Is America a greedy country?

[angel_mage]

I've decided to respectfully start this topic based off of the "Giant Earthquake hits Japan" thread.

 

Poster Kekek brought forth a lot of peoples attention with this link: http://www.upload.ee/image/1187821/129991845633.jpg and I was wondering everyone's opinion on it. Sure America is greedy and it's always been labeled greedy, but has it reached a new extreme? Is is too late to turn back to the country we once were?

 

I remember when I was little people would hold doors open for one another, drivers weren't as aggressive and neither were people. As another poster pointed out, America is becoming very self-involved.

 

Share your experiences and opinions even if you're from another country.

 

Edit: This topic doesn't specifically have to be about the earthquake or the link, that was just an example.

[Nadril]

Every country is greedy. As always too the vocal minority trumps the normal majority. Just because the worst 3% of the country thinks like this doesn't mean its what the majority thinks.

 

I mean you don't see a collage of pictures for people hoping those in japan are ok, do you?

[angel_mage]

America is no more greedy than any other country. Every country has its fair share of idiots, and America doesn't have significantly more or less than anywhere else. The problem is that idiots in America have internet access and are vocal about their stupid opinions.

You bring up a very good point.

[Giordano]

That picture is nothing about greed but of nationalism, ignorance, and no respect.

 

Greed, as in the excessive use of material posession, is present in America, true. It is present in every human being. Greed is natural and I would say greed is good.

 

Plus keep in mind, everything SEEMS better when you're younger. There were disrespectful people back then and there always is.

[Sy_Accursed]

America does have its very own subculture of idiots though.

 

Most other places you get the religious nutjobs and a few thickos

America you get people who are jsut sort of average joes yet still have these bafflingly stupid ideas (which help add to the whole "americans r fat n stupid" thing)

Plus in America there's more instances of whole communities and church groups that lean heavily into the religious nut job camp.

 

Aside from the heartless tone of these posts I love the sheer level of stupidity exhibited.

"Karma for Pearl Harbour" you mean the attack that was avenged by nuking Japan TWICE and killing far more than died at Pearl Harbour; yeah Karma in that little thing would be tsnumaining America more so than Japan.

 

I think the highlights of the collection however go to

"Marty Mann" for his wonderful history knowledge about how Japan started world war two with pearl harbour

and "Jack Simmering" for the wonderful historic accuracy of Japan nuking Pearl Harbour

[hounddog]

To an extent America is but what country ain't. But America ain't that greedy we help other countrys in time of need, think back to hati. But when Katrina hit the America NO other country sent help.

[Sy_Accursed]

But when Katrina hit the America NO other country sent help.

[cabbage], that's completely untrue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#International_response

 

Lol talk about helping the case of American's not being stupid.

Yes the world did send funds to help when Katrina hit, they sent a hell of a lot as rocco's link covered nicely.

 

If you didn't know that your either really ignorant of world news or you only watch the dodgy american news channels that dole out the lovely cover ups and twisted truths.

Like the ones that (going bk a few years now) reported how an American helicoptor was shot down in iraq killing the soliders on board; and neglected the part where it was another American helicopter shot it down by accident when they weren't even fighting.

Or like how it didn't make it over to state side how in the first year of the iraw war like 1/3 or more of British soldier deaths and injuries were the result of American's idiots shooting the wrong people.

[angel_mage]

I also think that the greed and selfishness of the politicians and unions is what got America into our financial situation and is increasingly making things worse. Although not fit to be a politician, Donald Trump's idea of cutting off China from their exports to get rid of our debt to them or at least reduce it is a good idea. There are plenty of good ways to stimulate the economy, but it takes money to make money and politicians aren't willing to shed a dime.

[Sy_Accursed]

[cabbage] like what hounddog posted is part of the reason why I don't plan on living in america after college.

 

also sy-accursed there's friendly fire in every war / battle, it's very difficult to prevent. nothing to do with america being stupid.

 

America is renowned for shooting is allies and its own troops because despite having vastly more numbers than most other armies the training quality is absolutely useless compared to other countries.

In this day and age there's no reason for so much friendly fire, most of which happened outside of battle situations.

