You guys and your guns...

[Clinton Huxley]

If the US had gone isolationist in the 50s, you may well be speaking Russian now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_REFORGER

The US would never have let such a lucrative export market as W. Europe fall to the Reds....

Let? Let? Are you suggesting the US had the power to "save" W. Europe or to "let" W. Europe fall to the Soviets?

Huh -- that is odd given that Yerpeeins tell us all the time that Merka: (a) entered way late to the war long after any self-respecting nation would have been morally compelled to enter the fight, (b) hardly did any of the real fighting, which was pretty much over by then, and (c) it was pretty much won already and the US just came in to steal the glory - it was a guaranteed win by the time the US entered...

Admit it, Hux, Merka had nothing to do with saving W. Europe or its "lucrative export market..." It had already saved itself, and the Brits just let Merka come on over to help with mopping the senior citizen and Hitler Youth teenagers that were left fighting a last ditch effort to hold Fortress Europe, right?

Dear boy, you will no doubt be amazed to learn that I'm fully aware that Blighty could not have won WWII. America was indispensable and irreplaceable in that effort. Doesn't mean that the US did not act in its own self- interest in joining the war or occupying W. Europe afterwards. (note:other countries have also acted in their own self interest. Christ. This could get long-winded)

[Coito ergo sum]

I was wondering when the patented CES tactic for derailing any criticism of the US would be deployed. Generally speaking, the people in this thread with the most blasé attitude to the death of foreign civilians are the Americans in the thread, so don't whine if you get a bit of flak for it. Here's an idea, if you don't want to get shot by a child in country X, don't invade country X. I doubt the blighter will turn up on your doorstep.

That isn't the case at at all.

First of all, I didn't "derail criticism of the US" -- not a bit. You asked if a medal was given for drones - you didn't specify what country the drones were from, and the US is not the only country that uses drones. In your own mind, the US use of drones is, I have no doubt whatsoever, the only one deserving of criticism, though. In response to your question, I said that maybe RAF pilots got them from the Queen for their killings in Libya. How in the world is that a derail? Why is your question a fair one my answer not? And, why would we assume you were talking about the US and not Limey?

This thread is not about US killing of civilians in war. It's about guns and gun laws. The fact that you made some ridiculously idiotic statement about it being the kid's fault if he runs into a war zone doesn't mean that the thread is now about Americans murdering civilians (implying, of course, that that is some argument that Americans make...). You haven't now turned the thread into a discussion limited to US killing of civilians in war.

And, fuck off with your "we're just talking about the US" nonsense, anyway. The reality is that if an American raised criticism against the Brits, stating that they murder civilians and don't give a fuck about dead children, you and/or other Brits would bring up the fact that the US engages in war and also kills civilians -- and you and/or they would properly ask why the focus is being leveled on the Brits. Pointing out that criticism is being unfairly leveled against one group or nation is not a derail at all, it's very relevant.

It would be like someone saying "black people commit crime." Discuss. And, then someone points out "hey, wait, you do know that crime is not peculiar to the black community, and Caucasians, Indians, east Asians, Jews, Latinos and everyone else commit crimes too, right?" It would be ridiculous for the first person to say "stop derailing the thread -- this thread is about blacks committing crime." Focusing a problem on a particular group, when the problem is broader than that one group, skews the issue and makes it appear as if it is a problem peculiar to that group -- and that is true whether it is a nationality (American or British, etc.) or a race, or a religion or a sex.

And as for blase' attitudes toward death of civilians in this thread, you're inventing that shit in your own mind. That's just typical Yerpeein' smug self-righteousness, pure and simple. And, it's just plain insulting, not to mention false.

CES, you use exactly the same tactics whenever anyone has a dig at the US. it's as predictable as the sunrise.

When you asked your drone question -- whether medals were awarded to drones -- you did not specify a country.

Why would it be automatically assumed that you were talking about the US? Is it to be considered "taken as read" that whenever you bitch or whine about something, it involves the US?

Are all other countries off limits to criticism and joking in this regard?

Well, from now on, I'll just beat you to the punch on threads -- if the thread is about coconuts or bicycles or some other topic, I'll make some inane, ridiculous jab at the UK and how it sucks in some way -- then if anyone strays from discussing only how the UK sucks, I'll accuse them of derailing the thread.

[Clinton Huxley]

CES, you must do what you feel is right.

[SteveB]

The British know how to do war the proper way, unlike you Americans.

[Blind groper]

On the USA entering the war.
Bear in mind that WWII was actually two wars. Japan and Germany.

The country that did the most to stop the Germans was the USSR. The turning point was the Battle of Stalingrad, and Germany was essentially going backwards from then on. The contribution of the USA was vital, and no doubt shortened the war in Europe, but the odds are that it would have been won anyway, just taking longer and costing more.

The war against Japan was another matter. The USA was vital. Japan would not have been stopped without their input.

The USA has been in a number of wars, most unnecessary and which should not have happened. A few, like Korea and Kosovo are justifiable, on the grounds that they were agreed upon by international groups. Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a bunch of smaller conflicts should never have been begun. It is those conflicts that makes non Americans curl their lip about American militarism.

My own view is that the USA should restrain itself except when requested by the United Nations to provide military assistance to an international effort. But I bet few US citizens here will agree.

[JimC]

On the USA entering the war.
Bear in mind that WWII was actually two wars. Japan and Germany.

The country that did the most to stop the Germans was the USSR. The turning point was the Battle of Stalingrad, and Germany was essentially going backwards from then on. The contribution of the USA was vital, and no doubt shortened the war in Europe, but the odds are that it would have been won anyway, just taking longer and costing more.

