilians! in the hopefully resolving struggle in Northern Ireland.

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello gentlemen,

Regardless of the circumstances in the deaths and not wanting to play "tit for tat" I will say that it is a great tragedy when any lives are lost. Those that step up to the plate to fight for what is right are heros, everyone (IMO)

The sad part is that war is war and lives will be lost regardless of where the fire comes from and in the caos unfortunately innocent lives can and will be lost. This, however, does not deminish the cause for which these men and women fight because they fight for us all.

Friendly fire and Civil war are two of the most profound oxymorons in the English language. Fire is fire and war is war. If in the event that those firing or those getting hit are in the wrong place at the wrong time, death is eminant and can be unfortunate and very tragic for all involved. There in lies the problem; what's done is done and you can't take it back no matter how hard we or anyone else wishes we could. War is an ugly thing but it is necessary for the safety and protection of the majority. 

Innocent people will die which is a fact of war. No matter how fail safe one thinks a plan might be there are always variables that cannot be foreseen at which point chance takes its turn and chance plays no favorites. I grieve for the people that were lost and those that will be. I worry about the safety of all those involved and hope that they return safely to their loved ones, but some will not be it by "friendly" or "enemy" fire. All anyone can do is pray and hope for the best. These are my feelings toward all of this and whether anyone shares them or not is up to the individual.

Tender mercies aside for a moment, we need to destroy a faction of culture in order to reach the goal which is peace. The culture that teaches and breeds hatred out of shear envy and calls it a "righteous cause" both here and abroad. The best way to do something like that is both harsh and devistating. One has to levy grave consequences that even the majority will have to suffer until the majority decides enough is enough and turns its efforts in on those causing their grief. Self policing so to speak. If you fear for your own life because of the actions of your neighbor you and others in your neighborhood will deal with that neighbor and take care of the problem one way or another sos to eliminate the threat to you or your friends and family. It's called "tough love" and it too is sometimes necessary, difficult in some cases, but necessary nonetheless.

My condolences to all those who have lost loved ones and countrymen. They are all heros.

Darris "Patriotism and concern doesn't stop at the waters edge" C.

----------


## Steve Machol

> *Shwing said:* 
> Considering the size of the American armed services, I am suprised that a National Guard pilot is in a combat area, especially considering that he was attached to a unit that was supposed to be in Qatar...


This is something I've never understood myself.  The same thing happened is Bosnia and the Gulf War - the U.S. called up the National Guard and put them in the Wwr zone.  It seems that whenever there is any hostile action, the National Guard is called.  And as you say, given the size of the U.S. Armed Forces, it's difficult to see why this is necessary.  Even if it is, then why don't they send regular forces to the war zones and have the Guard look over the home front? 

My condolences go out to all Canadians for this horrible tragedy. 
 :cry:

----------


## Tim Hunter

Loss of life is part of a conflict situation, however there are always rules and procedures that make it a war and not genocide or a massacre and lessons to be learned. 

Comments on friendly fire incidents is appropriate in order to emphasise that these are casulaties that we should not be having. It is not an implicit criticism of the conflict in general.

I would hope that we manage to learn lessons from all the mistakes we make in the conflict in Afghanistan and no more human beings die than are necessary.

Just because the other guy doesn't follow the rules doesn't mean you don't have to.

----------


## ioconnell

What is your view of military personal opening fire and killing innocent civilians, today and in the past?

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello Tim,

"Just because the other guy doesn't follow the rules doesn't mean you don't have to."

I certainly hope I didn't come across sounding like that. If I did I apologize.

"Just to clarify: "Fire is fire and war is war. If in the event that those firing or those getting hit are in the wrong place at the wrong time, death is eminant and can be unfortunate and very tragic for all involved." Not meaning breaking the rules, but incidents will happen where the timing is wrong, plans were not followed by all involved as they were suppose to and thus injury and death occur. Unfortunately things like this can happen especially when under pressure from fear of getting shot or dieing come into play.

I'm not making light of any of this so please don't feel that I am and I'm not placing blame nor taking it away from anyone. It's tragic but it has happened and will happen again I have no doubt because of the volitile circumstances involved. 

As to Genocide I was referring to those that perpetuate the ideologies of hatred for others and deem it a cause for their survival and well being not an entire race. i.e Afghanis. Not all Afghanis share this view and they themselves live under, and have for centuries, the fear of being targetted by those that teach these things. It is a culture and it is unfounded and dangerous to all involved including those inacting these teachings and terrorism. They can and will die right along with anyone else.

Again please forgive me if I came across as wanting to destroy an entire race. That's not what I was saying which is why I used the the term "culture" and not "race."

Anyway, take care,

Darris C.

----------


## 10 Pence Short

With the technology available to modern armed forces I find the idea of friendly fire a bitter pill to swallow. It does seem the USA is a specialist on this subject . 

You can go on about 'the innocent will die' and 'war is war' all you like, but that won't cover up the fact that your own troops are killing their allies as well as ther foes and not for the first time. No excuses. What compensation will the widows of the Canadian soldiers get from the US Government?

I O Connell, try watching the film Rules Of Engagement to give you an idea of how fine a line their could be between 'innocent' civilians and a threat to life. 

If you are referring to specific incidents in Ireland then I honestly believe the public will never get a fair slice of the facts to judge who was right and wrong, if there is such a thing.

----------


## Steve Machol

> *10 Pence Short said:* 
>  It does seem the USA is a specialist on this subject .


The U.S, fights more wars with more soldiers and armaments than any other country.  The laws of average dictate that they will commit most of the errors.  Nonetheless I have to say that I still don't understand why we continue to put National Guardsmen in combat situations.  These troops are just not as trained and prepared as regular troops.




> ..but that won't cover up the fact that your own troops are killing their allies as well as ther foes and not for the first time.


In all fairness (and incompetence) we seem to be killing a lot of our own troops as well.  I think there have been three US soldiers killed by 'friendly fire' in Afghanistan.  And if I remember correctly, more US troops were killed by friendly fire that were killed by Iraq in the Gulf War.




> What compensation will the widows of the Canadian soldiers get from the US Government?


I would expect the U.S. government to do the right thing.  Has anyone heard otherwise?

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello 10 Pence,

You always seem to be a sour grape, but that's okay because I don't expect anything more from you. I do wonder how many soldiers have been killed by friendly fire not from American soldiers? I wonder if a British soldier has accidently shot and killed one of his allies? But I'm sure that's never happened in the history of battles??? 

In war innocent people will die, sorry to burst your bubble on that one 10 because even a halfwit would know that. Is it an "excuse"? Nope. It's a fact; not unlike putting a croud of people in the middle of a bunch of speeding cars. Someone is going to get hurt and someone is going to die because judgements are being made individually as well as collectively and the two don't always mix and that too is a fact. A fact of war or a fact of life.

"With the technology available to modern armed forces I find the idea of friendly fire a bitter pill to swallow. It does seem the USA is a specialist on this subject ."

It would also seem that Britian is a specialist at doing very little (just to be fair ;) In the last 200 years how far has your country come? What kind of strides have you made? 