 

It can be attributed to trigger-happiness which derives from stupidity.

And the choice to go for quantity over quality in troops, which is again quite stupid.

[Marco]

In terms of greed, no. I don't think American citizens are any more greedy than the citizens any other developed nation but, as Pasta Cheif [sic] said, when talking about the comments in that picture, this isn't a question of greed, it's about ignorance, stupidity and (worst of all) nationalism. In relation to the last one I would have to say that yes, from my experiences with Americans they are, as far as I'm concerned the most nationalistic and proud citizens I've found.

 

What I find worrying though, is that in a few recent-ish (late 90's, early 00's) studies that I went through while doing my Sociology A-level a few years back, is that these surveys which indicate a uncomfortable level of patriotism also show that many Americans don't see any problem with having such a blind love for a country. Blind, unquestioning love for your country (and the things representing it [be it a monarch, a flag, constitution, building etc]) is the kind of attitude that leads to ignorance of others at best, and stupid, pointless wars at worst. To me, nationalism is a very dangerous thing, and governments who want to use their citizens for something.. underhand.. would do well to instil that false sense of belonging and love in all their citizens.

 

I find it funny how one minute Americans will be making fun of countries with a (powerless) monarchy still in place (eg Britain), and the next minute they'll be in floods of tears due to the pride of having their flag waving in the wind as a backdrop to their national anthem being sung at every opportunity they get.

 

Honestly, patriotism is a serious problem. While the stupidly proud comments regarding Pearl Harbour may have only been voiced by a minuscule proportion of the American public, I think that scary sense of nationalism can be found in a much higher percentage of the country..

 

So, Americans;

Greed level = normal

Patriotism level = whoop whoop *warning warning*

[Sy_Accursed]

[cabbage] like what hounddog posted is part of the reason why I don't plan on living in america after college.

 

also sy-accursed there's friendly fire in every war / battle, it's very difficult to prevent. nothing to do with america being stupid.

 

America is renowned for shooting is allies and its own troops because despite having vastly more numbers than most other armies the training quality is absolutely useless compared to other countries.

In this day and age there's no reason for so much friendly fire, most of which happened outside of battle situations.

 

It can be attributed to trigger-happiness which derives from stupidity.

And the choice to go for quantity over quality in troops, which is again quite stupid.

Cite your sources that show that American troops are more prone to friendly fire. Right now you sound like a fool.

 

The numerous news articles from Iraq and Afghanistan where Americans shot their allies and each other, compared to the fact Britain didn't.

It crops up in WW2 and WW1 literature and about Vietnam about the Us troops being the worst for friendly fire as well.

 

In terms of examples, sticking to strictly modern wars rather than trawling bk to ww2 and earlier

[hide]

Korean War

 

* On July 3, 1950, eight F-51s of No. 77 Squadron RAAF strafed and destroyed a train carrying thousands of American and South Korean soldiers who were mistaken for a North Korean convoy in the main highway between Suwon and P'yongtaek, resulting more than 700-1000 casualties, killed or wounded. Before the attack, the Australian pilots had been assured by the United States 5th Air Force Tactical Control Centre that the area under attack was in North Korean hands.[51]

* On September 23, 1950, Hill 282 was attacked by 1st Battalion, Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, part of the British 27th Infantry Brigade in the United Nations force. Having captured it and facing strong North Korean counter-attacks, the Argylls, devoid of artillery support, called in an allied air-strike. A group of F-51 Mustangs of U.S. Air Force's 18th Fighter Bomber Wing circled the hill. The Argylls had laid down yellow air-recognition panels correctly in accordance with that day's planning, but the North Koreans imitated similar panels on their own positions in white. The Mustangs, confused by the panels, mistakenly napalm-bombed and strafed the Argylls’ hill-top positions. Despite a desperate counter-attack by the Argylls to regain the hill, for which Major Kenneth Muir was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross, the Argylls, much reduced in numbers, were forced to relinquish the position. Over 60 of the Argylls’ casualties were caused by the friendly air-strike.

 

Vietnam War

 

8,000 such incidents have been estimated for the Vietnam War;[52][53][54] one was the inspiration for the book and film Friendly Fire.