The war against Japan was another matter. The USA was vital. Japan would not have been stopped without their input.

The USA has been in a number of wars, most unnecessary and which should not have happened. A few, like Korea and Kosovo are justifiable, on the grounds that they were agreed upon by international groups. Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a bunch of smaller conflicts should never have been begun. It is those conflicts that makes non Americans curl their lip about American militarism.

My own view is that the USA should restrain itself except when requested by the United Nations to provide military assistance to an international effort. But I bet few US citizens here will agree.

The first intervention against Afghanistan was totally justified, IMO, and there is also an international group involved. Also the first Gulf war...

However, the continuation in Afghanistan is another matter...

But all this military stuff is very much a de-rail of this thread, as CES pointed out (although military stuff had already been brought in by 'Zilla and others... )

The obvious requirement for military and law enforcement personal to be highly proficient in the use of firearms says absolutely nothing about the issue of their widespread presence in civilian hands...

[Gallstones]

MM, you will never understand.

I understand what death means. It's just as devastating for foreign people, as it is for New Yorkers.

I find an amazing double standard in most people. 911 was a terrible tragedy.
The invasion of Iraq was more like a ball game. Very little thought or concern given to the innocent people killed.

And nobody mentions all the people the vets have killed. Soldiers kill and get killed.
When they come home, people completely wipe the first bit from their minds, as if it just doesn't exist.

It's welcome home heroes, not welcome home killers.

Not the welcome the Viet Nam vets received.

[JimC]

MM, you will never understand.

I understand what death means. It's just as devastating for foreign people, as it is for New Yorkers.

I find an amazing double standard in most people. 911 was a terrible tragedy.
The invasion of Iraq was more like a ball game. Very little thought or concern given to the innocent people killed.

And nobody mentions all the people the vets have killed. Soldiers kill and get killed.
When they come home, people completely wipe the first bit from their minds, as if it just doesn't exist.

It's welcome home heroes, not welcome home killers.

Not the welcome the Viet Nam vets received.

The same was true in Oz, but I think it's not true (in both our countries) for more recent conflicts...

[Warren Dew]

The first intervention against Afghanistan was totally justified, IMO, and there is also an international group involved. Also the first Gulf war...

Agreed on Bush's first year or two in Afghanistan. We should have pulled out after that.

The Gulf War was a classic instance of the U.S. getting involved in things that weren't our business, an interventionist attitude that inevitably led to the inhuman sanctions of the 1990s and the Iraq War.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MM, you will never understand.

I understand what death means. It's just as devastating for foreign people, as it is for New Yorkers.

I find an amazing double standard in most people. 911 was a terrible tragedy.
The invasion of Iraq was more like a ball game. Very little thought or concern given to the innocent people killed.

And nobody mentions all the people the vets have killed. Soldiers kill and get killed.
When they come home, people completely wipe the first bit from their minds, as if it just doesn't exist.

It's welcome home heroes, not welcome home killers.

Not the welcome the Viet Nam vets received.

I spent no more than a month at a time in the US for the next fourteen years. (Not counting time in hospitals.)

[Warren Dew]

The same was true in Oz, but I think it's not true (in both our countries) for more recent conflicts...

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans aren't welcomed home as murderers, but they aren't being welcomed as heroes either.

[Warren Dew]

The country that did the most to stop the Germans was the USSR. The turning point was the Battle of Stalingrad, and Germany was essentially going backwards from then on. The contribution of the USA was vital, and no doubt shortened the war in Europe, but the odds are that it would have been won anyway, just taking longer and costing more.

The Soviets were getting huge amounts of U.S. lend lease aid well before Stalingrad.

[Blind groper]

The first intervention against Afghanistan was totally justified, IMO, and there is also an international group involved.

We are not going to agree on this one, Jim.

The wrong enemy was attacked. The Taliban are not a nice group for sure, but they were not really an enemy until the USA turned them into one. The enemy was Al Qaeda, and the military action in Afghanistan did not harm them. They just moved to safer places to operate from. The military action wiped out the Taliban government and killed a lot of innocent civilians, and barely touched the real enemy.

Of course, while all this was going on, the USA actually did the right thing, in setting up a truly effective action against Al Qaeda. That was the undercover operation. Putting agents into the field and into Al Qaeda itself. The information feed-back has permitted genuinely effective measures to be taken, such as the killing of bin laden. This operation is on-going and continues to be effective. How many measures have been taken on Al Qaeda plots before they happened, and stopping them? Quite a few, and there are probably some that we do not know about.

Not, the attack on Afghanistan should never have happened. The undercover operation was the way forward, and has proven effective. However, dirty politics got in the way. Bush had to be seen to be doing something, or the American people would not have re-elected him. So tens of thousands of people got to die to get him back into office.

[Jason]

Hey Jim, I want to apologise for my harsh response to you. I didn't even accurately read what you wrote at the time. My apologies.

[Warren Dew]

The wrong enemy was attacked. The Taliban are not a nice group for sure, but they were not really an enemy until the USA turned them into one. The enemy was Al Qaeda, and the military action in Afghanistan did not harm them. They just moved to safer places to operate from. The military action wiped out the Taliban government and killed a lot of innocent civilians, and barely touched the real enemy.

Al Qaeda core was completely disrupted by the initial attacks in Afghanistan. A few leaders temporarily escaped to Pakistan, but they had to go into hiding and were unable to take any further effective action against the U.S.

Al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula did absorb the support formerly given to Al Qaeda core, but it was never able to mount effective operations against the U.S.