You also pointed out to Ioconnell the "fine line" between innocent civilian and enemy. When you don't know where the attack will come from or whom it will be made by sometimes assumptions have to be made. Vietnam was a good example of that. You had school children delivering bombs both knowingly and unknowingly into places where American soldiers were. So who could you trust and who did you suspect? You trusted no one and suspected everyone.

War isn't two lines of armed soldiers marching in tandem, one kneeling while the other stands in wait to engage the opposing force on the otherside of the battle field in open combat. War is caotic and unpredictable otherwise you're a sitting duck.

To get back to what I believe Shwing was trying to say before it was made into a "American soldiers kill everyone without conscience." is that the reason, regardles of how they died or by whos hand, they were there in the first place was to fight for what's right and to rid the world of this evil. We should not forget that and we Americans won't forget that. But if you, on the otherhand, forget that I won't be surprised.

But for now take care and please try to remember that despite our occasional and very rare incompetence in a war we still showed up, stood up and took the initiative. 

Darris C.

----------


## ioconnell

> *10 Pence Short said:* 
> 
> I O Connell, try watching the film Rules Of Engagement to give you an idea of how fine a line their could be between 'innocent' civilians and a threat to life. 
> 
> If you are referring to specific incidents in Ireland then I honestly believe the public will never get a fair slice of the facts to judge who was right and wrong, if there is such a thing.


Incidents in Ireland are part of it, we have had two Bloody Sundays.

I know that was happened in the past has happened and that is it. But now there are inquests into what really occoured during these dreadfull days.

The first Bloody Sunday was November 21 1920 during the war of independence, Michael Collins orderd the assasination of 6 British MILLITARY agents. Later that day British Auxilleries entered Croke Park and claiming that they had heard shots opened fire on the crowd killing twelve and wounding 60. One of those killed that was a player known as Michael Hogan. Now the famous stand is named after him. 2 more civilians were killed at Dublin castle that evening.

Bloody Sunday 2 was on January 30 1972, This was in Derry in the North. The Civil Rights association staged a peaceful march against internment. The British military opened fire killing 13. This unfortunately provoked widespread anger and many young people at that time whose friends had been killed joined the I.R.A. I am not blaiming the brits it is just the best example i can think of.The Armristar Massacare was a similar incident in India. So was the Boston Massacre when I think about it.
I would appreciate feedback:cheers:

----------


## Darris Chambless

Heya Dude,

Great information and history. It would appear that even the British kill the innocent as well as their allies then. Hmmm. "No excuses" as it was posed to me earlier :)

It's kind of ironic when you think about the historical feeling between the British and the Irish. It is my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the British of days past felt that the Irish were more a plague than a people. Then one has to wonder if it wasn't a case, in 1920 and 1972, of that same British mindset for the Irish that escalated the incident. I've seen at least a few instances where a couple of "gentlemen" have taken shots at the Irish and sometimes at your expense, not to mention what was being said seemed to hold true to what I believe to be the age old mindset of the British toward the Irish. I thought it was all in the past but I guess not. That's sad.

I'm sorry that so many get stigmatized by the small minded but maybe one day our differences can be set aside and the adult in us all will come to the forefront and we can all work together regardless of our faults.

Ioconnell,

My hat is off to you. You are a wealth of knowledge and wise beyond your years. You will do well where ever life takes you. I, on the otherhand, will continue to scuffle with those that are falsely righteous :) 

Take care,

Darris C.

----------


## 10 Pence Short

I O Connell,

Being from the UK I am fully aware of the history behind the Irish struggle. Like I said, we will never know who is telling the truth or not because neither side will ever concede ground, and, if the UK troops are at fault then it will be 50 years or so before the papers confirming this can be released.

Darris,

The incidents in Ireland and Amritsar were not and are not situations similar to friendly fire in a coalition based combat. The situations in Ireland in particular involved tangeable terrorist threats hiding amongst admitedly innocent civilians. Troops on the ground were put in a situation where alledgedly they were taking fire from hostiles using a civilian backdrop for cover. They were supposedly left with no choice but to defend themselves as they saw fit.

Cases of friendly fire on the modern battlefield, where forces supposed to be allies are killed and wounded, can only be errors of technical ability and mediocre communication. I very much doubt US forces are alone in making such mistakes, but also to be fair it does seem they have commited mistakes in the last two major conflicts they have engaged in, much to the media's delight.

Darris, do not get me wrong- I believe the US should be congratulated in being so positive trying to clean the world of some long overdue trash, but with all this momentum and energy they can ill afford to make mistakes in who they are 'cleansing'. Us Europeans have relied on you guys before, for which many are grateful. 

I don't want to think that by offering critism of friendly fire by US forces that small minded individuals think I am trying to offend your nation- I am not. After all, those in glass houses should not throw stones...

On a final note, Darris, I am dismayed that you make assumptions on my character and on my opinions of the Irish. Your tone is one of patronisiation when it does not need to be. I do not dislike any nation en mass, why should I? Perhaps you might try to understand the notion of free speech and balanced opinion. By all means disagree with me, you're welcome to, but do not tar me with a brush simply because I have the cheek to be English. We do not all have butlers, sip tea all day and watch cricket, you know (well, not all of us anyway).

----------


## ioconnell

Yes we both may have our opinions and I intend and hope to be alive in 50 or so years time to know the truth. I asked an open Question in the first place.

You Brits would want to thank your lucky stars that you had us independent in the past .

During WW2 Hitler had organised Operation Green, a plan to invade Ireland and use it as a base to launch a scathing attack on Britain. Aware of the dangers of such an attack the Dáil (Irish Government) censored all Newspapers, banned weather forecast's and blacked out nearly every friggin singpost in the country (not if there were much good back then as you would get the odd bold pup of a young fella who would turn them around)

If a German soldier landed on Irish soil he was immediatly imprisioned. If an Allied troop landed any where on Irish he "somehow" managed to cross the border into the North.

On the subject of Facisim, What do you think of that Le Penn character in France who won the first round of elections. It just takes one nutcase to send the world into turmoil again (look at that fruitcake Bin Laden). I hope that them days are gone.

----------


## hcjilson

Ian,(friend Shwing) The unfortunate loss of the Canadians who were fighting the war on terrorisms is lamented here as well.I think the blame should properly be placed at the feet of Usama Bin Lauden, rather than the pilot who got his signals crossed.The pilot had better things to do than be there too, and I am positive his life will never be the same either.Show me the man who never made a mistake and I'll show you the man who never did anything. Either you take a stand here and now, or you don't.The United States took a stand...as did the UK and Canada and Pakistan, and, and, and and...
This is the high cost of war.No one said people weren't going to die.Unfortunately its the cost of doing "business" as it were.