 

* The USCGC Point Welcome was attacked by USAF aircraft, resulting in two deaths.

* A U.S. F4 Phantom aircraft dropped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb on the command post of the 2nd Battalion (Airborne) 503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade while they were in heavy contact with a numerically superior NVA force on 19 November 1967. At least 45 paratroopers were killed and another 45 wounded. Also killed was the Battalion Chaplain Major Charles J. Watters, who was subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor.

* On 11 May 1969, during the Battle of Hamburger Hill, Lt. Col. Weldon Honeycutt directed helicopter gunships, from an Aerial Rocket Artillery (ARA) battery, to support an infantry assault. In the heavy jungle, the helicopters mistook the command post of the 3/187th battalion for a Vietnamese unit and attacked, killing two and wounding thirty-five, including Honeycutt. This incident disrupted battalion command and control and forced 3/187th to withdraw into night defensive positions.

 

First Gulf War

 

* During the Battle of Khafji, 11 American Marines were killed in two major incidents when their light armored vehicles (LAV's) were hit by American missiles fired by a USAF A-10.

* An American AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter fired upon US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicles during night operations, killing several US Army soldiers.

* An American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacked British Warrior MICVs resulting in nine British dead and numerous casualties.

* During the Battle of Phase Line Bullet, American M1 Abrams tanks in the rear fired in support of American troops facing dug-in Iraqi troops. American Infantry Fighting Vehicles were hit by fire from the tanks, resulting in two casualties.

* Several friendly fire incidents took place during the Battle of 73 Easting, wounding 57 American soldiers, but causing no fatalities.

* In the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15Cs involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks over northern Iraq, killing 29 military and civilian personnel.

 

War in Afghanistan

 

* In the Tarnak Farm incident of April 18, 2002, four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others injured when U.S. Air National Guard Major Harry Schmidt, dropped a laser-guided 500 lb (230 kg) bomb from his F-16 jet fighter on the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry regiment which was conducting a night firing exercise near Kandahar. Schmidt was charged with negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, and dereliction of duty. He was found guilty of the latter charge. During testimony Schmidt blamed the incident on his use of "go pills" (authorized mild stimulants), combined with the 'fog of war'.[66] The Canadian dead received US medals for "bravery", but no apology.

* Pat Tillman, a former famous American football player, was shot and killed by American fire in April 22, 2004. An Army Special Operations Command investigation was conducted by Brigadier General Jones and the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that Pat Tillman's death was due to friendly fire aggravated by the intensity of the firefight. A more thorough investigation concluded that no hostile forces were involved in the firefight and that two allied groups fired on each other in confusion after a nearby explosive device was detonated.

* Operation Medusa (2006): 1 - Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts accidentally strafed NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham.

* On 5 December 2006, an F/A-18C on a Close Air Support mission in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, mistakenly attacked a trench where British Royal Marines were dug-in during a 10-hour battle with Taliban fighters, killing one Royal Marine.[71]

* Of two helicopters called in to support operations by the British Grenadier Guards and Afghan National Army forces in Helmand, the British Westland WAH-64 Apache engaged enemy forces, while the accompanying American AH-64D Apache opened fire on the Grenadiers and Afghan troops.[75]

* August 23, 2007: A USAF F-15 called in to support British ground forces in Afghanistan dropped a bomb on those forces. Three privates of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, were killed and two others were severely injured. It was later revealed that the British forward air controller who called in the strike had not been issued a noise-cancelling headset, and while he supplied the correct target co-ordinates, in the confusion and stress of the battle incorrectly confirmed one wrong digit mistakenly repeated by the pilot, and the bomb landed on the British position 1000 metres away from the enemy.[76] The coroner at the soldiers' inquest stated that the incident was due to "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness".[77]

* A statement issued jointly by the American and the Afghan military commands said a contingent of Afghan police officers fired on United States forces on 10 December 2008 after the Americans had successfully overrun the hide-out, killing the suspected Taliban commander and detaining another man. The US forces after securing the hideout came under heavy small arms fire and explosive grenades from the Afghan Police forces. "Multiple attempts to deter the engagement were unsuccessful," and the US forces returned fire. Afghan police have stated that they came under fire first and that the initial firing on the US forces came from the building next to the police station. This has led the US forces to conclude that the

 

Iraq War

 

* In the Battle of Nasiriyah, an American force of Aerial Assault Vehicles and infantry were misidentified as an Iraqi armored column by two U.S. Air Force A-10s who carried out bombing and strafing runs on them. One U.S. Marine was killed and 17 were wounded as a result.

