Quote:
Originally posted by Lek Dukagjin:
Probably just US incompetence then  I mean in that old Gulf War we got attacked more times by American Military than by Iraqis. When we supported Oman's Sultan against rebels Americans supplied those rebels with arms & vehicles to battle us with, etc. etc.
|
As to the Gulf War, join the crowd! [img]smile.gif[/img] Friendly fire killed more of our own guys than the Iraqis did. Trying to co-ordinate huge armies, of different nationalities, moving quickly across a bland landscape like the desert, while chasing a retreating/surrendering army (that wasn't expected to retreat or surrender), and employing massive conventional weaponry can only lead to the inevitable consequences of war. Our guys, your guys, all the coalition guys, and the Iraqi guys suffer those consequences. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I'm not familiar with the Oman situation you refer to(I don't doubt you at all, but would like some info - maybe a link), but I'm sure both the US and Britain have backed operations the other didn't care for MANY times in the past century and several of those had to be conflicting interest.
As I said, being allies doesn't mean we unconditionally support every single action the other takes. If we did that, Britain wouldn't send spies to the US, and the US wouldn't send spies to Britain.
[ 10-10-2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]