Ian and 10 Pence- this week, April 24th, marked the 86th anniversary of the Easter Monday rising in Dublin.We have the papers in from that one.I was going to mark the anniversary in Just Conversation, but thought better of it.After 86 years, its time to get over it.There was an incredible loss of innocents during that week as well.For further information I would send you here:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/kirwilli/1916/


My country has taken a stand against terrorism in any form.I support that. Our allies support that.We mourn the lives lost as a result of us taking that stand as well as the lives lost making that stand necessary.Thats just the way it is.

hj

----------


## Johns

Tim:

"Civilian pilots ?"  There is no such thing as a civilian pilot  on a combat mission.  All the pilots are active duty.  Some might be attatched to reservist, National Guard, or other "non traditional" units, but if they are flying combat, they are active duty.  Being a reservist does not diminish their flying skills, or their combat abilities.  They train and fly side-by-side.  

Steve

Reservists are usually the first to get called up.  Stateside bases and regular active duty troops have traditionally had supportive roles, and defended the homeland.  Not always, but usually.

----------


## Steve Machol

> *Johns said:* 
> Reservists are usually the first to get called up.  Stateside bases and regular active duty troops have traditionally had supportive roles, and defended the homeland.  Not always, but usually.


Yeah, I know that.  But WHY is it done this way?  It would make much more sense to put the better trained personnel into combat roles.  And I have to think that regular forces are better trained and more equipped for that role than 'Weekend Warriors'.

----------


## Johns

Steve,

That is what they are trained for.    They train specifically for a particular task, and they train hard.  Also, if I were injured on the battlefield, I'd much rather have a reservist doctor that works at a big city hospital take care of me, than an army dr. that has been doling out immunizations all year (no offense to millitary docs).  I think that the reservists bring a lot of skill to the millitary

Someone has to be there to run the day-in and day out operation of the millitary, and it would stand to reason that the guys that live it everyday could do it best.  

I'm not sure why it is set up like that, but the reservist system acts like a draft, but the "draftees" are volunteer and are already trained when they get called up.

I was active duty Air Force for 5 years, and Air Natl Guard for 2 yrs.  I never considered that I'd see action until I joined the Guard.

----------


## Tim Hunter

> *Darris Chambless said:* 
> It would also seem that Britian is a specialist at doing very little (just to be fair ;) In the last 200 years how far has your country come? What kind of strides have you made?


Darris dangerous ground my son can think of one or two examples:
Freed the slaves before the USA
Held off the Germans in two World Wars two years before the US came in
Gave Independance to our colonies last Century
Created the Commonwealth
Falklands conflict
Had a female Prime Minister, US hasn't even had a female Vice president (unless you count Mrs Clinton!)
Watson and Crick DNA
Some rather good books/films/etc.
"Harry Potter" 

On the down side, we're still batting as though we are a major World power instead of a once World power.

The World is still sorting out the mess we made from some of our colonies
India/Pakistan may not have been a briliant move
Palistine/Israel  ???
Northern Ireland !!!

I'm not going to comment on the Irish situation it's a sore point with most Brits and most Irish, none of us are very reasonable/objective about it and hopefully we're staggering towards a solution in the next few decades.

----------


## Steve Machol

And don't forget, the U.K. gave us Monthy Python and the Bonzo Dog Band which I will be forever grateful.  Heck, I'll even forgive them for Benny Hill! ;)

----------


## Tim Hunter

> *Steve Machol said:* 
> And don't forget, the U.K. gave us Monthy Python and the Bonzo Dog Band which I will be forever grateful.  Heck, I'll even forgive them for Benny Hill! ;)


You may be able to forgive and forget Benny Hill but I never will aaargh!!!!

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello again 10 Pence,

"Darris, 

The incidents in Ireland and Amritsar were not and are not situations similar to friendly fire in a coalition based combat. The situations in Ireland in particular involved tangeable terrorist threats hiding amongst admitedly innocent civilians. Troops on the ground were put in a situation where alledgedly they were taking fire from hostiles using a civilian backdrop for cover. They were supposedly left with no choice but to defend themselves as they saw fit."

Evidently not according to the Irish, but like you said it will be 50 years before that information is ever "allowed" to be published.

"Cases of friendly fire on the modern battlefield, where forces supposed to be allies are killed and wounded, can only be errors of technical ability and mediocre communication."

And don't forget poor judgement. Also, to harp on the subject, it is not exclusively American forces that do these things they're just the only ones you hear about because the liberal press loves things like that. 

"I very much doubt US forces are alone in making such mistakes, but also to be fair it does seem they have commited mistakes in the last two major conflicts they have engaged in, much to the media's delight."

Actually you should't "very much doubt" US forces are alone in making these mistakes, you should know they aren't alone in making them. That is my point sir. 

Just to reflect a bit let's revisit your original post shall we?

"With the technology available to modern armed forces I find the idea of friendly fire a bitter pill to swallow. It does seem the USA is a specialist on this subject . 

You can go on about 'the innocent will die' and 'war is war' all you like, but that won't cover up the fact that your own troops are killing their allies as well as ther foes and not for the first time. No excuses. What compensation will the widows of the Canadian soldiers get from the US Government?"

Sure sounds like you're saying "Those daft Americans! Can't do anything right. When it comes to battle they should step aside and let those that know what they're doing take over." It sure has a bit of an arrogance to it to me. Or am I just seeing things? Not to mention technology is still in it's infancy regardless of how advanced anyone thinks it is. Problems can and do arise and again I will say that even a halfwit would know that. (keep in mind I'm not calling you a "halfwit" I'm making the point that common sense will tell you without a doubt that these things happen otherwise a support team of technicians would not be necessary.) This in and of itself makes your statements completely unfounded.

"On a final note, Darris, I am dismayed that you make assumptions on my character and on my opinions of the Irish."

I didn't. Go back and read my post. I said the British "historically" had a dislike for the Irish. I never singled you out. The only thing remotely close to saying anything of the sort was my statement to Ioconnell about how he has taken fire for being Irish from some of the British gentlemen on this board which is a true statement. If you're not sure what I'm talking about perhaps you should do a little search and see if I'm right. There were several instances where I was tempted to jump in but then didn't because Ioconnell has proven many times that he can take care of himself and does a very good job of it. I believe there were references made to the Irish being "thick" being "drunkards" and so on so on so forth. Does any of that sound familiar because it sure does to me?

"Perhaps you might try to understand the notion of free speech and balanced opinion."

Perhaps I should be telling you the same. I didn't take the first potshot, I just returned fire. ;)

"By all means disagree with me, you're welcome to, but do not tar me with a brush simply because I have the cheek to be English."

I do disagree with you and have been, but not for the reasons you seem to want to expound on. I'm not tarring you because you're English, I'm tarring you because you're playing a nationwide blame game when common sense dictates that we are not the only "friendly fire" that has occurred and resulted in injury and death, but like you said the media has a hay day with anything we do during a war especially our own media. Everyone elses tends to get pushed out of sight and out of mind.

"We do not all have butlers, sip tea all day and watch cricket, you know (well, not all of us anyway)." 

Yup. You see, common sense dictates (to me anyway) that with a 72% tax burden given your country by its elected officials that it would be virtually impossible for more than about 1% (the elected official class and Monarchy) to be able to afford butlers, sip tea all day and watch Crickett. So once again by using little more than common sense I've proven that it has little to do with your English background. Your arguements are very thin so you might want to work on them a little bit more next time.