* A U.S. Patriot missile shot down a British Panavia Tornado GR.4A of No. 13 Squadron RAF, killing the pilot and navigator. Investigations showed that the Tornado's Identification friend or foe indicator had malfunctioned and hence it was not identified as a friendly aircraft. It was ruled that the faulty maintenance and equipment failure caused it.[90]

* 190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - March 28, 2003. A pair of American A-10s from the 190th attacked four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing one and injuring five.

* British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison was killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.[95]

* Two U.S. Patriot missile shot down a F/A-18C Hornet 50 mi (80 km) from Karbala, Iraq, killing U.S. Navy pilot Lieutenant Nathan Dennis White of VFA-195, Carrier Air Wing Five. This was the result of the missile design flaw in identifying hostile aircraft.[96]

* American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & U.S. Special Forces convoy, killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson were injured. The incident was filmed.[97]

* Fusilier Kelan Turrington, of the 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was killed by machine-gun fire mounted from a British tank.[98]

* American soldier Mario Lozano killed an Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari and is suspected of wounding Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Sgrena had been kidnapped and subsequently rescued by Calipari; however, it is claimed that the car they were escaping in failed to stop at an American checkpoint, and U.S. soldiers opened fire. This claim has been later denied by video proof that the car was respecting speed limits and proceeding with front lights turned on. The shooting commenced well before 50 meters, in contrast with what Lozano and other marines testified.[99]

* An American airstrike killed eight Kurdish Iraqi soldiers. Kurdish officials advised US helicopters hit the men who were guarding a branch of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in Mosul. The US military said the attack was launched after soldiers identified armed men in a bunker near a building reportedly used for bomb-making, and that American troops called for the men to put down their weapons in Arabic and Kurdish before launching the strike.[102]

 

[/hide]

 

Thats just the american ones.

 

Which are at least double if not tripled the ones I removed as they were by british or other nationalities.

Worth noting though the most of the non-american ones were much lower death/injury tolls

[Sy_Accursed]

I was sticking to modern warfare as its a given trench warfare was cramped and "encouraged" to friendly fire.

Plus it had worse technology which also adds to friendly fire.

 

And in ww2 especially its hardly a balanced example given how late american joined.

Hence I used conflicts which are modern warfare; where all the armies were in it for about the same time.

 

It doesn't prove anything about my comment since I specifically stated when giving my examples I was NOT going back to ww2 etc and there obviously my comments were on the modern wars from which I listed incidents.

[obfuscator]

I wouldn't call the united states greedier then any other country. The phenomena we're observing in the states at the moment, is, I believe, a result of several different circumstances.

 

America has traditionally been very "hands on" in terms of foreign policy - this dates back to basically the second world war, which benefited the states enormously from an economic perspective. Ever since then, as the US became a superpower, they've been more and more involved in foreign affairs to the point where it becomes (to some degree) direct, unwarranted interference. As part of being a superpower, they basically have to be this involved. However, we've seen the US slowly shift (over the past 10-15 years) away from being a superpower - the circumstances in place at the end of the second world war are no longer.

 

I think there's a lot of fear present in many americans today - what they've known for their entire lives may be changing, quite rapidly. It is, I believe, the driving force behind organizations like the Tea Party, who advocate "going back to America's roots" - subtext for - "Things aren't going the way we want, let's try to regain things the way they were before". The problem is, it's largely impossible without a drastic population shift. America (and many other developed countries) face an aging population, and by extension, a weakening of buying power. If the states loses its economic clout due to this (which may well happen, and has begun to happen) they will no longer be able to be a superpower as it's been traditionally known. (By extent, this opinion that "China will be the next great superpower" is utter rubbish - the one child policy (although arguably necessary) killed any realistic chance of that happening. India is a much better candidate for future superpower.)