For the record I'm not mad at you or Tim for that matter but I will throw down and defend what can be. The citizens of the USA really make very little distinction between ourselves, the British, the Irish, Scottish and so on so forth. It would appear however, that the British do make the distinctions and I'm not sure why that is. Maybe you could shed a little light on that for those of us that may not know.

"I don't want to think that by offering critism of friendly fire by US forces that small minded individuals think I am trying to offend your nation- I am not. After all, those in glass houses should not throw stones... 

Don't forget the large minded like myself ;) And once again you've made my point with the glass houses remark. None of us are infoulable so don't point fingers lest ye want them pointed back at ones own person. I got on here to apologize to Shwing and his fallen countrymen. I'm not sure exactly what your intentions were since your words seemed so ill placed, but perhaps it was just a misunderstanding on my part....Nope, I've reread your posting and I think I read it correctly the first time :)

And finally to Tim,

"Darris dangerous ground my son can think of one or two examples: 
Freed the slaves before the USA 
Held off the Germans in two World Wars two years before the US came in 
Gave Independance to our colonies last Century 
Created the Commonwealth 
Falklands conflict 
Had a female Prime Minister, US hasn't even had a female Vice president (unless you count Mrs Clinton!) 
Watson and Crick DNA 
Some rather good books/films/etc. 
"Harry Potter" 

The USA is but 200 years old and we're a world super power. The accomplishemnts you've stated are a pretty small pitence comparitively speaking. Not putting those accomplishemnts down in anyway, but my point was just that, to show where the differences fall in that manner of speaking from a country as young as we are.

BTW no one counts Mrs. Clinton :)

Darris "Stepping up to the plate for the US team" C.

PS. I have no quaums with the British,infact I love the British. I just can't stand finger pointing especially after we've already taken responsibility for our actions when so few will do the same.

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Darris,

Why is it when, having read criticism of a specific act by your country, you feel compelled to assume those posting such comments are offering general comment on the abilities of your nation as a whole?

I am pleased that you feel so strongly towards your nation, particularly one so young, but calling the efforts of our nation 'small pittence' does nothing but offer insult. Is it not a wonder, at the size of our nation, that we should even be considered a 'superpower'?

If you spent as much time re-reading your own comments as you do mine, you would soon see that I have avoided bringing insults, historical stereotypical nonsense and an abundence of sarcasm into the conversation. Something which you unfortunately have not. Am I so wrong in assuming incompetence in the actions of the armed forces involved in friendly fire. If you have read my comments clearly, you will see that I do claim the US have a history of doing so, but at no point do I suggest they are the only ones. 

Has the red mist that descends over your eyes affected your ability to read clearly?

My original post was not saying "daft Americans etc etc". Were you bullied as a child? I was merely pointing out that ANY modern fighting force should be able to distinguish it's own forces fro those of the enemy. In recent history the US military has gained a reputation as the biggest offender. Rightly or wrongly that is how things are percieved this side of the pond.

If you feel offended by my previous comments than I can only offer my sympathy because they were meant as comment on a military incident and not looking for the fight you so clearly wish to have, honourable though your patriotism is.

I would offer to provide comparisons between our nations over the last 500 years, however as you so pleasingly tell us your country's history only extends 200 years back. Have you forgotten that your land offered home to it's own inhabitants for many thousands of years before 'your' history began?

Like I have said in the past, those in glass houses should not throw stones.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

First, Steve- Johns is correct.  Even though Reservists are by definition "part-time" soldiers, there are several areas (including some fighter/bomber duties) where the best trained personnel are actually reservists.

Geesh!  Too bad this thread couldn't have gone more like this.

*Shwing:* "Terrible thing, those Canadians getting killed by the American fighter pilot, ay?"
*10Pence:* "Yes, bloody awful.  It does rather seem like this sort of "friendly fire" thing has become dreadfully common with the Yanks lately, however."
*Darris:* "Well now, pardner, I think we have to admit that everyone makes mistakes from time to time.  I am offended by the tone of your remarks, but all the same its a terrible tragedy!"
*10Pence:* "Oh, you're quite right, chap.  Its just such a regretable incident."
*Shwing:* "Yes, that was my original point."

Ah well, anyway... given what has been said, I have to pretty much agree with Steve's point.  Namely, America has shouldered the vast majority of the burden in most of the recent conflicts.  Without discounting the valuable assets put into play by our allies (the Brits and Canadians each have equipment and specialists that out-match our own in some areas), by and large it would perhaps be easier and less confusing if we _didn't_ have the other nationalities on the field...

Concerning national atrocities, it is amazing how similar our countries are (the UK and USA, that is- Canada never seems to be a bother to anybody). We were _both_ inhuman in our treatment of the American Indians (the US cruelties are well known, but the Brits also did some nasty stuff- they actually commited the first incident of biological warfare when they knowingly sent blankets infected with smallpox amongst the Indians to kill them off through disease).  We've both baited other countries into war for our own advancement (heck, the US took over most of what is now Texas by harassing Mexico into war).

After our involvement in Vietnam (and the Viet Cong), I think Americans have a heightened awareness of how "civilians" can be combatants.  As for non-combatants, there were scores of thousands of German civilians killed during WWII when we fire-bombed cities like Dresden, was that simply "an acceptable price for victory?"  I do realize that the Germans "started it" with their V-1 and V-2 attacks on London, but there were many times more German civilians killed than any other country in WWII suffered, even as the war was winding down.

Its not news that the Brits have been unkind neighbors to the Irish and Scots (yes, Scots are British, but I'm not sure that's entirely by choice).  As I've pointed out, we haven't been best of friends to Mexicans.  In fact, we Americans continue to insert ourselves into the affairs of foreign governments when they don't behave in a manner keeping with our own best interest- we do so under the "Monroe Doctrine" in our own hemisphere and under the battle cry of the day- today's being terrorism- in the other).

We expect our allies, however, to _refrain_ acting in their best interests... after all, its perfectly fine for us to dismantle the Taliban because they harbored terrorists who crashed four planes, but heaven forbid we condone the Israelis when they go after the "quasi-government" that sends suicide bombers into their country on a weekly basis.

Rubbish, all of it!  Come now!  We are all blackened with the soot of our own national interests.  Yes, as an American I _do_ take offense when someone gets jollies pointing at our military's blunders (especially someone from a land that _is_ only marginally involved, and even at that only so that their PM Blair can score brownie points of some sort or other).  Nevertheless, it is valid criticism and we do everyone an injustice (especially the dead Canadians- remember them???) when we turn the entire dispute into a "my country is better than your country" debate!

Phew!  That is my addition to this ongoing thread of rantings.  My observations are no better than the next and are offered with the same patriotic blindness as the next fellas.  Shwing, I'm sorry your countrymen were killed.  It was obviously an accident, and here's to hoping future such incidents can be avoided!

As for the French... well, we probably wouldn't have been successful in gaining independence if it weren't for French funding (which bankrupted their own monarchy and led to their own civil disturbances).  Perhaps they've never really forgiven us for that!  They've been pretty useless ever since (here we go again).
 :Cool:

----------


## Shwing

Yall are so cute.  

The purpose to the post was for people to view the mpeg and reflect on why we (the allies) are doing what we are doing.  It is quite the show.  Must be viewed with sound on.  The reason for posting it at all is as follows:

There was some discussion around, to the effect that this blue-on-blue episode reinforces the fact that we shouldnt be over there, fighting for something that no one understands, or for an American policy.  Our boys are dying for no apparent reason.  This is an American thing.  We are peacekeepers not warriors and other drivel like this.

The fact of the matter is that it didnt matter whether they attacked New York or Edmonton, or Edinburgh.  It was an attack directed against those who value freedom, democracy and liberty.  To preserve said freedom, democracy and liberty, one must be prepared to defend such ideals.

If it is not worth dying for, then it is not worth preserving (one more reason for conscription).  If you dont want to defend the country, bloody well live somewhere else. I may not agree with your views, but I will defend to the death your right to express them or words to that effect.

Anyway, Someone asked why send in the rookie troops first.   Answer: Cannon fodder.  What surprises me, is they are STILL there.  The idea is to send your expendable assets in while the core of your forces spin up.  Thus, youd send in the 'dispoable' reserves while the reg. force prepares.  

A subset to this is the auxiliary forces.  An example is the Canadian Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard.  If a naval war were to break out (well use the old Soviet Union in this example) the Coast Guard and the Canadian Navy were to join together and set sail on the high seas, and draw out the Soviet navy.  The idea was to cause a diversion from the main fleets, and possibly draw the enemy to this shadow force, while the main fleet awaited to counterattack.  Thus, it was commonly acknowledged that the Coast Guard and RCN were, in a sense, cannon fodder.

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Pete,

You're right in rising above what has become a silly squabble.

Trust me, I do not take any delight in condeming friendly fire- I have nothing but respect for the stance of the US in defending their country. My point was, and is that friendly fire has been too common. It doesn't matter who is responsible, the facts still remain.

I hardly see the relevence in bringing up events from hundreds of years ago to try and justify your points. Nobody is perfect, I accept that, but why take criticism so badly? It must be a sore point?

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello once again Mr 10 Pence,

Perhaps it's a comunication gap between us or something. Or perhaps I've failed to make things clear although I'm not sure how that could have happened. I believe that it is you who are getting up in arms about this because I'm talking in terms of historical significance which anyone can get access to and common sense, not attacks on you personally or Britain.

I believe that your last posting to me is a perfect example of how one reacts when they are losing a debate. If you can't defend your position then start calling your opponent a "poopy head" and attempt to make them look like the agressor :)

Look, with all that aside as it were, let me go back and redefine in simpler terms what I'm saying and what I believe you've said. If I'm in error please let me know.

Your first post says this: 

"With the technology available to modern armed forces I find the idea of friendly fire a bitter pill to swallow. It does seem the USA is a specialist on this subject . 

You can go on about 'the innocent will die' and 'war is war' all you like, but that won't cover up the fact that your own troops are killing their allies as well as ther foes and not for the first time. No excuses. What compensation will the widows of the Canadian soldiers get from the US Government?'

I don't see anywhere in there where you've mentioned anyone but the US as being the perpetrators of this act. Did I miss it?

"Why is it when, having read criticism of a specific act by your country, you feel compelled to assume those posting such comments are offering general comment on the abilities of your nation as a whole?"

Ummm, Because that's what you said. This part in particular.

"With the technology available to modern armed forces I find the idea of friendly fire a bitter pill to swallow. It does seem the USA is a specialist on this subject ."

Correct me if I'm wrong. Let me know if you were not the one that wrote that because your name is on it.

"I am pleased that you feel so strongly towards your nation, particularly one so young, but calling the efforts of our nation 'small pittence' does nothing but offer insult. Is it not a wonder, at the size of our nation, that we should even be considered a 'superpower'?"

Okay. I went back and reread my posting and it said:

"The USA is but 200 years old and we're a world super power. The accomplishemnts you've stated are a pretty small pitence comparitively speaking. Not putting those accomplishemnts down in anyway, but my point was just that, to show where the differences fall in that manner of speaking from a country as young as we are."

In comparison it's true. Sorry but it is. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "pittence" and switched to "small potatos." In any event it is a comparison based on what a country as young as the US has accomplished collectively in 200 years over and above a kingdom that has been around for centuries. Comparisons and nothing more. Not an insult.

"If you spent as much time re-reading your own comments as you do mine, you would soon see that I have avoided bringing insults, historical stereotypical nonsense and an abundence of sarcasm into the conversation. Something which you unfortunately have not. Am I so wrong in assuming incompetence in the actions of the armed forces involved in friendly fire. If you have read my comments clearly, you will see that I do claim the US have a history of doing so, but at no point do I suggest they are the only ones."

To the last sentence especially (because I am sarcastic in certain circumstances, admitedly, so I didn't realize it would come as a surprise to anyone. Too mine is a reaction to an action. I did not fire the first shot) but nowhere do you bring up anyone other than the US as perpetrating this scenario until after I posted to you. Even then you make no mention of anyone else other than the US and say that you're almost certain (not certain) that others have done such things. I believe I even made mention of that in another posting to you. 

As to assuming incompitence in the actions of the armed forces involved in friendly fire...there is an old saying about "assuming" that if your not familiar with let me know and I'll enlighten you. Since you and I don't not know all of the circumstances we can't judge it "incompitence" until we know the whole story (therein lies your assumption without the rest of the story). It may have been, but you again seem to make it more of a blanket statement based on your other postings that if it was an American pilot it had to be incompitence wouldn't you say? Especially since the USA are specialists on the subject? If I'm in error let me know, please.

"Has the red mist that descends over your eyes affected your ability to read clearly?"

Is that what that was? I was wondering :)

"Were you bullied as a child?"

Not that I recall but thanks for asking.

"I was merely pointing out that ANY modern fighting force should be able to distinguish it's own forces fro those of the enemy. In recent history the US military has gained a reputation as the biggest offender. Rightly or wrongly that is how things are percieved this side of the pond."

Well, some things that you're not taking into consideration: How many wars have you been in? How many planes have you flown? How many computers or how many times has your own computer crashed or gone haywire? How many times has your phoneline gone on the fritz? How many times have you lost your electricity or cable or water or etc...As to your perception of the recent history as Steve said we bring in the majority of the troops and equipment so statisitically we will make the majority of the mistakes. It's a given. Also since the press has a hayday with "millitary hate mongers like the US" (our press as well) it is always done up big time when we screw up because people like to be able to think "See there? The USA isn't perfect or as great as they think they are." We don't go into these things for the sole purpose of being declared great or perfect, but rather to win and accomplish the goal. 

"I would offer to provide comparisons between our nations over the last 500 years, however as you so pleasingly tell us your country's history only extends 200 years back. Have you forgotten that your land offered home to it's own inhabitants for many thousands of years before 'your' history began?"