 

It's of great importance to note this situation doesn't merely involve the states - but it will hit the states the hardest since they are the largest; in short, they have the most to lose.

 

My apologies for going off on a bit of a tangent - but in short - america is not greedier then any other country. The shift we're seeing in society is simply hard to handle and as a result many people are not handling it well.

 

I admit I'm less then optimistic for the future of humanity in general, but I'm terribly interested to see how it will play out (10-20 years from now, and beyond).

[Freakyhair]

America is no more greedy than any other country. Every country has its fair share of idiots, and America doesn't have significantly more or less than anywhere else. The problem is that idiots in America have internet access and are vocal about their stupid opinions.

 

 

yes it is.

 

you just have to look at the CO2 emissions, the size of houses. The size of everything. The obesity rates. Granted England isn't much better.

 

But do you know what gets me?? America's attitude towards war.

 

I can't be assed to get into a massive quote chain debate on this cos im crap at them and i dont care enough to prove everything i say. but some of the stuff ive heard is atrocious.

 

Dude fox news is an accepted news channel. thats all that needs to be said.

 

anyway i got extreme views, there's a lot of things i ahte about america. not americans, but america.

 

but yeah there is a reason why most of the world hates america.

 

 

EDIT: to the mass friendly fire quotes all from WW2 - Wtf do u think ur proving? ur country was hardly involved in that war. im sure that still americans probablly also did a lot of friendly fire during the times. that was a dirty, messy war. you prove nothing by that. its was over 60 years ago..

 

find me some case of british friendly fire in iraq or afghanistan, im pretty sure its very minimal. i know ive heard a lot more incidents of american friendly fire than any other. also the tons of discusting videos.

 

eerrrr. im sorry, like i like americans yeah but when politics and war and morals come in... i [bleep]ing hate america.

 

i went to laos recently, i cant remember the excact dates/figures/facts but i saw a documentary by MAG (fairly respected charity). after announcing the end of the vietnemese war america continued to bomb laos. i went to a cave that women and children had used for shelter that americans blew up. and why??? it wasnt their country?

 

america has a long (recent) history of meddling in other countries affairs to satisy itself. its not a team player. uk has a terrible history aswell, but im fairly proud of our recent history. along with most other european countries.

 

also hiroshima, nagasaki. genuinely makes me sick.

 

also drone attacks, i could very easily find sources detailing at least 1k civillian deaths from drone attacks, all by the US.

 

also the wikileaks articles. damn man just look at some of them, they're [bleep]ed up!!! admittedly again there are some pretty bad ones regarding the uk aswell.

 

But i remember one particular cable detailing that russia and the us were in talks, part of a secret deal was to disclose the size of our nuclear arsenal. without our permission, when it is a strict policy of ours to not tell anyone..

 

is that not uber selfish??

 

i was also recently in china, dunno if anyones been to beijing? they have this massive counterfeit market there. everyone knows its counterfeit, but i got friendly with a few of the girls ther. they said they had a special price for 'dumb americans'. literally 10x the standard. maybe that just proves stupidity..

 

allllsssssoooo

 

cuba, iran, cambodia (in the killing fields they actually site the us as the ones to blame for khmer rouges rise to power), a lot of south american countries.

 

 

and the DEA?? what the [bleep]? what country could be so selfish as to police the world itself.

 

 

the worst thing is that you always take the high ground, like your doing everything for the better of the world. [cabbage]. oil, money, bettering us all the us (gvmnt) cares about.

 

i remmebr a fox news broadcast about the iraq elections, they were taking the piss out of iraq for using a pen and paper and for having so many candiadates. thats mainstream news man, watch the bbc, thats how its done.

 

oh yeah and labelling al jazeera as terrorists when theyre infact one of the least bias news channels out there, simply because they expose the wrong doings of the US?

 

~[bleep] THE US.

 

 

EDIT post above ^^^^

 

do superpowers need to? what are the other superpowers, id say Russia, China and possibly india. russia has been involved in one war in the past 10 years (cant remember much more). i dont have any proof but the name hardly crops up. china is fairly bad tbf, but no were near as bad as the us.