Again that's my point but the communication gap thing is causing some problem. The USA is ONLY (emphasis) 200 years old and yet in that time it has grown exponentially over and above any other country in just about every way. This is going to sound insulting but again it is based on comparison so take it with a grain of salt. The UK has lost more ground than it's gained, comparitively speaking, over the same amount of time. Correct me if I'm wrong here but, when talking about granting independence to the colonies last century, Britain no longer had the financial resources, man power, military or governing ability to maintain these colonies. From what I understand independence was granted to the colonies so that they didn't take Britain into financial ruin economically although Britains economy is rather lacking at present and has been for a while now.

One last thing to remember is that you fired across my bow first not vise versa. Mine is a reaction to an action. I am not mad at you nor do I dislike you, but I wanted it known for the record that there are reaosns why these things happen, that they will happen again and that we're notthe only ones although it definitely plays out that way in the media and evidently here on the board to some.

Take care,

Darris "I didn't draw first blood." C.

----------


## Steve Machol

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> First, Steve- Johns is correct.  Even though Reservists are by definition "part-time" soldiers, there are several areas (including some fighter/bomber duties) where the best trained personnel are actually reservists.


Thanks Pete.  I'm sure this is the case, but it's still hard to fanthom why we have to send so many National Guard troops out virtually every time there is military action.  I admit I don't understand how the system works and perhaps that's the problem.  Maybe someone in the Government should take the time to explain it.

And Darris, I'm sorry to say that I don't agree with your characterization that 10 Pence et al are 'losing the debate'.  In fact even as an American I interpreted your words as insulting and unnecessarily argumentative.  Sorry big guy, but that's the way I saw it.

I also wholeheardly agree with Schwing.  Reflection on how and why we are doing the things we are is a good thing.  No one and no country is perfect.  We should look at this tradegy as an opportunity to understand why these things happen and look for ways to minimize it from happening again.  While Darris is right to say that there always has been and probably always will be 'friendly fire' casualties, it wrong to just accept this outcome and not strive to change the situation for the better.

----------


## Tim Hunter

> *Darris Chambless said:* 
> For the record I'm not mad at you or Tim for that matter but I will throw down and defend what can be. The citizens of the USA really make very little distinction between ourselves, the British, the Irish, Scottish and so on so forth. It would appear however, that the British do make the distinctions and I'm not sure why that is. Maybe you could shed a little light on that for those of us that may not know.
> 
> The USA is but 200 years old and we're a world super power. The accomplishemnts you've stated are a pretty small pitence comparitively speaking. Not putting those accomplishemnts down in anyway, but my point was just that, to show where the differences fall in that manner of speaking from a country as young as we are.


Darris I suspect that's because most Americans couldn't find America on a world map, never mind understand the subtleties of the ties that bind England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the differences that seperate us. Sorry that sounded much more insulting than I intended but I merely reflect on a recent survey of American high school students who literally couldn't find America on a map of the world. 

By the way on a pedantic note any member of the "United Kingdom" is British, so if you're Scottish you're also British (although the Scots might have something to say about that!).

I think America and Britain share many things including loosely a common language, but America is a young country and we're a very old one. Our History is full of the battles and treaties that it took to tie our "United Kingdom" together, so although we recognise our "forced" unity sometimes we also acknowledge the different cultural heritage of our component parts. We are reminded that the UK was bound together by force and yet the Countries of the United Kingdom still have a unique identity.

We've been around a long time and I think we sometimes regard the Americans as brash youngsters on the World stage. I'm sure you know that the British Empire "owned" two thirds of the World at one point, including your fair country (I'm sure you knew that bit!). We were  the only Major world power as America is now, as Rome was once, as such we feel able to comment on what it is to be a World power and to know that as Keats said "things fall apart, the centre cannot hold".

The point of this rambling is America has a lot to be proud of, it is the only World power and as such it bears a huge burden (maybe greater than any world power has). We (the British) made lots of mistakes in our time as a world power, did some terrible things and are paying the penalties still in some cases. We feel able to comment on American events because we have been there, done that, bought the pie. We might not be right to feel that but we do. Doesn't mean America takes much notice but hey that's what being a world power is all about!  

No problem with pride in your country, I'm proud of mine, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, be anything else, but I'm not blinded by that and I know this place could be a better place and that it's not perfect. I think we sometimes mistake American pride for arrogance and that makes us get on our high horse.

 :Rolleyes:

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Everybody,

My apology for the tit-for-tat tooing and froing that has infiltrated this thread.

I feel my original point was a fair one, I havn't heard anyone BUT Darris take offence at what are mere observations on my part, not stated as fact.

Darris, I didn't mention any other perpetrators of friendly fire because I was talking about the US, not any other country. I have on several occasions conceded that although the US has been rather guilty of late (accepting they have the lion's share of the action so the chance of mistakes is greater),they are certainly not the only guilty ones. For you to bring up events from 10s and even hundreds of years ago is not relevent in this day and age and stinks of the clutching of many straws.

If I was to 'fire across your bow', Darris, you would certainly know about it- but I have no reason to do so. Unfortunately you have taken offence at a comment that was not meant to offend you. If I felt that I had been over inflammatory I would certainly have apologised not only to you but to all the members of this board. 

Finally, (at last I'm going to pause for breath soon), the US and the UK share a close relationship both at government level and as individual peoples. While I am proud of my nation I see no point in 'my dad's harder than your dad' arguments because picking your nose with an explosive laden JCB would be more constructive. I have no problem with the US as a nation, and I see no reason why they should have a problem with me.

Now it's my round, what you all drinking?

----------


## Shwing

Oh brother.

How this degenerated into name-calling and jingo-istic country bashing, I dont know, but give it a rest.  This is still my thread, and I am telling you to cool your jets, gentlemen.

The point to the thread, is to raise the awareness of WHY we are doing what we are doing, not how we are doing it.  NOWHERE does my thread state that anyone is to blame.

War is not a business for the meek or mild.  War is about death, period.  When you join the military, you are trained to kill or be killed.  Once you get your head around that simple concept, youll be that much farther ahead than the general populous.  

I started this thread to point out that it is a tragedy that these men were killed in the manner they were.  Fact is, death happens.  Would it have been any less tragic if they were Americans?  What if they were killed by a mine??  One of the points is, that these were the first Canadian casualties in combat in 50 years.

My beef is with the apologists who condemn the action over there, and the successive Canadian governments who prefer Canada to be viewed as this little corner of Eden, where no bad occurs, and yes, well be world leaders, in Peacekeeping, by jove!  Canadians are so adorable, they are so nice.  Who cares!  

The bad guys are warming in the bullpen. Time to get off the bench, step up to the plate, and get ready to start swinging, cause the ball is headed our way, and if we dont at least take a swing, then what is the point of playing at all, and let's just forfeit the game, concede our ideals, norms and values and revert back to the anarchy of the 15 & 16th centuries. 