[Star_Fox]

I remember seeing that picture in "Giant earthquake hits Japan" thread and discussed that a few measly people from FB

does not represent a whole country?

 

Yeh...But I don't think America is REALLY greedy. We are still helping out the Japanese by sending emissaries and all that other crap.

[Sy_Accursed]

The UK hasn't really participated in "modern warfare" to the extent that America has so that too is an imbalanced example. You can't prove anything and you're persisting with this for no reason even though it's clear that there is no evidence in your favor. Then you go and say my examples don't work because it's WWII, which was hardly "trench warfare" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Let's just focus on Iraq because it's the most recent.

 

"Where the armies were in it for the same time" - Maybe, though the UK had already withdrawn from some of the later examples you posted. Besides that, the US sent over 150,000 troops, the UK sent under 50,000.

 

 

no evidence aside from the fact there's more instances of American forces using friendly fire than other nations you mean?

Cause I'd say thts pretty strong evidence.

 

Also Britain hasn't withdrawn from Iraq or Afghanistan, they still there just same as US.

 

But w/e this is getting off topic, all I know is America has a widespread reputation for being really bad with friendly fire and its often skated over in certain American news outlets

 

Also theres a good heap of internet meme's and art about it:

[hide]

Banksy's "Friendly fire"

[/hide]

[obfuscator]

It seems you're implying that since an internet meme exists in regards to it that constitutes solid evidence that it's factually correct.

 

I think what rocco is trying to say (correctly) is that there's a false impression that american forces are particularly lackadaisical when it comes to preventing friendly fire, when in fact it happens in all conflicts.

[Freakyhair]

[hide]

America is no more greedy than any other country. Every country has its fair share of idiots, and America doesn't have significantly more or less than anywhere else. The problem is that idiots in America have internet access and are vocal about their stupid opinions.

 

 

yes it is.

 

you just have to look at the CO2 emissions, the size of houses. The size of everything. The obesity rates. Granted England isn't much better.

 

But do you know what gets me?? America's attitude towards war.

 

I can't be assed to get into a massive quote chain debate on this cos im crap at them and i dont care enough to prove everything i say. but some of the stuff ive heard is atrocious.

 

Dude fox news is an accepted news channel. thats all that needs to be said.

 

anyway i got extreme views, there's a lot of things i ahte about america. not americans, but america.

 

but yeah there is a reason why most of the world hates america.

CO2 emissions, house size, obesity rates - that's not because of greed, it's because of wealth. you don't know what greed is. being wealthy doesn't make you greedy and being greedy doesn't make you wealthy.

 

fox news isnt an accepted news channel, it's available to something like 100 million households but has viewership under 3.3 million. it's only watched by the least informed people out there. also, the sun is probably just as bad.

 

"there is a reason why most of the world hates america" somebody had a big bowl of ignorant for breakfast

[/hide]

 

its true, most of the world hates america.

[Sy_Accursed]

It seems you're implying that since an internet meme exists in regards to it that constitutes solid evidence that it's factually correct.

 

I think what rocco is trying to say (correctly) is that there's a false impression that american forces are particularly lackadaisical when it comes to preventing friendly fire, when in fact it happens in all conflicts.

 

 

I know its exaggerated by memes and such, but in the numbers american's do come off worse than like any other nation for incidents of friendly fire caused by them.

I cant be assed to trawl em up but I read some interesting statical stuff on it like a year ago.

 

I think a good example of the fact it is true to an extent is covered by this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article422701.ece

 

If american's don't have an issue with it why do they need special training introduced specifically to reduce cases of it.

 

edit to below: I didn;t "throw out" anything from WW2, the point of CURRENT reputation etc and as such to go back to a war that had significantly different circumstances and technology to doesn't really relate to the case.

Equally I never said other armies DIDN'T do it.

Also we drew out in 2009? Like years after the full on war ended. And of all the examples I posted only maybe 2 are post uk pull out in iraq.