Those are my thoughts, not yours.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

By the way on a pedantic note any member of the "United Kingdom" is British, so if you're Scottish you're also British (although the Scots might have something to say about that!).
That was my point... seems like 3/4 of the UK is "reluctantly" part of the kingdom (which is another similarity between our countries, since 1/3 of my own land would just as soon been their own seperate country as well).  From my conversations with Scots, Irish, etc., it seems they don't mind being called "British," but try calling them "English" and the hair on the back of their neck starts to rise (which makes sense, since they _aren't_ English)!

In defence of our school children, most can find America on a map- its Canada and Mexico they can't locate...
:(

As I was driving home last evening, it struck me as odd that we have been talking about events that happened centuries ago as if "we" had anything to do with them.  Heck, my ancestors were still in Ireland when America won independence!  I suppose it just comes down to national pride and patriotism.  None of us fly the planes, pound the sand, or make the policies that resulted in the events we have been discussing- which makes us all "arm-chair quarterbacks" (or whatever the equivalent Brit phrase is for someone who sits on the sidelines and makes enlightened if ignorant commentary on things they may or may not understand).

Oddly enough, a Canadian started all this.  After all, Canada is an independent country with British monarchs on their currency and a government that is pretty much run by America!  Perhaps _Canada_ is our "common bond."
 :Cool:

----------


## Tim Hunter

> *Pete Hanlin said:* None of us fly the planes, pound the sand, or make the policies that resulted in the events we have been discussing- which makes us all "arm-chair quarterbacks" (or whatever the equivalent Brit phrase is for someone who sits on the sidelines and makes enlightened if ignorant commentary on things they may or may not understand).


Arm-chair warriors probably in this case Pete!

Fine bit of subtle putting the boot in there!

Sorry if I've got all excitable. Will shut up now!


:(

----------


## Shwing

When you think about, Canada could be the common denominator for the Modern Western world.  British and French roots (the country is offically bilingual, the Queen is still the offical head of state) but so heavily influenced by the Americans, with large diverse ethnic groups.

I say let Canada take over the U.S. and run the world!! 

P.S. BTW Pete, it's "eh" not "ay"

----------


## Darris Chambless

Well, well...

Mr. Shwing I apologize for getting up in arms over the slight made by 10 Pence. It is your string and I knew what you were talking about and reitterated that a couple of times I just got a little bit overzealous I guess. My patriotism got in the way, but you know me, it's all or nothing.

10 Pence, I'm still not convinced that your posting was just a comment and not an insult, but I will apologize for my words to you. They were harsh and insulting for that I'm sorry.

Tim...no problems there but sorry if I offended you in any way.

Steve,

"In fact even as an American I interpreted your words as insulting and unnecessarily argumentative. Sorry big guy, but that's the way I saw it."

Glad to see you picked up on that since I was being insulting after having been insulted. If you saw it that way then I did it correctly ;) As far as unnecessarily argumentative I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

Anyway, you all take care

Darris C.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

:D

Let Canada rule the world, *ay*?  Since my hockey skills aren't top notch, I'll have to veto that suggestion!  As I mentioned at Vision Expo, however, if Quebec ever makes good on their promise to pull out of the country, I'd be happy to add the rest of the Provinces as states (how typically condescending of me, that's an American for you, though).

Anyway, here's an official invite to all of you to come to Florida for a few pints of the adult beverage of your choice (we can work on Shwing's tan here in the "Sunshine State").  I understand there's a lot of skill involved with pulling the perfect pint of Guiness (something about a frothy head).
:D
Now... let's whip the remnants of the Taliban, then turn our focus to cleaning out the IRA, and finish up by taking care of the middle eastern problems (Arafat, Hussein, and the whole lot)!  In the process, let's see if we can avoid killing anymore of our own side!

As a token of friendship, maybe Shwing can send us all a couple .999 Maple Leafs!
;)

----------


## chip anderson

Some information agencies speak as though there were some difference between the Alquida and the Taliban.  I have not been able to find a soul that knows what this difference is.  Can you enlighten me?

Chip

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello Chip,

The Alqueda is a regime and the Taliban was the governing body of Afghanistan. The Taliban was harboring the Alqueda regime and running interference for them. Both went hand in hand so to speak but the Alqueda didn't rule, they are only hired assassins and fanatics (but then so was the Taliban)

But that is the technical difference. The Taliban was the governing body of freaks and the Alqueda were the warring band of freaks aided and abetted by the Taliban freaks. In a nutshell :)

Take care,

Darris C.

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Darris,

No need to apologise to me, we both said what we thought at the time and in the end we were both honourably defending ourselves in the face of what seemed injustified insult.

I reiterate that I was not trying to insult your nation or your armed forces- just offer opinion on the facts the press provide us. I'm afraid my attitude at times is very uncompromising to say the least, however I'm the kind of guy to burst out in fits of laughter before I lose my temper!

For the record I enjoy nothing more than arguing the toss, especially when I'm right (tongue in cheek!).

From my understanding, Al Queda are an international terrorist organisation  with a heavy training presence in Afghanistan, but not exclusively in that country. It's leader is known to be OBL (that would be the elusive cave dwelling beard-freak). The Taliban were the ruling force in Afghanistan who were not necessarily in league with Al Queda but certainly turned a blind eye to their presence in their country.

I don't think you should confuse the Taliban and Al Queda as the same thing, although they both seem to have disappeared faster than the Argentinians bank reserves...

The biggest question is where (and who) next. According to the statements issued from The Whitehouse after 9-11 governments and countries harbouring terrorists would be targeted. Now where does that leave the UK and the IRA? Time to get my hard hat out...

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello 10 Pence,

No need to worry I tend not to burst out in laughter first but rather put on my alter ego and reak havok ;) In all honesty and as I've said I and most Americans don't differentiate ourselves from the British, Irish so on so forth because our roots are all intertwined so I may have blanketed my statements and for that I'm sorry.

Anyway, I'm sorry it turned out the way it did.

Take care,

Darris C.

PS. Perhaps I should work on my mannerisms and tact :)

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Hey, Darris,

Like I said, it's all good fun in the end- I don't take offence very easily. It seems we have very similar personalities, and I'd like to think that we have actually gained each other's respect and perhaps friendship through our 'exchanges'.

It's always worth understanding that two people can disagree on an opinion and still remain friends. I have always spoken my mind and respected others for doing so also.

If we disagree on a point, that's fair enough- I think Optiboarders must have got entertainment from our conversations.

Trust me, I have not been upset and I look forward to speaking ( or 'debating') with you very soon.

Cheers,

10 Pence.

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hey 10,

Likewise, I'm sure :) I said in a couple of posts I'm not mad at you or anyone else for that matter. I've disagreed with many on the board even from way back and no harm done.

Take care 10 Pence. Maybe we'll meet in person one day.

Darris "Sure missing the old board lately" C.

----------


## Shwing

No harm done???!!

Youre being WAYYY too insincere.  I seem to remember you sending a certain E. Martin into conniptions on more than one occasion...

----------


## 10 Pence Short

I may be being stoopid here, but Shwing, what are conniptions?