[Freakyhair]

The UK hasn't really participated in "modern warfare" to the extent that America has so that too is an imbalanced example. You can't prove anything and you're persisting with this for no reason even though it's clear that there is no evidence in your favor. Then you go and say my examples don't work because it's WWII, which was hardly "trench warfare" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Let's just focus on Iraq because it's the most recent.

 

"Where the armies were in it for the same time" - Maybe, though the UK had already withdrawn from some of the later examples you posted. Besides that, the US sent over 150,000 troops, the UK sent under 50,000.

 

 

no evidence aside from the fact there's more instances of American forces using friendly fire than other nations you mean?

Cause I'd say thts pretty strong evidence.

 

Also Britain hasn't withdrawn from Iraq or Afghanistan, they still there just same as US.

"United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Troop_deployment_in_Iraq_2003-2009

 

America has three times more troops there, that's an exponentially greater chance for friendly fire to occur. Any "reputation" American forces have for greater instances of friendly fire is pure propaganda. Not to mention the fact that there were over 10,000 deaths by friendly fire from the British in WW2 that you threw out "because of the technology" which makes no sense because all parties had access to the same technology. Plus there were examples completely unrelated to technology or American presence, like the one I posted where British aircraft destroyed German ships carrying over 7,000 concentration camp survivors and POWs.

 

Like Y_Guy said, it happens in all conflicts, the assertion you are trying to make is logically flawed because there are no concrete examples with equivalent time in combat or manpower in combat on either side.

 

 

ww2 was a differnt war neek. different times, totally uncomparable. completely messy, much worse technology. [bleep]ed up times for most people in europe. not ameirca though who 'saved the day'. your country wasnt even sure if it wanted to be involved. pAH.

 

also the british should have excactly 3 times less if the friendly fire rate is the same, since britain on american is friendly fire.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/american-troops-friendly-fire-iraq

 

got to admit tho, i just went on wikipedia and if all of the exampled on friendly fire are the only ones that occured then it was about 3-1. which means it was equal :P

 

but i dunno..

[Sy_Accursed]

Im not restricting it to american and british I'm talking about american and anyone they were in a war with.

 

Also yes ww2 in itself was balanced.

The point you are missing is the reputation is based on CURRENT MODERN warfare, with CURRENT technology and CURRENT combative styles.

In this respect ww2 is not relevant as the warfare style, technology and everything is far inferior; plus with it not being MODERN WARFARE it doesn't have bearing upon the MODERN WARFARE reputation.

 

I never made comment on historic warfare, only current. They are separate issues.

You're trying to argue (in part atleast) American reputation and statistics for friendly fire in MODERN warfare is not justified comapred to other countries in MODERN WARFARE because is a non-modern war America "scored" less than Britain.

 

But this is getting very off-topic now and boring; best let it be.

[Freakyhair]

^^^

 

you make fair points. (to roccodog)

 

but this isn't about friendly fire :P

 

its about is america selfish, from my experience america seems very selfish. also scarily patriotic and uninformed (on the whole, i doubt anyone posting on this is in that category).

[Sy_Accursed]

^^^

 

you make fair points.

 

but this isn't about friendly fire :P

 

its about is america selfish, from my experience america seems very selfish. also scarily patriotic and uninformed (on the whole, i doubt anyone posting on this is in that category).

I can understand why it would seem that way to an outsider, but take my word for it - America on the whole isn't what you see on the news. If you took an average American and put them in a room with an average Brit, they would get along fine. Average Americans are more like me than anything else - not really giving a [cabbage] about politics, just going on with our little lives, and I imagine that the average Brit is the same way.

 

As for scarily patriotic and uninformed, I could agree with the patriotism to an extent but I definitely wouldn't say "scarily" patriotic. For uninformed, again, it depends who you're talking to. If they get their news from Fox, damn right they're probably uninformed, but again, most Brits who get their news from the Sun are also very uninformed.

 

The bottom line is that the typical person in a developed nation isn't very different from the typical person in another developed nation. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been convinced by biased media and stereotypes, nothing else.

 

I'd say this is largely true but I think America is slightly worse than other nations as most other nations don;t have such a patriotism kick even in day to day living and as covered earlier patriotism does sort of leading to higher levels of ignorance to things that don;t involve your country and a willingness to believe slanted news that doesn't show the negative side to your country. Which is sort of summarised nicely in the OPs picture, though obviously in an extremist sort of way.

 

but yeah by and large don;t think greed issues are that much different.

 

@rocco tht last war thing is true if you take overall numbers, but even so uk isn't that much less active we are in most places us were/are.; but its also possible you know to look at numbers on a war by war basis and draw from tht an overall comparison, which negates the effect of x has been in more wars than y.

[stevepole]

[hide]

America is no more greedy than any other country. Every country has its fair share of idiots, and America doesn't have significantly more or less than anywhere else. The problem is that idiots in America have internet access and are vocal about their stupid opinions.

 

 

yes it is.

 

you just have to look at the CO2 emissions, the size of houses. The size of everything. The obesity rates. Granted England isn't much better.

 

But do you know what gets me?? America's attitude towards war.

 

I can't be assed to get into a massive quote chain debate on this cos im crap at them and i dont care enough to prove everything i say. but some of the stuff ive heard is atrocious.

 

Dude fox news is an accepted news channel. thats all that needs to be said.

 

anyway i got extreme views, there's a lot of things i ahte about america. not americans, but america.

 

but yeah there is a reason why most of the world hates america.

CO2 emissions, house size, obesity rates - that's not because of greed, it's because of wealth. you don't know what greed is. being wealthy doesn't make you greedy and being greedy doesn't make you wealthy.

 

fox news isnt an accepted news channel, it's available to something like 100 million households but has viewership under 3.3 million. it's only watched by the least informed people out there. also, the sun is probably just as bad.

 

"there is a reason why most of the world hates america" somebody had a big bowl of ignorant for breakfast

[/hide]

 

its true, most of the world hates america.

 

The world may hate America but we're the ones people look to in troubled times. It's a very love hate relationship we've put ourselves in. If we don't solve everyones problems the world hates us, if do to little, the world hates us, if we do to much the world hates us. If we do things just right, nobody cares.

 

Also saying America isn't doing enough for Japan is a counterproductive statement. If the Japanese ask for more help, we'll be there, and anyone else who is willing to help.

[Sy_Accursed]

^^^

 

you make fair points.

 

but this isn't about friendly fire :P

 

its about is america selfish, from my experience america seems very selfish. also scarily patriotic and uninformed (on the whole, i doubt anyone posting on this is in that category).

I can understand why it would seem that way to an outsider, but take my word for it - America on the whole isn't what you see on the news. If you took an average American and put them in a room with an average Brit, they would get along fine. Average Americans are more like me than anything else - not really giving a [cabbage] about politics, just going on with our little lives, and I imagine that the average Brit is the same way.

 

As for scarily patriotic and uninformed, I could agree with the patriotism to an extent but I definitely wouldn't say "scarily" patriotic. For uninformed, again, it depends who you're talking to. If they get their news from Fox, damn right they're probably uninformed, but again, most Brits who get their news from the Sun are also very uninformed.

 

The bottom line is that the typical person in a developed nation isn't very different from the typical person in another developed nation. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been convinced by biased media and stereotypes, nothing else.

 

I'd say this is largely true but I think America is slightly worse than other nations as most other nations don;t have such a patriotism kick even in day to day living and as covered earlier patriotism does sort of leading to higher levels of ignorance to things that don;t involve your country and a willingness to believe slanted news that doesn't show the negative side to your country. Which is sort of summarised nicely in the OPs picture, though obviously in an extremist sort of way.

>don't live in america

>make assertions about american culture even though you know very little about it

 

 

ಠ_ಠ

 

I know plenty enough about American culture, sure I've never lived in it. But I can safely say what the social effects of patriotism are and that America is more patriotic than like any other major nation these days.

 

I mean don;t most government buildings etc fly the american flag?

Isn't it not an important task to be putting the american flag up and down?

Don;t americans celebrate independence day a majorly patriotic holiday?

Don't a fair portion of schools (even if not the majority) do things where they quote tht pledge of allegiance thingy (again patriotic)?

Is it not illegal to burn the american flag?

etc.