----------


## Shwing

Merriam- Webster's On-line dictionary:

Main Entry: con·nip·tion 
Pronunciation: k&-'nip-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1833
: a fit of rage, hysteria, or alarm <went into conniptions>

----------


## Darris Chambless

Now Shwing,

My reputation precedes me in some cases but lets not forget about some e-mails sent to me by one Mr. Shwing when the board would start getting a little slow. Remember any of the requests? ;) So don't play the innocent young man :)

Yup I did send E-Martin into conniptions but for good reason. He was basically stalking Judy and I felt something needed to be done. His anger needed a victim so I took the heat off her and took her place so to speak. It was necessary.

I can also recall a couple of scraps you got into with a couple of people over contact lens issues and Costco as well. Ah yes. Those were the days :)

10 Pence,

As Shwing so eloquently put it, I use to be very blunt and blatant about everything in years past. Nowadays it's so PC that it gives me a rash, but I've restructured my volitile persona on the board to be somewhat more acceptable. The funny part about it is I believe those people that I've argued with have all ended up becoming good friends and I don't play favorites which is what I think confounds some people on the board. Some beleieve that if you've agreed with them in the past that you will always agree with them even when they're wrong. I don't do that but it doesn't mean I don't like them anymore, it just means my opinion or information is different than what they're espousing.

If you ever wanted to see a good "battle string" you should have seen the one between an OD that practiced "behavioral Optometry" by the screen name of "Bo" and Me. That one got real ugly and there were several on the board that joined in on that one and went after him. Back then we had more OD's that would come on the board just to belittle Opticians especially when refracting came up in conversations. Nowdays they show up and offer information and lots less critisism and it works out much better.

Anyway, now that I've destroyed everyones perception of Mr. Shwing ;) I'll be off to tend to other things.

Take care,

Darris C.

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Darris,

If sarcasm was an Olympic sport I would represent Great Britain. If the government paid me a penny for every person I unintentionally insulted, I'd be giving Bill Gates a good kicking in the worldwide rich list. If I had a pair of boxing gloves I'd just be giving Bill gates a good kicking anyway.

I think it's great that people can speak first then think later- isn't that why the apology was invented? Sarcasm isn't the lowest form of wit, it's the funniest.

From time to time we all come up against people who say things we don't agree with. How we deal with this decides what kind of people we are. I get a biger kick out of 'debating' things with people than keeping me gob shut and being the silent majority.

Please, Darris, feel fee to shout out at me any time, I'll only respect you for it. Hey, who knows, we might end up being on the same side one day... :p

----------


## Steve Machol

I think Darris and 10 Pence ought to square off in a sarcasm contest.  Fifteen rounds and no holds barred!  What do you say folks! :D

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Hey, Steve,

We could always gang up on you? British sarcasm is very concentrated- it would probably melt US sarcasm on skin contact.

We are useful because people that post nonsense get the verbal bashing they deserve, ready or not.

----------


## Night Train

Five surgeons are taking a coffee break...
1st surgeon: "Accountaints are the best to operate on because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."
2nd surgeon: "Nah, librarians are the best. Everything inside them is in alphabetical order."
3rd surgeon: "Try electricians! Everything inside THEM is color coded."
4th surgeon: "I prefer lawyers. They're heartless, spineless, gutless and their heads and their butts are interchangeable."
5th surgeon who has been quitely listening to the conversation: "I like British car restorers... they always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end."



Q: Know why the British don't make computers?
A: They couldn't figure out how to make them leak oil!

----------


## Steve Machol

> *10 Pence Short said:* 
> Hey, Steve,
> 
> We could always gang up on you?


You could, but then my Minions would pummel you to death with that well-known American tool of rhetoric - the baseball bat! :D

As for British sarcasm, I'm a big fan of it.  There are so many examples of it that I'm sure it must be taught in your schools.  I'll bet you were an 'A' student, right?  

One of my favorite examples of British sarcasm was John Gielgud's performance in the movie Arthur (which interestingly enough was his real first name.)  But then again, John Wayne could have easily pummeled him!  ;)

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Steve,

That performance shows British humour at it's best. At least we're useful for something!

Actually, there's no need for Darris and me to have a 'face off', because I think we both get on OK now, but I have had an offer from NBC for the TV rights to the sarcasm match... But $100m dollars is far too low, eh Darris?

----------


## harry a saake

:D hey Darris , that also seems to remind me of the famous tripp hatch case here on the board, btw anyone heard from tripp

----------


## 10 Pence Short

Night Train,

As far as I am aware, our BRITISH Honda factory in Swindon is the first Honda plant in the world to export Hondas back to Japan.

Mind you, I remember when the Honda Legend was top of the US JD Power survey, while at the same time the Rover 800 (essentially the same car, but assembled and badged by Rover in the UK) was at the bottom in the UK when it was essentially the same car!!

Britain is now recogised as a leader in car manufacture these days, though.

Nissan's UK factory is officially the most efficient in Europe, BMW is developing it's range of 4 cylinder Valvetronic Petrol engines in Oxfordshire in the UK, the aforementioned Honda is exporting from the UK back to Japan, Peugeot is expanding it's UK workforce by 700, Ford uses Dagenham as a centre of excellence for manufacture and developement of it's diesel engines, Toyota has, as far as I am aware, it's largest European factory in Derbyshire in the UK. If you're looking for motor racing expertise then the UK is where you should be. All without any parts left or leaking oil!!

----------


## Darris Chambless

Well 10 Pence,

I would have to say that $100m would be a bit of an insult to the two of us. :)

As to Steve wanting us to face off, I don't think his delicate sensativities would allow it to go very far ;)

harry, I had forgotten about ole tripp, but I've forgotten about so many because there were so many. 

As to the automobile subject I had two (count them two!) Triumph TR-6's. Granted they always had lots of problems and were a constant drain on free time because of repair necessity, but when they run they will fly. One of them was a 1973 and I have gone from 0 to 100 faster than in any car I've ever driven. Because of the low center of gravity and the gearing I didn't even spin the tires. Locked up and shot out of the hole like coming out of a sling shot. I will say that the gauges and eletrical systems blew chunchs ;) But other than that they were fun cars to drive.

Ya'll have fun,

Darris C.

----------


## 10 Pence Short

If you want to try some 'good old' British engineering, try anything made between 1965 - 1990, as they always built to a special manufacturing process named Creative Rapid Automobile Processing (C.R.A.P).

Only one manufacturer still uses this system now, Land Rover. So if you want to get nostalgic about blown gaskets and a dashboard with more flashing lights than a one-armed-bandit, get a Range Rover.

I am intrigued about something, though- in Europe I'm afraid to say (perhaps with the exception of the Corvette C6) we have a very low opinion of American designed cars, for various reasons. Do Americans really prefer European and Japanese cars ahead of their own (if they can afford it) and why?

----------


## Tim Hunter

> *10 Pence Short said:* 
> I am intrigued about something, though- in Europe I'm afraid to say (perhaps with the exception of the Corvette C6) we have a very low opinion of American designed cars, for various reasons.


It's the Petrol (Gas) consumption mostly, can't afford to run them.

Plus... you can't get the parts tsk, tsk...

----------

